Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/1993CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: October 7, 1993 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * - Commissioner DiSano was excused. (Commissioner Edwards Absent arrived at 7:37 p.m.) EX-OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager John Douglas, Principal Planner Don Webb, City Engineer . Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of September 23. 1993 minutes of Motion was made and voted on to approve the September 23, 9/23/93 Motion 1993, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Ayes Absent Public Comments: Public Comment No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the A e, nda: Posting of the Agenda James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, October 1, 1993, in • front of City Hall. Ao \%,\\�o • MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Street Name Change (Public Hearing Request to consider a street name change from "North Newport Item No.: Boulevard" to "Old Newport Boulevard" in the Old Newport Street Boulevard Specific Plan Area. Name Change LOCATION: Old Newport Boulevard, located between Approved West Coast Highway and 15th Street in Newport Heights. APPLICANT: Old Newport Property Owners Group, Newport Beach Commissioner Glover, and James Hewicker, Planning Director, discussed the City's policy of notifying the property owners of a • potential street name change. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry Tucker, property owner of property located 508 North Newport Boulevard, and President of the Old Newport Boulevard Property Owners, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his support of the request.. He stated that the street is known throughout the area as "Old Newport Boulevard'; however, confusion exists regarding the street name inasmuch as numerous maps indicate the street name as "North Newport Boulevard" or "Newport Avenue ", and the street signs also signify "North Newport Boulevard ". He explained that the property owners and tenants were notified of the requested name change, and a petition was signed in support of the application. One individual expressed opposition to the request because he did not want to change the stationery. Mr. Hewicker commented that the City's Atlas Maps states "North Newport Boulevard", but the street is referred to as "Old Newport Boulevard" by the City staff and the residents. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public . hearing was closed at this time. -2- COMMISSIONERS . aplMOIR ��O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October / tvy3 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Hewicker explained the City's street signs would be changed, and he indicated that the Finance Department, the Utilities Department, and the Building Department would change their records to indicate "Old Newport Boulevard ". Commissioner Ridgeway commented that he has always known the street as "Old Newport Boulevard ". Motion * Motion was made to approve the street name change to "Old Newport Boulevard ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the cost to change the street signs may be approximately $1,000.00. Ayes * Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. i6ent x s s A. Use Permit No 1905 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No., Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1965A permitted the establishment of George's Camelot Restaurant with on -sale beer and wine and an outdoor dining area on property UP3426 located in the C -1 -H District. The proposed amendment involves Approved a request to expand the existing restaurant by converting 576± sq.ft. of retail area into restaurant "net public area ". The request to expand the subject restaurant also represents a conversion of a portion of a building from a Base FAR use to a Reduced FAR use which also requires the approval of a use permit. A request to waive a portion of the required parking is also included in the application. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 59 -17 (Resubdivision No. 416), located at 3420 Via Oporto, on the northeasterly side of Via Oporto, between Central Avenue and Via Lido, in Lido Marina Village. -3- COMMISSIONERS �o t No P0�b o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES qw , October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX AND B. Use Permit No. 3426 (Public Hearing) Request to rescind a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of a retail store specializing in the sale and incidental tasting of beer and wine. The facility also included the sale of prepackaged food items to go such as potato chips and candy, and there was no food preparation on the premises. The approval also included a waiver of a portion of the required parking. The rescission also includes a transfer of the entitlement rights of the restaurant use to Use Permit No. 1905 (Amended), George's Camelot Restaurant. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 1, Tract No. 1235, located at 3431 Via Oporto, on the westerly side of Via Oporto, between Via Lido and Central Avenue, in Lido Marina Village. ZONE: C -1 -171 APPLICANT: Lido Marina Village, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Donna Larson, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and she concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1905 Ayes * (Amended) and Use Permit No. 3426 subject to the findings and Absent * conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. =4- COMMISSIONERS V-POINAMA111\1611\0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 114W I I I October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX A. Use Permit No. 1905 (,Amended) Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking exists to serve the subject restaurant. 4. That the design of the project or proposed improvements . will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large or access through or use of property within the proposed development. S. It has been demonstrated that the peak hour traffic to be generated by the expanded restaurant will not exceed that generated by the existing uses in the development inasmuch as the applicant is discontinuing an equal amount of restaurant floor area in another portion of the Lido Marina Village development. 6. The structure on the site was constructed prior to October 25, 1988, consistent with the policies and ordinances in effect at the time of construction. 