Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/1979COMMISSIONERS Regular Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 P.M. Date: July 19, 1979 w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Present K x x x x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS Absent R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Acting City Attorney 40 STAFF MEMBERS James Hewicker, Assistant Director- Planning Don.Webb, Assistant City Engineer Glenna Gipe, Secretary * * * Minutes Written By: Glenna Gipe * * * Minutes of the regular Planning Commission mieetin of July 5, 1979 were approved as corrected to in- dicate that Commissioner Beek had nominated.Com- missioner Balalis for Chairman and.that Commiis- sioner McLaughlin had-moved that the minutes of June 7, 1979 and June 21, 1979 be approved. * * * Request to consider an amendment to Chapter20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to required parking for residential uses and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Richard Hogan, Community Development Director, stated that this is an item that would amend the requirements for parking for the residential uses as it pertained particularly to duplexes, apply- ing to all zoning districts and the C -R districts as it pertains to requirements for parking for duplexes or multi- family dwellings in that it. would require 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit, with a .5 guest space requirement for more than 4 dwelling units. -1- MINUTES 9 = July 19, 1979 iy. 2 CO is. i Fir y N1 City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning, ex- plained where hotels and motels are permitted, an presented an inventory of all the Hotels, Motels and Motor Courts within the City. The Public Hearing.was opened regarding this item and there was no one desiring to appear and be heard. Commissioner Beek proposed that Item No. 5, Sec- tion 20.11.030, "Tandem parking and parking in a side yard shall not both be permitted on the -same lot. ", be removed, and stated his = - preference; that the parking be in the side yard, rather thania . tandem garage. Mr. Hogan stated that this was.instigated at a time when only 3 parking spaces were. required, an that if it is to be changed to requiring 4 parkin spaces, that it should be removed, because it • changes substantially the requirements and how they can be put on the lot. Commissioner Beek further proposed that Item No. 4, Section 20.11.030, "Parking in one side yard . be revised to read, "Parking in ene side yards ". Mr. Hogan stated that in the.majority of the case it would not make that much difference because there is not room to park in more than 1 sidle yar in any case, to which Commissioner Balalis disa- greed. Regarding Section 20.11.030, Item "B ", Commssion- er Beek proposed that the last 2 lines be revised to read, " . that the standards contained in Subsection "A" above shall apply to any singile family dwelling or duplex in the R -3 and R -4 Dis- tricts. ". Regarding Item "E ", Section 20.16.075, Commission er Beek proposed that . . for each dwelling unit " be inserted to replace eaeh- add4t4epa3- #am41y -wR4t . IPAI INDEX MINUTES July 19, 1979 $°nl N N Citv of Newport Beach ■ ROLL CALL I I I I I 1 1 II I INDEX I Motion Ayes Absent 0 Motion Ayes Absent x1XI a Ix Ix Regarding Section 20.33.030, Item No. 4, Commis- sioner Beek suggested :5 guest spaces for each unit above four. Regarding Section 20.33.030, Item No. 4, Commis- sioner Balalis suggested that the first three units require two spaces per unit and that tihe fourth unit and above would require 2.5 spaces per unit. In conclusion, Commissioner Beek proposed that the last 2 lines of Section 20.11.030, Item; "B ", be revised to read," . that the standalyds contained in Subsection "A" above and Section. 20.15.070 shall apply to any single familydlwell- ing or duplex in the R -3 or R -4 Districts. ".. Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 535 as amended to include Commissioner Beek's propoisals$ and forward same to the City Council. Request to create two parcels of land for develop Item ment in Koll Center Newport. - LOCATION: Parcel No.. 2, Parcel Map 114 -19 (Resubdivision No. 567) located at 4600 MacArthur Boulevard, onpro- perty bounded.by MacArthur Bdule- vard, Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Aetna Life Insurance Co., c/o The Koll Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein., Wil.liam Frost & Asso- ciates, Newport Beach x Motion was made to continue Agenda Item No. 2, Re- x x x subdivision.No. 635 to the regular Planning Com- mi.ssi.on of August 9, 1979. -3- 7 ED �x m July 19., 1979 Of t Beach MINUTES INDEX Request to create one parcel of land so as to. per � Item #3 mit the construction of a two -unit residential condomini.um complex on the site. RESUB- DIVISION LOCATION: Lot 10, Block 42, River Section, NO. at 122 43rd Street, on the southeasterly side of 43rd Street REFERRED between West Balboa Boulevardand. T CITY Seashore Drive in West Newport. COUNCIL WITH NO ZONE: R -2 REC MMEN- DATION APPLICANT: Molina Enterprises, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Molina Engineering & PlanninglCon- sultants, Laguna Beach • IThe Public Hearing was opened regarding thislitem land George Molina, Applicant, appeared before the !Planning Commission to state his concurrence with 'the conditions as forth in the Staff Report, including the condition requiring two parking ;spaces per unit. 0 Commissioner Allen inquired of Mr. Molina whether he had any association with the property onedoor removed from the property in question, to which Mr. Molina stated that. they had done the engineer. ing for the condominium conversion on said pro- perty. Commissioner Allen expressed her curiosit. that the building is three stories, and that it appears that the property has been lowered so tha one necessarily walked down to the first floor, i quiring whether this was the same type of coPstr- uction which Mr. Molina had in mind for this ap- plication, to which Mr. Molina replied in the ne- gative, stating that this type of construction was no longer allowed within the City. Commissioner Allen then inquired as to the size o the proposed buildi.ngs,.to which Mr. Molina state S !E COMMISSIONERS I MINUTES 0 July 19, 1979 8m�°n t y 2 I.Citv of Newaort Beach ROLL CALL I I I I III I I INDEX I that due to the 1.5X buildable area criteria;of the Coastal Commission, they would be between 900 - 1,800 sq.. ft. Commissioner Allen then stated her concern that the precedent might be set with older units that would perhaps rent for smaller amounts of money that would be torn down and rebuilt as condomin- iums. She then.requested a projection as to the number of bedrooms and amount of rent proposed, which Mr. Molina replied that there would be ap- proximately 2 to 3 bedrooms. Commissioner Balalis commented regarding hisiex- perience that it is possible to have 1,800 -1,90 Isq. ft. in a lot of this size and that rent would probably be about $650.00 per unit. ;Commissioner Thomas inquired of the applicant whe ther there were presently tenants on the property • 'to which, Mr. Molina replied that it had been va- cant for one year, and that it had never been ren ted, but rather owner - occupied. 