7. The restaurant and other building tenants will be restricted to the uses and operational characteristics upon which the traffic equivalency was based. Relevant operational characteristics include, but are not limited to, hours of operation of on -site businesses, provision of valet parking, off -site parking, and net public area of restaurants. -5- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Octob 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 8. The proposed restaurant use and physical improvements are such that the approved project will not readily lend itself to conversion to a higher traffic generating use. 9. That the Police Department has indicated that they have no objections to the proposed restaurant expansion. 10. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, and one of the required parking spaces will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 11. The approval of Use Permit No. 1905 (Amended) under the circumstances of this case will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the subject project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1905 and 1905 (Amended), as approved by the Planning Commission on April 19, 1979 and on September 24, 1981, respectively, shall be fulfilled. 3. That a washout area be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 4. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of -6- COMMISSIONERS .p�.NPoe d d, - c` 'io��o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES MW I I I I I October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 5. That all restaurant employees shall park their vehicles in the Lido Marina Village Parking Structure. 6. That the development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, and one of the required parking spaces shall be waived. 7. The applicant shall make all required alterations to that portion of the building used for restaurant purposes which . may be determined to be necessary by the Building and Fire Departments. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for all such alterations. 8. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building permits or the use of the expanded portion of the restaurant. 9. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 10. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. M Use Permit No. 3426 Finding: 1. That the applicant has requested that the Planning • Commission rescind its previous approval of Use Permit -7- I COMMISSIONERS �q�� o � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX No. 3426 so as to transfer the allowable restaurant entitlement from the property located at 3431 Via Lido to. property located at 3420 Via Oporto. Condition: 1. That Use Permit No. 3426 is hereby rescinded and all future use of the tenant space located at 3431 Via Oporto shall be limited to Base FAR uses as set forth in Chapter 20.07 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A. Site Plan Review No. 66 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No. Request to approve a site plan review so as to allow the construction of 12 detached single family dwellings on property located in the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. The sPR66 TTM14533 proposal also includes a modification to the Harbor View Hills Planned Community District Regulations, so as to allow the approved construction of a sound wall along the exterior perimeter of the proposed development, portions of which exceed 8 feet in height, up to a maximum 10 feet 6 inches. AND B Tentative Man of Tract No 14533 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to subdivide 9.2 acres of land into 12 numbered lots for single family residential development, 6 lettered lots for private landscape purposes, 1 lettered lot for a public park site, 1 lettered lot for public landscape purposes and 1 lettered lot for future MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way, in the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. LOCATION: A portion of Block 92, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 2001 Newport Hills Drive West, . on the northwesterly side of Newport Hills -8- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Drive West, between Port Wheeler Place and Port Stanhope Place, in the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Manning Company, Santa Ana Heights OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Adams Streeter Civil Engineers Inc., Irvine Commissioner Gifford stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. James Hewicker, Planning Director, reported that subsequent to a meeting that staff had with the applicant and The Irvine Company, several revisions to the original conditions have been made and are incorporated in Exhibit "A" (Revised). In reference to the staff report dated September 23, 1993, he explained that staff deleted Mitigation Measure No. 26 regarding four story buildings inasmuch as there are no four story buildings proposed in the subject subdivision. Mitigation Measure No. 38 was also deleted inasmuch as the subject site is not within the Coastal Zone and it does not involve any property that would be considered a Coastal bluff. Don Webb, City Engineer, referred to Exhibit "A" (Second Revision) that included the foregoing revisions to Exhibit "A" (Revised). The changes concern the 2 to 1 slope that would be adjacent to the houses on three sides of the property, and who would own and maintain the slopes. The tentative tract map will be reconfigured so as to determine which slopes would be involved. Lot H will be reconfigured to include the slopes that encompass three sides of the homes, and Lot G will be reconfigured to include the park site and the adjacent slopes on the north and westerly sides of the park. A second issue was how . to design the houses to mitigate the noise that will be related to -9- COMMISSIONERS pr L MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 ROLL CALL INDEX the widening of MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to the tract to be certain that the new property owners are protected, and the City will be adequately protected from the new property owners in the event the owners would not be satisfied with the existing mitigation measures. The height of the wall is one of the elements of the noise design, and the applicant has also proposed to address the issue by constructing a berm with a wall on top of the berm, and in some cases to use double glaze glass and a ventilation system in the houses. Mr. Webb stated that a sentence was added to Condition No. 15, Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533 (Second Revision), concerning the storm drain system to define the responsibilities of the applicant, and the storm drainage within the area to the drainage that would come from the applicant's side of the large storm drain. Port Wheeler Place is where a 66 inch storm drain outlets into the channel and at that point, the storm drain splits and goes north and south. The condition requests that in the hydrology studies and any storm drain modification, the applicant should be required to handle drainage deficiencies that are south of Port Wheeler Place. Revised Condition No. 24, Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533 (Second Revision), requires the applicant to give prospective property owners written notice to inform them of all the various issues for noise mitigation, i.e. that the roadway was going to be widened, there would be a significant increase in traffic, and that neither the builder, the City, or other parties would be responsible to pay for additional noise mitigation and that it would be the property owner's responsibility. Conditions No. 30 and No. 33 were deleted from Exhibit "A" (Revised), regarding noise attenuation, inasmuch as the requirements are covered in Condition No. 44 (Second Revision). Revised Condition No. 42, Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533 (Second Revision) concerns Lot H. Option 1 would require that . the 12 homeowners would accept the Lot as a common Lot and -10- COMMISSIONERS �ClOf+�,pd�drS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Uctooer 1, iyyi ROLL CALL INDEX would form an Association to maintain the Lot. Option 2 states that the City would accept the dedication of the Lot if it were determined that it would serve a public purpose. The City would accept the dedication only if an Assessment District were formed whereby the 12 property owners maintained the slopes through the Assessment District, and the property owners would maintain the cost of the maintenance. The determination has to take place prior to the sale of the fast lot, and in the interim the developer is responsible for everything that occurs on the site. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding an Assessment District, Mr. Webb explained that there would be a contractor that would be hired either by the Association or by the City; however, the City would process the paper work for the Assessment District. There would be hearings once a year to determine the public need to continue the . Assessment District and to determine whatever the fees may be. The City Council will determine Option 1 or Option 2. Option 2, No. 1, states that the parcel has been offered for dedication to the City of Newport Beach and the City determines that the acceptance of dedication serves a public purpose. Commissioner Ridgeway, Chairman Merrill, and Mr. Webb addressed the maintenance costs of Lot H. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jim Manning, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Manning approached the exhibit area to address the previously requested issues of the streetscape along Newport Hills Drive West, and the proposed two story homes on Newport Hills Drive West. He referred to a pictorial exhibit illustrating the one story at the front of the structure to the two story massing at the rear of the homes, and the setback from the main house out to the curb line. Across Newport Hills Drive West from the proposed tract, the setback is 20 feet from the houses to the curbline and the proposed setback averages 50 feet from the curbline to the houses. The applicant has agreed with the Association that the normal right -of -way easement area would be 5 feet and beyond that the applicant would provide an additional -11- Q c �d� � A� N\\ 0\ �O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 7 1943 ROLL CALL INDEX 20 feet from the back of right -of -way line to the wall which would be the side yard of the homes. The applicant would be creating a net 25 foot landscaped area; however, only a 5 foot landscaped area is required. In reference to the streetscene looking west on Newport Hills Drive West, Mr. Manning explained the landscape program along Newport Hills Drive West and MacArthur Boulevard. In reference to revised Condition No. 41, Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533, Exhibit "A' (Second Revision), regarding the noise I levels in the level area of the Park Site to 65 CNEL, Mr. Manning explained that the condition would require a wall with a height of 6 or 7 feet to provide the suggested sound attenuation in the park. The proposed park has been designed to provide views across MacArthur Boulevard to the northerly part of Big Canyon. He • recommended the construction of a 3 to 4 foot high berm at the edge of the park on the westerly and northerly ends so as to provide some attenuation but would still provide some visibility. In reference to aforementioned Condition No. 15, Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533, Exhibit "A" (Second Revision), Mr. Manning approved the condition. He indicated that there are existing storm drainage problems that the applicant would discuss with the Public Works Department at a future date. Commissioner Glover addressed aforementioned Condition No. 41 regarding the requested sound attenuation in the proposed park. Mr. Webb explained that 65 CNEL would provide a comfort zone for individuals in the area. The proposal for the berm would reduce the sound to some extent, and it would provide a vertical separation between the usable park before dropping off to MacArthur Boulevard. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the berm be considered inasmuch as it would not be the only park in the area. Commissioner Edwards stated that he would support a reasonable mitigation as suggested by the developer. In response to • comments posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Webb stated that -12- COMMISSIONERS c�cr�' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH nUF lt►t111� October 7, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX the City would maintain the park, Lot G, regardless of the maintenance program that is approved for Lot H. In response to comments by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Webb explained that Condition No. 41 was added to the Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533, Exhibit "A" (Second Revision), because the residents previously expressed a concern that the park site be mitigated for sound attenuation. Commissioner Glover stated that if the condition were based on the neighbors' concerns, it is possible that the City would be providing sound attenuation throughout the City's park system. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway regarding the foregoing Condition No. 42, Mr. Manning stated that he would support Option No. 2, to form an Assessment District if the City Council would find it acceptable. In response to comments posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Webb explained that the developer would landscape the property prior to the formation of the Assessment District, and the Assessment District would only provide maintenance. Mr. Manning stated that the balloons were put up on Friday, October 1, 1993, for the neighbors and the Planning Commission as requested at the September 23, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. He submitted photographs of the balloons. Mr. Tom Redwitz, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he addressed foregoing Condition No. 42. In reference to Option No. 2, be stated that the subject property is a part of the CIOSA Agreement which indicates that the property would be dedicated to the City for open space under the Agreement. The solution would be to form an Assessment District if the City determines it is a public benefit which the CIOSA Agreement contemplated there may be although the residential future lot owners would be paying for it, and the City • would accept dedication if there was that determination. If that -13- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 7, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX determination was not made, then the Homeowner's Association would maintain the property. He suggested that the Option remain open if later on, a potential loop trail system would extend from the Nature Park north of the development area through the proposed park. Mrs. Maybert Davis, 1801 Port Tiffin Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. She read and submitted a letter to the Planning Commission indicating that The Irvine Company is in violation of a verbal contract inasmuch as they informed the homeowners that no homes would be constructed on the property. Chairman Merrill stated that The Irvine Company had no direct contact with any buyer in Harbor View Homes. The Donald Bren Company leased the ground under a Development Lease which allowed them to develop houses. Mrs. Davis stated that the proposed project would destroy public views by constructing a cul- de -sac in order to build four two -story homes, and she addressed Section 20.01.070, the Required Standards for Site Plan Review. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mrs. Davis stated that she does not know the purpose of the public park, and that the park is not important to her. In response to comments by Mrs. Davis, and at the request of Chairman Merrill, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the Site Plan Review Required Standards as addressed by Mrs. Davis are accurate concerning public views. Mr. Webb stated that Newport Hills Drive West is not considered a scenic highway. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. John Dellagrotta, 1939 Port Bishop Place, President of Newport Hills Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. The Newport Hills Community Association is adjacent to the subject project and Harbor View Homes Homeowner's Association is adjacent to their Association. Commissioner Edwards, Commissioner Pomeroy, and Mr. • Dellagrotta discussed the view option of the park that was -14- O lO�.s, dlLdr�S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 7, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX previously addressed. Mr. Dellagrotta supported a berm and a view from the park as opposed to a six foot high wall. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Site Plan Review No. 66, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" (Second Revision), and to modify Condition No. 41 to state That the developer provide noise mitigation measures in the Park Site by constructing a 3 to 4 foot high berm at the top of the slope adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard Commissioner Pomeroy supported the motion inasmuch as it is a well- planned development that has been reduced substantially . from the original plan, and it is compatible with the existing development. He recognized the residents who live across from the proposed development because something .would be taken away from them and replaced with housing. However, it has not been the Planning Commission's position in the past to protect private views. Commissioner Ridgeway supported the motion inasmuch as the project has been well planned. He said that he viewed the aforementioned balloons from the adjoining residential properties. A 50 foot wide setback from the houses to the curb is a substantial compromise by the developer, and the landscape plan provides a different view. The project enhances the neighborhood, and it enhances over -all views for numerous people. The new streetscape would be vastly superior to what currently exists. Chairman Merrill stated that after he viewed Newport Hills Drive East and West, the two story structures that exist within the Newport Hills Community Association on Newport Hills Drive East and West have 20 foot wide setbacks as opposed to 50 foot wide setbacks. • -15- L COMMISSIONERS W\1011 CITY OF N EWPORT BEACH MINUTES October7, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion was voted on to approve Site Plan Review No. 66 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533 subject to the findings and Ayes * conditions in Exhibit W (Second Revision) as modified in Absent * * Condition No. 41. MOTION CARRIED. A Site Plan Review No. 66 Findings: 1. That development of the subject property in the Harbor View Hills Planned Community District will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan objectives and policies. 2. That the value of property is protected by preventing development characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. 3. That benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement, acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of the proposed residential development. 4. That unique site characteristics are protected in order to ensure that the community may benefit from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean, to preserve and stabilize the natural terrain, and to protect the environmental resources of the City. 5. That the proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards for the Harbor View Hills Planned Community District. -16- coAnussiotvERS t� lk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. 