'Commissioner Thomas inquired of Staff whether thi lapplication complied with the Ordinance as approv jed at the last meeting, to which Richard Hogan, Community .Development Director; replied in the of firmative. 11 Commissioner Beek inquired whether the Zoning Or- dinance required 5,000 sq. ft. for an R -2 lot, to which Mr. Hogan replied that this was the case on ly if it was being subdivided (developing new lot in the sense of carving out new lot lines); how - over, in the case of an existing lot, the 5,Q00 sq. ft. requirements do not apply, as in thecase of this proposed project. Commissioner Beek expressed his surprise to this and stated his understanding that he had quizzed Staff repeatedly to make sure that the 5,000 sq. ft. requirement would apply to building of condo- miniums on substandard lots, and stated his under -5- MINUTES July 19, 1979 � 41 5. SH11 6tv of Newport Beach INDEX standing that this was covered by the Ordinance. Commissioner Balalis.stated his understanding tha these were not substandard lots, but rather stan- dard.R-2 lots of 2,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Beek stated his understanding that according to the Code, a standard R -2 lot is 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Hogan stated that if one divided a vacan piece of property which could be divided int se- veral lots, 5,000 sq. ft. per lot would be r- quired. Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that this is a question of interpretation and that he felt that he had been insured that this kind of devel- opment would be prohibited by the new ordinance and enacted. !Commissioner BalaTis stated that it was never his !intent that each lot would necessarily have to be 5,000 sq. ft. !Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that!the. reason for this would be that these small lots were never designed to have two houses on them, but a house with a garage apartment or a guest apartment or a mother -in -law apartment and that (they are too small to have two full -sized units !on them and this would be the reason why the Code !requires 5,000 sq. ft. for each R -2 lot. Commissioner Balalis stated that there are a lot of duplexes.up and down the Peninsula and West He port that have two full -sized dwelling units;, or exactly what Mr. Molina is proposing, and expres- sed his feeling that if an individual is allowed, under the Code, to build two two - bedroom units, then he felt there was no reason why he couldn't build two condominiums, that he saw no difference !Mr. Hogan stated that the Ordinance as adopted !reads, "The project lot size shall conform to the ;Zoning Code.area requirement in effect at the tim !of approval. ", and that the Zoning Code area're- M COMMISSIONERS s: �m 0 Motion 0 MINUTES July 19, 1979 of Newport Beach iquirements, (20.15.030 "B ", Site Area and Loi Width), Section "A ",that for each two dwelling units or one duplex, there.shall be a minimum lot area of 5,000 sq. ft. and a minimum width ofi50 ft. on interior lots with a minimum of 6,0001sq. ft. width on corner lots and in no case shall Ithere be more than two single - family dwellings or lone duplex on any one building site; (Section "B ", !for each family unit in any building, there shall. Ibe a minimum of 1,000 sq. ft. of land area; .(5ec- ?tion 'C ") any'lot.or parcel of land under one own! iership and of record on August 2, 1943, may qe lused as a building site even when of less area or (width than that required by the provisions of thi! (section; consequently, where one has a lot size o- less than 2,000 sq. ft., it has been the consis- tent interpretation that it meets the requirement! of the Code as long as it can have at least 1,000 Isq. ft. of land area.per family unit in the build• ling, and that.consequently it is the Staff's :feel, :ing on this particular project that the site.area 'is consistent with the requirements of the Code, . Ias required in the new Ordinance. otion was,made that the Planning Commissionimake he following findings: That the map meets the requirements of title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all appli.cable.g.en- eral or specific plans and the Planning Com- mission is satisfied with the plan of subdi- vision. That the proposed resubdivision presents.no problems from a planning standpoint. ind approve Resubdivision No. 636, subject tb the `ollowing conditions: That a parcel map be filed. '.. That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by ordinance and the Public Works.De- partment. 3. That each proposed dwelling be provided with individual connections to the public water and sewer facilities. -7- INDEX MINUTES July 19, 1979 5, V y ,City of Newport Beach ! 14. That.separate electric and gas meters shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 15. That a minimum of two offstreet parking; spaces (including at least one garage space) I_ per dwelling unit shall be maintained for ve hicular storage. .'Commissioner Thomas.expressed his understanding !that at the last meeting there was a condominium conversion request on a lot greater than 5,000 sq !ft. and that he' had asked the question regarding 'the status under the new ordinance and that he Ihad received the comment that if it is greater 'than 5,000 sq. ft..that it is a conforming lot, land he expressed his concern that presently they iwere considering approving a condominium conger- sion on a 2,000 sq. ft. lot, when he had been lef with the impression that 5.,000 sq. ft. was tike • minimum "cut- off ", and he expressed his feeling Ithat it was detrimental to the health, safety and lwelfare of the community to reduce rental stock any further with condominium construction of any 'type and especially in an area such as this which !is predominantly renters and not prime real estat Ifor single family dwellings. Mr..Hogan replied that the Staff is attemptifig to act consistently with the Ordinance and that if this was not the intent, the Ordinance must neces Isarily be revised. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding tha there are Planning Commissioners that thought it was not the intent that the 5,000 sq. ft. lot siz was the minimum "cut -off" and that he had voted to include the duplexes in the ordinance andithat he would have never done so, had he thought that the intent was to totally eliminate any new Con - struction in the R -2 District,.which includes all the Peninsula and all of West Newport, Balboa Island and Corona del Mar, as these areas are comprised of lots.less than 5,000 sq. ft. M INDEX MINUTES July 19, 1979 PW WA City of Newport Beach INDEX !Commissioner Beek expressed that it was his in- tent, as he felt that the lots are not large !enough to have two owners own them, and are sin - Igle- family sized lots. Commissioner Allen posed a question regarding the !Code, to which Mr: Hogan stated that there.was a ;minimum of 1,000 sq. ft. per family in the lot area, and that nearly every lot in the old sec -' tions of town are less than 5,000 sq. ft., and !that as a consequence, the ordinances over the years have permitted two - family dwellings onithe Ilots as long as there was a minimum of 2,000!sq. 'ft. in the lot area in the R -2 Districts and!2,40( Isq. ft. in the R -3 Districts. Mr. Hogan stated ;his understanding that Commissioners Beek and !Thomas had understood that we were saying that a two - family for sale dwelling complex could not be developed on a lot less than 5,000 sq. ft., which is the minimum new lot that can be develop- • ed in a new subdivision, so that if there is a large.vacant piece of property on which one is ;going to subdivide, the .minimum lot size can be •.5,000 sq. ft., whether single - family or two;;but !that this has not been true in the older sections iof town, so that the minimum is 1,000 sq. ft� of lot size per dwelling unit, and that the new Or- dinance reads that it should conform to the exist- ling standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Allen stated her understanding that Mr. Jeannette, Architect, had expressed his feel- ing that anything less than 1,500 - 1;600 sq. ft. was minimally liveable; and expressed her concern regarding the single ownership of a unit that is 900 sq.. ft. (Commissioner Balalis replied that the City of Ir- ivine had a project of somewhere around 500 bath= lelor, units of 480 to 540 sq. ft. that were very !much welcomed by singles and young marrieds who were able to afford to buy them; and he expressed his feeling that Mr. Jeannette's reference had :been to areas that are more inclined toward famil !living rather than singles or young couples liv- • iing. MINUTES July 19, 1979 x y btv of Newport Beach Commissioner Balalis then stated that should1the 5,000 sq. ft. concept prevail, that there wo ld rarely if ever be a conversion. Commissioner Allen stated that this was not �eces sarily her major concern in this instance. Commissioner Cokas then stated that he had voted for that measure with the same conditions asex- plained by Commissioner Balalis, and that helfail ed to see the logic that is involved if a duplex or.two -unit dwelling is satisfactory for ren al and is not satisfactory for ownership. Commissioner McLaughlin expressed her feeling tha this lot is a special case; that those unitslin the area are rental units, but that this project is not a rental unit and has been abandoned for a year and is a blight presently, and that she. woul support the motion. • ;Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that th implication of allowing condominium conversions vi.a the "tear- downs" is a significant net re�uc- jtion of rental .stock in Newport Beach becaus of !the condition of housing on the Peninsula ano the large number of substandard housing in that urea, Ithe economics being like a balloon restricted in one place and the profit squeezing out of another and instead of conversions, one has "tear- down" and reconstruction, and that it is unacceptable t !reduce rental stock. Commissioner Balalis stated that perhaps at some later date, the Planning Commission could goon record as saying that the approximately 250 lots that are standard by the City's standards ar sub standard by 25' by the Coastal Commission, a d that these might be a great source of rentalllstoc in the City. Ayes llxllx[lxlllMotion was then voted on, which MOTION FAILED. Noes x x Absent x !Hugh Coffin, Acting City Attorney, suggested that !the Planning Commission make a positive motion. r1 U -10- INDEX =r ((pp July 19, 1979 M Beach MINUTES Motion x ;Motion was made to deny Resubdivision No. 636. !Commissioner Balalis stated that he would vote to deny, only on the grounds that the applicant woul have the right to appeal to the City Council:, Mr. Coffin suggested that it may be necessary to continue this item until the seventh Planning Com missioner is present to obtain a majority vote, i the vote on the present motion is again 3 to13. Ayes x x xIMotion was then voted on, which MOTION FAILE . Noes x x x Absent x iMr. Hogan.then suggested a motion to continue, iwhich would also be a positive motion. Motion N (Motion was.made to refer.Resubdivision No. 636 to Ayes x x x x x'the City Council with no recommendation and with Absent x .the comments of the Planning Commission as wtrittei iin the minutes. ;equest.to establish a new and used automobile ales facility in the C -1 District on a site Where n automobile service station now exists. OCAT.ION: A portion of Government Lot 3* Sec. tion 28, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, S.B.B. & M., located at 3600 Newport Boulevard, on the northerly side of Via Lido between Newport Boulevard.and Central Ave - nue, adjacent to Lido Marina Vil- lage.. (ZONE: C -1 0 APPLICANT: 0.'Gara Motors, Inc., dba., O'Gara Coach Company, Beverly Hills OWNER: Same as Applicant -11- INDEX Item #4 USE PER- MIT N0. 1913 COMMISSIONERS 9 ;v Z 5(Wr July 19, 1979 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Richard Hogan, Community Development Director, stated that this is a request to change the Arco Service Station on Newport Boulevard at Via Lido to an automobile sales agency for O'Gara Motors; and that one of the requirements that had been suggested by the Staff, and also their particular concern was one of traffic, their suggestion be- ing that the vehicle access onto Newport Boulevard be a right turn in and right turn out as it is their estimate that there will be less traffic go- ing into this site than there is presently, and that furthermore, with the right turn in and :right turnout requirement for the one access point as reduced from two will eliminate the hazardous traf- fic that has occurred with the present left turn movement. He further stated that the Public Works Department has required that there be certain de- dications for future use and that the design of the site take these into consideration. • 'Commissioner Allen inquired regarding the removal !of the existing pump island and the installation of a gas pump to serve the new facility, express- ing her concern that if it is .approved, a condi- tion should be made of removing the underground gas tanks, as large empty gas tanks erode and gas land oils can leak into the.soils close to the bacl ;bay. !James Hewicker, Assistant Director- Planning, stat led that the procedure in a case like this would b to either remove them or to empty them of the pe- troleum product and backfill them. The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Don Corbin, representing the Applicant, 37 Montpelier, appeared.before the Planning Commis- sion to explain a few things regarding the djaw- ings before the Planning Commission,.stating'that they are the results of several meetings with the ;City Engineer. He informed the Planning Commis- sion that they are leaving the structure intact and only remodeling the exterior and interior and that the pumps are being relocated. He also stat led that their intention is to dress up the area • l i I l l l land that they would like to enclose the.property -12- COMMISSIONERS . MINUTES 0 m July 19, 1979 0 X ( > City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ith a fence along Newport Boulevard adjacent to he existing sidewalk. In conclusion, he stated heir opposition to the requests of an additional 0 feet of sidewalk and the dedication of the.par ing spaces. n response to a question posed by Commissioner alalis, Mr. Corbin stated that the space which. he Public Works Department is asking for dedi- ation is an area outside the property and that here is no way in which the lessee can dedicate nother person's property. bon Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that they have been working on preliminary plans for ikhe widening of Newport Boulevard for two to thre years so that in situati.ons such as this, they ca offer. comments.as to what is necessary; for in- stance, when Hughe's market was redeveloped,,they had required a similar triangular,cut -off that . started at the corner of Security Pacific Bank and came back to Finley, 10 to 15 feet onto the broperty for future widening of Newport Boulevard and that they have worked several.possibilitiles �vhich will allow them to do the widening andcon- truct 6 lanes for Newport Boulevard and maintain the double left -turn lane with a minimal acgoisi- ition right -of -way, which is one of the two parcel needed to accomplish this on this side of the 6treet, the other of which is through the Securit Pacific Bank. He added that they are in the :pro - cess within the next year of trying to put a pro- eject together with CalTrans in that this is a (state right -of- way and will have to be a coopera- Itive project between City and State because it Ivould not. rank high on state lists and that they hope to incorporate this with the widening o the bridge over the channel in a Phase I.proj.ect whit ould allow.a third lane to Coast Highway and two !lanes going northbound out of town. Additionally, he stated that the Newport Boulevar widening project could be done in two to three (Phases, this being the first Phase, starting at (Via Lido and widening the bridge and going down -13- COMMISS1011fRS K r,d 942WR N X N ROLL CALL 0 0 MINUTES July 19, 1979 of Newport Beach to 32nd in a second Phase, with some improvements to try to add ,A third lane.southbound or onto; the Peninsula.as a third or fourth Phase later on. In conclusion, he stated that to put the fence 8' back of the sidewalk would create a wall and in effect narrow the sidewalk down to 6', and that the addition of 12' would probably be adequate as far as curb access ramps and a widening of the sidewalk around the curb return, as there is a co siderable amount of pedestrian and bicycle triaffi in that area. He stated that they are required when they put in new curb return areas to require the curb access ramp, which will benefit both the handicapped and bicyclists. ommissioner.Balalis inquired whether it wasipro- er to ask for dedication in a case such as this f a parcel in which the applicant is a tenant, D which Ed O'Gara, Applicant, appeared beforie th lanning Commission and described O'Gara Motors, nc., in,Beverly Hills,.expressing his.feeling th t is a credit to Wilshire Boulevard, and to!ex lain that the property is presently on a lease t he present occupant of the property, who in turn s leasing the property to Mr. O'Gara, who isi the he sub - lessee, creating a problem in terms of de ication of any of said property. ommissioner Balalis inquired regarding the legal ty of the application, to which Hugh Coffin, Act ng City Attorney, stated that perhaps this appli ation is proper before the Commission, because i rovides in the Code that the application.for a se Permit may be by the owner, lessee, or agent f the owner of the property affected and shalll b igned by the recorded owner, or the lessee,ior ay be signed by an agent of the owner, with writ en authorization. r. O'Gara then informed the Planning Commission hat he has a lease which is contingent upon the pproval of this application, expiring tomorrow. e Planning Commission recessed at 9 :15 p.m. , and convened at 9:25 P.m. -14- INDEX K 0 w g �¢5i m D 3' y %co w � July 19; 1979 Z Beach Mr. Coffin stated that there are seve .in this case; 1) the.Zoning Ordinance a lessee to be an applicant on a zone it would possibly be appropriate for of the property to receive notice of which case it is