7. That the development has been designed to maximize protection of public views from MacArthur Boulevard by the creation of a new park which will enhance public views. 8. That issues regarding archeological or historical resources on -site has been adequately addressed by EIR No. 148. 9. That there are no environmentally sensitive areas on- site. 10. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 11. That the proposed project will meet City noise standards for residential development and has been adequately addressed by EIR No. 148. 12. The site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas and pedestrian and vehicular access are functional in that the project has been designed so as to limit vehicular access to the site from Newport Hills Drive West. 13. The development is consistent with surrounding land uses and with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 14. Mechanical equipment and trash areas will be concealed from. view. 15. That the project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan 16. That adequate off - street parking is being provided in conjunction with the proposed project. • -17- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES qW I I I I I I I October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 17. That the granting of the modification to the Harbor View Hills Planned Community District regulations for a sound wall to exceed the permitted height of 8 feet will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood, and further that such modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan, site plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That a minimum of two garage spaces per dwelling unit, shall be provided for the parking of vehicles at all times. 3. That the applicant shall prepare a landscape plan which identifies the size, type and location of all plant material and the design and location of a permanent irrigation system. Said landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. 4. That all applicable mitigation measures imposed by Environmental Impact Report No. 148 and conditions of approval of Traffic Study No. 82 and the Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533 shall be fulfilled. 5. That all trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. 6. That a siltation, dust and debris control plan shall be . submitted and subject to approval by the Building -18- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES VctoDer ! lyy3 ROLL CALL MEX Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. This shall be a complete plan for temporary and permanent facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 7. That the siltation, dust and debris control plan shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 8. That this site plan review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 J of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Tentative Map of Tract No. 14533 Findings: ue 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 5. That Final EIR No. 148, previously certified on August 24, 1992, was considered prior to approval of the project, was -19- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX determined adequate to serve as a Program EIR for this project, and satisfies all requirements of CEQA. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. 6. That the mitigation monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 will be met through required compliance with applicable codes, standards, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval adopted in connection with the project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project is contained in Final EIR No. 148. CONDITIONS: 1. That a final map shall be recorded. That the final map shall be prepared so that the Bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. The final map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83) and that prior to recordation of the final map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital- graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. 2. That prior to recordation of the final map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. • -20- COMMSSIONERS °0'�+4'lCfc.�d dr • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U October 7 1993 POLL CALL INDEX 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a tract map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. That a separate subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee completion of the MacArthur Boulevard improvements along the tract frontage. 5. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. . 6. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. That the design of the public streets and drives conform with the City's Design Criteria. The location, width, configuration, and drive systems shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 8. That the intersection of streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 9. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure -21- �N00\%t\1\%\\0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX locations, with widths to be approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 11. That the MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way be graded for the future MacArthur roadway along the tract frontage. That a small earthen berm be created at the existing MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way with a 2% minimum crossfall towards the existing MacArthur Boulevard roadway and the future Macarthur roadway. All work within MacArthur Boulevard shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 12. That curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, water, sewer, storm drain and pavement be constructed in conformance with City Standards within the tract boundary. All work within MacArthur Boulevard shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 13. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown of standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 14. That the owners of property within Tract No. 14533 shall be responsible for maintaining all slopes within Lot No. H unless and until Lot No. H has been dedicated to the City pursuant to Condition No. 42 and, in such event, the owners of property shall be responsible for payment of all maintenance expenses as determined by proceedings conducted pursuant to the 1972 Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District Act. 15. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the • applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, -22- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MW I I I I I I I October 19 ROLL CALL INDEX along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the tract map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. Modifications and extensions to the storm drain system shall be limited to the area southerly of the centerline of Port Wheeler Place, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 16. That a concrete vee ditch or other device be provided at toe of slope along the MacArthur Boulevard frontage to prevent significant amounts of drainage, dirt and debris from washing from the tract slopes. The vee ditch or other device shall be connected to the storm drain or street drainage as approved by the Public Works Department. 17. That grading in the future MacArthur Boulevard right -of- way meet CalTrans standard specifications. 18. That the applicant shall design and improve the subdivision such that interior noise levels of any residential unit will not exceed 45 CNEL in any habitable space, that noise levels in any outside living areas will not exceed_ 65 CNEI, and that noise generated by any mechanical equipment shall not generate sound in excess of 55 dba at any property line. Noise mitigation improvements shall be designed to account for the approved widening of MacArthur Boulevard and estimated noise levels based on projected Year 2010 traffic conditions. 19. That a bicycle and pedestrian trail connection be constructed between the park site and MacArthur Boulevard. The design shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 20. That the Water Capital Improvement fee shall be paid. • -23- COMMISSIONERS 1 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 21. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 22. That additional right -of -way be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposes along the MacArthur Boulevard frontage in order to provide a minimum right -of- way width of 136 feet. This right -of -way shall be dedicated in fee unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 23. That the applicant shall receive the written approval of the Grading Engineer, Public Works Director and General Services Director prior to installing any landscaping or irrigation within the subdivision except within numbered Lots. 24. That the prospective owners of numbered Lots be given written notice within the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions or other document recorded on each numbered Lot: 1. That MacArthur Boulevard will be widened such that the east edge of the travel way is approximately 70 -80 feet from the westerly property lines of Lots No. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11. 2. That traffic volumes on MacArthur Boulevard can be expected to reach 60,000 to 65,000 vehicles per day by Year 2010 and that vehicle volumes of that nature may cause interior noise levels in second floor living areas to exceed 45 CNEL. -24- II COMMISSIONERS \h\Nk, N't, os o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. This subdivision has been designed to limit interior living area noise levels to a minimum of 45 db CNEL and exterior living area noise levels to a minimum of 65 db CNEL for both existing conditions and future conditions. The future conditions are based upon projected noise levels with the current widening design of MacArthur Boulevard and estimated traffic conditions for Year 2010. These projects in future noise levels utilize the current state -of -the -art in noise projection technology. Unanticipated changes in traffic conditions, vehicular noise emission levels, or other factors may result in future noise levels that are lower or greater than what is currently predicted. 4. MacArthur Boulevard is a State of California • Highway that is to be widened in the future. The current State regulations relating to mitigation of noise impact concerning highway improvement projects do not require mitigation of any resulting increase in noise of first floor interior living space noise at or below 45 CNEL and that interior living areas above the first floor of single family residences are not considered for mitigation of noise impacts. This subdivision has been designed at a minimum to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise criteria for both the first and second floors based upon the current widening design of MacArthur Boulevard and current future traffic projections. Neither the subdivider, builder, City of Newport Beach, nor any other governmental entity shall be obligated to provide additional improvements to further reduce the interior noise levels to below that which the project is currently designed for. 5. That interior noise levels are determined with all exterior openings closed and that the opening of • windows and doors may cause noise levels to -25- .�oQ� Clol�d�d�s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX increase above the 45 CNEL.. This subdivision is designed with a ventilation system that provides for fresh outside air even when the windows are closed. 6. Notice to prospective property owners shall be in writing and contained within Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded on each parcel pursuant to State law. The wording of this notice shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recording the tract map. 25. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 26. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 27. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 28. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 29. That a fire protection system acceptable to the Fire Department be installed by the developer and tested by the Fire Department prior to storage of any combustible materials or start of any structural framing. 30. Deleted. 10 -26- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October'. IYY3 ROLL CALL INDEX 31. That any rooftop or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 DBA at the property line. 32. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning Department. 33. Deleted. 34. That any cul -de -sac, building address, and street name shall comply with City Standards and shall be approved by the Fire Department and the Planning Department. • 35. On -site water mains and fire hydrants locations shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 36. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K -5 and K -6. 7. That the park site shall be dedicated to the public. 