possible to continue to a later date; 3) the lessee is not dedicate the property to the City or MINUTES ral issdes permits case; 2) the owner . this, in the matter able to State for street and highway purposes and would require the ;consent at some time in the future of the prgpert3 ;owner, and; 4) the reasonableness of the require- ment for dedication in the case of changing the ,use from a gas station to an automobile dealer - !ship. Mr. O'Gara then stated that he had an agreement with the property owner in which if the person from which he is leasing the property doesn't Yake the payment to her; then he can make th4 pay ment directly to her and that she is well aware • of the.fac.t that he is sub - leasing the property !from the lessee, and that she also is well aware of the type of change in use. Mr. Coffin then assured the Planning Commission that the application is properly before.them: IMr..O'Gara then stated his intention only to up- !grade the property. 0 IIn response to a request from Commissioner Balali jMr. O'Gara itemized those conditions to which.he was in disagreement, stating first his disagree Iment with Condition No. 9, expressing his finding Ithat Newport Boulevard has a low pedestrian Ose and a high 'bicycle use of single -file traffic, an the request for widening the sidewalk to 12'' he felt, was unnecessary, and he proposed an 8'.side walk, which he felt would be adequate. He also :expressed his disagreement with Conditions No. 12, 14 and 19, stating that this would involve a :large cost, and finally his disagreement with Con dition No. 18, relating to dedication, as pre- viously stated. -15- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 1J That the proposed development would be detri mental to the safe and continuous flow of vehicular traffic in the area. Added con- gestion. would also be encountered due to increased demand for parking in an area with already limited parking capacities. !anal DENY Use Permit No. 1913. -16- W 9 July 19, 1979 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Webb stated that the City Council has a pjolic that unused drive approaches should be closed, to which Mr. O'Gara requested that they be able to use also the most southerly entrance on Central Avenue on an as- needed basis to move cars in and out that may be blocked in some other way. Mr. Webb commented regarding Mr. O'Gara's object - ons, expressing his feelings that they are Makin quite a concession to begin with in allowingjthem to install and utilize public right -of -way foir Private purposes and :keeping it fenced off aNd that the area is now very narrow and that 10' is the minimum that -they can work with and that one on- street parking space would be eliminated by allowing that the requested driveway be kept open, :though they had no particular objection, as long as the driveway approach on Newport Boulevard is closed. . Commissioner Allen expressed her concern regarding the statement as submitted by the Police Depart- ment, indicating that approval of this.applica- tion would be detrimental to the health, safdty, morals, comfort and general welfare of �eace, ersons residing and working in the neighborhood, to which Mr. Hewicker replied that the changes that the applicant made to the plans were to'ad- dress the concerns which were raised by the Po- lice Department. Motion Motion was made that the Planning Commission make I I I the following finding: 1J That the proposed development would be detri mental to the safe and continuous flow of vehicular traffic in the area. Added con- gestion. would also be encountered due to increased demand for parking in an area with already limited parking capacities. !anal DENY Use Permit No. 1913. -16- COMMISSIONERS 9 0X July 19, 1979 M t Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Thomas then expressed his feeling that the.chang.e in use from a neighborhood service to the residents of Lido in that area is inap�- propriate and that there are enough other ques- itions.related to private use of public property; safety issues, dedication of the corner, status of ownership and the conditions put before the Planning . Commission were the reasons for his mo- tion for denial; and that he felt it was an in -. appropriate use. Commissioner Beek then concurred with Commissioner Thomas that he thought the use was extremely 'ap- propriate in Beverly Hills and that the applicant had stated that he is sticking his neck out to try it in Newport Beach and that he preferred'thai Mr. O'Gara didn't take that chance and he explres- $ed his further feeling that it would be an at- traction and would create more traffic in Newport beach which would not be doing Newport Beach any • good, though the service station did do Newport $each some good, as providing a need for gas, and that he would prefer to .see neighborhood service commercial operations in our community districts. Mr. O'Gara then briefly informed the Planning Com mission that the service station is going out of business the first of September and that the (type of autos to be sold there would be in keeping wit Newport Beach, and,the Orange County area, and that they had attempted to answer the Police De- partment objections; 1) high visibility advertis- ing directed at the public, which is not the way in which they would present their product; 2) the fencing and raised platform had been elimi- gated; 3) there would not be a demand for increas ed parking; 4) highest volume of.sales in one Month is 10 cars., which would not hamper.traf!fic flow. Commissioner Balalis stated his opposition to the motion, expressing his feeling that as his of t ice is immediately across the street from the si ender discussion, he observes that it is a hiighly Used lot, and that the use proposed would belless -17- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 0 July 19, 1979 z�a i bty of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX intense and more attractive. He also expressled (his feeling that it will, however, create a pro- blem for the traffic coming.by, as people havle.a ieneral tendency to look at these types of auto- mobiles, and some type of landscaping which would �imit the visual impact from Newport Boulevard would be in order. Ayes K X x x x (Notion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Noes Absent x Mr. Coffin then suggested that the statementslmad 6y Commissioners Thomas and Beek be incorporated as findings as intended by the Planning Commiis- . Lion to be put into formal form as part of tho minutes to be approved and adopted at the next Meeting;; as follows: 2. That the request if approved would reploce a neighborhood commercial use which ser,es the local needs of the residents with a;use of a more regional nature. 3. The request if.approved would involve the private use of-public property, i.e., the adjoining right -of -way for Newport Boulevard and Via Lido. 4. The approva.l of Use Permit No. 1913 will, under the circumstances of this case i be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of per- sons residing and working in the neighbor - hood or be detrimental or injurious to pro- perty or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. i Ri,equest to consider. a Traffic Study for a: proposed Item #5 development and redevelopment of facilities at Hoag Memorial Hospital - Presbyterian. TRAFFIC STUDY LOCATION: Parcel 1, Record.of Survey 15/30,. located at 301 Newport Boulevard, CONTINUED TO AUGUST • 23, 1979 -18- 9 IR'. NE R RR WON) July 19, 1979 reTi Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III I I I I I INDEX Motion Ayes Absent ONE: PLICANT: NER: on the southwesterly corner of! Newport Boulevard and Hospital! Road. A -P -H Hoag Memorial Hospital - Presbyteria Newport Beach Same as Applicant 1x1x1 otion was made to- continue Agenda Item No. 5, x x raffic Study for Hoag Memorial Hospital, to jhe I i * tegular Planning Commission meeting of August123, 1979. * * * IRequest.to amend a previously approved use pe mit • that permitted the construction of Hoag Memorial Hospital- Presbyterian facilities on the site to As to remodel and expand the existing hospital complex, and the acceptance of an Environmental document. (,LOCATION: Parcel 1, Record of Survey 15/30, located at.301 Newport Boulevard, on the southwesterly corner.of New- port Boulevard and Hospital Road. ZONE: A -P -H PPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital-Presbyter- ian, Newport Beach I I�WNER: Same as Applicant Motion I j t x was made to continue Agenda Item No. 6, Ayes x x x x lotion se Permit No. 1421 -C, to the regular Planning Absent ommission meeting of August 23, 1979. 0 -19- Item #6 USE PER- MIT NO. 1421 -C CONTINUED TO AUGUST 3� 1979 COMMISSIONERS 9 i n W s July 19, 1979 oil Beach MINUTES INDEX the Public Hearing was opened regarding this item And Tim Strader, Senior Vice President, Koll company, appeared before.the Planning Commission to state their efforts in understanding the Staff Report and to state that the percentage reduction on this particular report would be different be -. pause the appropriate method would be to apply the undeveloped square footage today, and not the August 1, 1978 square footage, and in conclusion, the stated that he would be prepared to address the Planning Commission with a report. -20- 1 Circulation Element Review and Land Use Alterna- Item #7 ii i v es . IRCULA- INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach HON ELE ENT RE- IEW Richard Hogan, Community. Development Director., stated that the City Council has urged that t e ONTINUE Planning Commission move as rapidly as possib e With presenting to them recommendations for 1 nd TO AUGUS 3, 1979 use alternatives consistent with the recommen a- tions that the Planning Commission has made for the Circulation Element of the General Plan and ilso directed that when the Planning Commission donsiders its recommendations on land use alter - natives for the 15 major sites in the City, that they send forward to the.City Council several alternatives, beginning with the major alterna- tive.of the.existing plan that has been approved and that it then go all the way down from the: • existing General Plan to the reduction of any' land use to low- intensity residential development. JHe stated that Staff has prepared a series of Land use alternatives for each of these sites vrhich has.been delivered to the Planning Commis- sion and which has been made available specifi- dally to the property owners of each of the sites and to others as requested and that it is sug -. Tested by the Staff that the Planning Commission begin consideration of these immediately and eli- minate or modify some of these, or propose addi- tional alternatives, and be prepared to act at the next meeting with recommendations that would go forward to the City Council. the Public Hearing was opened regarding this item And Tim Strader, Senior Vice President, Koll company, appeared before.the Planning Commission to state their efforts in understanding the Staff Report and to state that the percentage reduction on this particular report would be different be -. pause the appropriate method would be to apply the undeveloped square footage today, and not the August 1, 1978 square footage, and in conclusion, the stated that he would be prepared to address the Planning Commission with a report. -20- 1 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 19, 1979 5, 191, 1 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Robert Shelton, Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that they would ll.ike to defer any specific reaction to the Staff Report until they have a chance to further exa- mine its implications. Mr. Hogan provided a brief explanation of the, Staff Report relate.d.to "Koll Center ", statin that in the areas in which there are adopted P -C's, there was adopted a Resolution by City i Council in August of 1978 which delineated each of these P -C's the total amount of property w�ich could be developed, the total amount that was- de-veloped a.t that time and the total amount re- maining to be developed, and that adopted consis- tent with that was an amendment to.the P -C's which required the preparation of a traffic phasing plan iif and only after 30% of the remaining to be de- veloped property had been developed so that a pro- perty owner that had a P -C approved area could de- • velope 30% of that property in accordance with the existing P -C, without preparing a traffic phasing plan and could then prepare a traffic phasing plan if he wanted to go any further than that. He further stated that some of the properties have gone ahead with development of that property with - in the 30% rule, and that the total traffic phas- ing plan for Emkay has been approved by the City Council and therefore was left out of this