8. That all applicable mitigation measures imposed by Environmental Impact Report No. 148 and Conditions of Approval of Traffic Study No. 82 and Site Plan Review No. 66 shall be fulfilled. 9. That this tentative tract map shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. 0. That Lots No. G and H be revised on the Final Map as . follows: Lot No. H shall consist of the slope on the -27- II COMMISSIONERS `DPOt� �o"Po O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IU ff ► October t, 1993 ROLL CALL. INDEX southerly side of Lots No. 1 and 2, the westerly side of Lots No. 1,3,5,7,9 and 11 and the northerly side of Lots No. 11 and 12.; Lot No. G shall consist of the Park Site and the slope along the westerly and northerly boundary. 41. That the developer provide noise mitigation measures in the Park Site by constructing a 3 to 4 foot high berm at the top of the slope adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard. 42. That prior to the sale of the first lot, one of the following two options must take place: Option 1: Lot H is to be conveyed in common to the owners of the 12 lots in Tract No. 14533 and Lot H shall be maintained by the owner of the numbered lots in the Tract, or Option 2: That the City shall have accepted dedications of Lot H after the following has occurred. 1. The Parcel has been offered for dedication to the City of Newport Beach and the City determines that the acceptance of dedication serves a public purpose; 2. The majority of the owners of Lots within Tract No. 14533 petition the City for the formation of a Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District encompassing Lot No. H and the numbered Lots within Tract No. 14533 and a majority of the owners, by Lot Area, do not file written protests to the formation of the District, and the City forms the Assessment District. -28- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 43. That the wall bordering Lot No. H be constructed on the adjoining lots so that no portion of the wall or its foundation is in Lot No. H. 44. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, to ensure compliance with Conditions concerning noise attenuation, a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense, shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning, Building and Public Works Departments that: 1. All noise mitigation measures will mitigate interior and exterior noise levels to 45 CNEL and 65 CNEL (respectively), assuming MacArthur Boulevard widening and future traffic volumes at 65,000 vehicles per day; 2. Noise levels generated by any mechanical equipment in or adjacent to improvements will not generate sound in excess of 55 dBA at any property line. 3. Anticipated exterior noise levels in the flat area of the Park Site, assuming MacArthur Boulevard widening and future traffic volumes of 65;000 vehicles per day, will be mitigated to 65 CNEL or below. Prior to occupancy of any unit, the developer shall install or construct all noise mitigation measures found to be required by the acoustical engineer in order to comply with the conditions relating to noise attenuation. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. • -29- • MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .4 October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 1 Amendment No. 786 (Public Hearing) Item No Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, A786 amending Section 20.62.050 of the Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan so as to modify the right -of -way dedication requirements on Denied the northerly side of West Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and the southerly extension of Irvine Avenue; and change the method of determining allowable building floor area for parcels on the northerly side of West Coast Highway. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the supplemental staff report, and the Comparison of Alternatives Chart for the Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan Amendment that was distributed to the Planning Commission. The Chart indicates what is currently provided for by way of right -of -way dedication, building setback, and Floor Area Ratios; what was proposed under the resolution that was adopted by the City Council; and the staff alternatives. The Amendment only addresses the Mariner's Mile area of West Coast Highway between the Arches and Rocky Point, and it applies to new development on the inland side of West Coast Highway. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the Manners' Mile Specific Area Plan requires a 12 foot setback for the future widening of West Coast Highway. The Highway is on the Master Plan indicating that it would eventually be widened to six lanes. Section 13.05 of the Municipal Code requires that when a development occurs on a property adjacent to an arterial highway that has been designated on the Master Plan to be widened in the future, the improvements have not been constructed, and the right - of -way has not been dedicated, that the new development would be required to dedicate the right -of -way and in some instances to provide the improvements. Four properties in the Manner's Mile area for about a total of 630 front footage, or approximately 20 percent of the area, have redeveloped and the City has required at least a 12 foot dedication. Mr. Webb addressed the staff report, -30- .4 dh 14 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX and the deletion and addition to Section 20.62.030(B)(5) Floor Area Limit and Building Bulk Limit. The added section states that For purposes of this Chapter, the required setback specified in Section 20.62.050(C) shall be included in the calculation of buildable area for purposes of determining gross floor area and building bulk limits The amendment would take affect when a property owner would redevelop the property. The property owner would be able to redevelop, utilize, and buildout 100 percent of the buildable area. It was his interpretation that if the City would acquire the property under the requirement that when the City would acquire the property and purchase it, the buildable area on the site would be reduced by the land area acquired. The Amendment takes into consideration and gives property owners credit for buildable area only when the property is redeveloped. Section 20.62.050 Retail and Service Commercial -RSC District (Inland side of Coast Highway) has been amended to add (E) Dedication, stating that No dedication of right -of -way along the north side of Coast Highway shall be required