con- gideration; and that in considering the remainder of the others to be developed, the Staff, in an at- tempt to treat all developments alike, made the per cent reductions that are suggested in the.al- ternatives .based on the remainder to be developed as of October 1978. He added that the Commercial/ Residential mix took into consideration the 50% Meduction, but would put it on. 1, of the land and allow. the balance of.the land to be developed at approximately 10 dwelling units per buildable acre.on 13.acres, or equivalent to the 2,181,189 $q. ,ft. in the 50% reduction, plus the 100 dwell- ing units of residential, making the assumption consistent throughout the report that about 25% would be needed for street use and park dedica- tion requirements, which could vary, depending r� u -21- I* July 19, 1979 Of t Beach MINUTES do the design of the development and the popuha- 0 on factors that would enter into the park dedi- cation requirement. He further elaborated that Medium High Densitf Re sidential is allowing no additional commercial, but Jwelling at 200 dwelling units per net buildable acre and that the Low Density Residpn- tial would allow no additional commercial develop. rent and 80 dwelling units at 4 dwelling units pe net buildable acre, which is a consistent approacl used in developing alternatives for these sites similar to Koll Center that have approced P -C "s. Commissioner Balalis inquired whether there was a rationale that . the reductions would then fit with the Transportation Element, to which Mr. Hogan re plied that the report from the Public Works Depar vent using the traffic model indicated what the effect would be on.the transportation .system If d yelopment occurs as proposed in the General Phan and if the transportation system is constructed a droposed in the General Plan and that consequent- 1y any reduction in development that was proposed in the Land Use Alternatives would have an impact mesulti,ng in the reduction on the traffic problem and wouldn't increase the capacity, but would im- prove the traffic flow by the amount of reduction of traffic generation on the system i:f constructe in accordance with the approved General Plan. obert.Lenard, Acting Advance Planning Administra- or, then explained the Circulation Element Re- iew and Land Use Alternatives Traffic Generation aper as a summary of the existing trip generation ates used in the traffic model, including a re- iew of each of the alternatives as assessingthe hange.in traffic impacts generated by each o� the lternat.ives, involving a blanket cut, assuming pproximately the same distribution of land uses hat are allowed by the existing P=C text. missioner Balalis then suggested a chart indi- ing these comparisons, to which Don Webb, As- -22- INDEX MINUTES July 19, 1979 �a pity of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX i i sistant City Engineer, explained.that making re- ductions or going from a commercial to a residen- tial use would perhaps mean a complete distribu- tion change in traffic. Mr. Hogan replied that the Staff can put together the difference.in traffic generation, using boll dark estimates of the kinds of land use mix. ommissioner Beek expressed his feeling that bne ore run in which instead of the 78 -2 General: lan, one puts in low - density residential every - here, that this would. give the Planning Commis - ion two reference points: 1) Low Density Resi ential 2) Existing General Plan, of which 50 %.. f each could be taken, so that whatever mix woul e desirable could be hand- calculated, requiring nly.one more run on the computer. Mir. Hogan responded that low- density residentlial • involves more than just a straight low- density r'iesidential against the no- growth, but requires the amount of commercial that has been developed since the no- growth run, and stated that the Plan ning Commission approved Ford - Aeronutronic, which produced essentially the equivalent traffic to what would have occured if Ford- Aeronutronic were developed at about 30% of their allowable build - out, which.the City Council did not approve, and he asked that the Planning Commission consider how important it is that they do a lot of addi- tional work as far as traffic computation. Commissioner Beek responded that they do not have 4ny indication of what the additional traffic.ef- fects of residential development would be on thes Sites. Commissioner Balalis expressed his feeling that . traffic consideration is an important issue. Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that.ther would be accuracy within the traffic model ifiwe regard each of these.items as independent andlcon Sider that any residential site will generate • traffic to an existing commercial site, to which ¢ommissioner Balalis expressed his feeling that this is not necessarily true. -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 19, 1979 s x y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX commissioner Beek then stated that his uneasiness regarding the figures was because he couldn't determine h.ow the traffic is being distributed over the network of streets. Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that one gets an indicative feel for the traffic pro- duced if one looks at percentages of changes based on generation, to which Commissioner Bepk disagreed. Or. Hogan stated that Staff could make another shun consisting of an updated existing condition plus the low- density residential alternative. i Commissioner.Beek stated that he would discourage this, as they have here a study of the effects of 78 -2 development relative to the base in 1977, and residential should be looked at relative to . the same base of 1977, for a good comparison, also stating that he would like to see a run of residential on all sites. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Commissioner Beek stated that if lower den $ity is considered, there is a lot higher trip generation per dwelling unit, and that residentia will look better considered with medium density. Commissioner McLaughlin expressed that.she.had a total lack of faith in the traffic model. Commissioner Cokas inquired whether there was any Oata which would indicate what type of developmen qut what kind of pressures on the airport and'air traffic, to which Mr. Hogan replied that there ha been a considerable amount of data put together $y the County regarding the kind of use in this area which makes.use of the airport, putting pres sure on air traffic. Commissioner Allen inquired whether the Planning Commission's decision that ultimately effects the CPA would be satisfactory data to satisfy the leg ramification of the GPA, to which Mr. Coffin re- • plied that it would be accurate and satisfactory. -24- C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES July 19, 1979 15 E r 1 � City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek stated that he would like to see from this computer run the difference in dail traffic volume from each development - residentia development, less no- growth, without the inter- section break- downs and ICU calculations. Commissioner Thomas inquired what other criteria is available to measure traffic impact other han the model, to which Mr. Webb replied that the mod el would be the easiest method and that it would require a large amount of Staff and Consultant time. Mr. Hogan inquired:of,M,r. Webb whether there is a.reason.able estimate that can be made of the pro- bable effects of the major alternatives without . going through the additional time and effort, to which Mr. Webb replied that he felt these esti- mates must be made by breaking down the uses and. • coming up with total volumes from which a rough estimate percentage - wise of the generations can be made. Commissioner Thomas then stated his preference fo this method. Mr. Webb stated that they would isolate the sites more than they are now, as now they have traffic area zones., some of which are not 100% these site then break down the square footage into uses', and an overall average would be impossible, because some areas there are large industrial.sites that have lower generation rates than commercial ones, distorting the averages,.and would not be able to provide this type of matrix for each site at each intersection. Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that thes figures would be 25 -40% off on the distribution, as compared to the traffic model. Mr. Hogan :then stated that when traffic is used a a basis for mak.ing.the decisions, that..there are. a large number of intersections that in accordant • with the.General Plan and the traffic model p1rodu Lion are consistent with the criteria that has be established of a 0.9000 ICU, and that perhaps it would be advantageous to consider those intersec- -25- COMMISSIONERS i City of Newport: Beach July 19, 1979 ROLL CALL tlions which, are impacted beyond what the.Planning Commission feels.is reasonable, and consider thos areas of land use that would impact those particu intersections. CAmmissioner Beek stated that.he would feel more. comfortable if the models were run.with.the a4tua street systems.. Commissioner Balalis inquired whether the,disitri- blution could be done manually.reasonably enough t time up with trouble intersections, based on the t ,.rnatives., to which Mr. Webb replied that these fiigures are based on the existing Circulation.Ele m,e nt . C'.ommissioner Thomas stated that to make a decisio he.would need a map of the project, the total.num b;er of vehicles coming out of it, based on thq.al t;ernatives, involving only existing roads, an a m!ap of intersections around it either down - steam • or up- stream, to which Commissioner Allen andlBal allis agreed. Clommissioner Beek stated his preference for using tlhe traffic model. ! Cbmmissioner McLaughlin stated her p.reference!to using the existing Circulation Element and Tr4ffi G',eneration studies.. Commissioner Cokas stated his preference thatiSta take the distribution as planned with the Gen�ral Pllan and use as a margin .85 ICU's. ; Mir. Lenard stated that there may be as many as 5 different sites that are affecting '1 intersec ion which they are trying.to bring down to .85 ICI's, so that 5 sites times 5 alternatives could be!in- Volved. Mr. Lenard then made brief comments regardingjthe brief analysis on fiscal impacts,'or estimate on cost revenue factors for the various types of res dential uses that are being talked about in t e Llliand Use Alternatives, and two density levels for cpmmercial and residential development. i i -26- MINUTES I a J 1 11- 1' cf INDEX L i i City of Newport Beach July. 19, 1979 ROLL CALL Mlr. Hogan explained the difference between the former property tax distribution and the present plroperty tax distribution, stating that from a .Property tax point of view it is no advantage for plroperty to be developed within the City as.lbng a's it is developed within the County, but that from a sales tax point of view, there is an advan tage. Iln response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Lenard responded that these figures re plresent a mix of all types of commercial, anditha tlhey are attributing sales tax to residential as well as commercial, but not industrial. Commissioner Thomas stated his understanding that tlhe Local Coastal'Program` work will impact'avdila buildable around the Bay. fir. Hogan announced that they had assigned Mi�hae Oorr to full- time.Staff support on the Local Cloagtal Program Committee, that Craig Bluell t ill . be furnishing partial staff time to that committe to supply statistical information, and that they hlad requested that the.City Council allow funds t Ore a Consultant to develop a couple of Element! olf the Plan for the Local Coastal Program. Motion x Motion was made to continue Agenda Item.No. 7; Ayes K K x x x x Circulation Element.Review to the regular Pla6nin Absent * Commission, meeting of August 9, 1979. i I AIDDIT.IONAL BUSINESS: Motion x l) Motion was made that the Planning Commission Ayes x x x x x x adopt Resolution No. 1040 and set for Pu�ltc Absent Hearing for August 9, 1979, "Residential;De- velopment Standards for Corona del Mar ". Motion x 21) Motion was made that the Planning Commission Ayes x x x x x x adopt Resolution No. 1041 and set. for Public Absent * Hearing for September 6, 1979:, "Definition o Dwelling Unit ". .Motion Motion was made that the Planning Commission ss x x x x x x adopt Resolution No. 1042 and set for Public ent * Hearing for August 23, 1979, "Height Limits on Ocean Boulevard ". I j _27- MINUTES t b 1 e D tij f INDEX ADDIT- IONS RIIST— . COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach • July 19, 1979 INDEX ROLL CALL i There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:30 P.M. WJ Debra Allen, Secretar� City of Newport Beach: Planning Commission /gg I i I -28-