pursuant to Chapter 13.05 of the Municipal Code. At such time as development occurs and set backs are provided, the property owner would not be required to dedicate. Mr. Webb indicated that it was staffs opinion that Section 20.62.030(B)(5) could be modified. Therefore, the City retained an appraiser to look at a modification that would give the City the benefit of a reduced price for the strip of land that the City would be acquiring. The appraiser suggested that the buildable area not be reduced when the City acquired the 12 foot strip for Coast Highway widening, and that all owners along the north side of Coast Highway in the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan be given the same benefit. If this was the case, the appraiser opined that the strip of land that the City acquired would reduce in value to somewhere between zero and twenty-five percent of the fair market value of the larger parcel. There are many variables that could affect the zero to twenty -five percent reduction, and the lot size is the most significant of the variables. If there would be a . small lot and 12 feet was a substantial portion of the lot, then the -31- COMMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX zero to twenty -five percent would not be effective and it could be 100 percent of the fair market value; however, it would not affect the value of a large parcel. Staff recommended a change in the wording of Mitigation Measure No. 1, Section 20.62.030(b)(5) to the area dedicated or acquired shall be included in the calculation of buildable area for purposes of determining gross floor area and building bulk limits. If no dedication would occur, and the highway would not be widened, then the parcel would be the same size and the value would remain. Assuming the City would acquire the right -of -way either by dedication or for acquisition then the wording would allow the full buildable area to occur on the site taking into consideration the loss of acquisition or dedication area; however, no square footage would be lost because the right -of -way has been dedicated or acquired. The City would be given the benefit of reduced property value in the long term. In the past 10-15 years in the Mariner's Mile area there has been a 20 to 30 percent redevelopment, and in the next 8 to 10 years there probably will not be more redevelopment than has previously occurred. It is important to give all of the property owners the credit for the additional area so as to allow the City to take advantage the reduced land value when the properties are purchased. The wording would also assist the property owners who have previously dedicated, and it is the intent of the City to give the extra building credit to these property owners. In reference to Mitigation Measure No. 2, Section 20.62.050(E) Dedication, Mr. Webb stated that the City Council recommended that no dedication be required. The mitigation measure addresses the need to dedicate when there is a relationship between traffic generated by a development and the need to widen Coast Highway. The mitigation measure states that No dedication of right- of -way along the north side of Coast Highway shall be required...unless there is a reasonable relationship between the traffic generated by the project for which approval is sought and the need to widen Coast Highway to Master Plan standards. If there is a large project that is going to generate significant trips, the staff believes -32- COMMISSIONERS M ��°db o� t •p'Po��o MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX that the development should take on more responsibility than a small lot that has very little development and is producing very few trips. Staff recommends that a determination be made as to whether or not a lot generates enough traffic to cause the need for widening, and a suggestion would be to use the same threshold that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance uses. Currently that threshold is 10,000 square feet of building area and 130 trips. The staff has reviewed the mitigation measures that have been required since the Traffic Phasing Ordinance has been instituted, and no mitigation measures have been required for developments that have produced 300 trips per day or have been less than 25,000 square feet. In the Mariner's Mile area there is only one parcel that would have more than 25,000 square feet of building space available and that is the Ardel parcel. Mitigation Measure No. 2 answers the question of requiring the dedication of parcels that are redeveloping with substantially new trips and are requiring a definite need for the widening of the Highway. Mr. Webb distributed a table to the Planning Commission explaining why Mitigation Measure No. 1 would reduce the right - of -way cost to the City. He concluded that the mitigated recommendation that staff made concerning the credit for dedication under. Mitigation Measure No. 1 saves the City money. Mitigation Measure No. 2 would not save the City as much money. Commissioner Gifford referred to the aforementioned modified Section 20.62.030(B)(5), Floor Area Limit and Building Bulk Limit, and she stated that the proposed deletion allows the Planning Commission by variance to allow the development to exceed the .5 times the total square footage of up to a maximum of 0.75 times the total square footage. Mr. Webb responded that the foregoing would continue to be allowed. Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager, explained that the original language omits the reference to 0.75 times the total square footage which is permitted for low traffic generating land use pursuant to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. A cross - reference exists in the General Plan and even though it is not referred to in the revised . language the cross- reference incorporates the concept of the -33- COPAMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES MW I I I I I I October / 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX flexible FAR limits. When the City Attorney drafted the language the reference to 0.75 times the total square footage was redundant to the reference in Section 20.82.020(D). In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Ms. Temple explained that the S and 0.75 times the square footage are included in the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan but are inherently a part of the floor limits established in the 1988 General Plan Update from the flexible FAR ordinances subsequently adopted to implement the General Plan provisions. The .75 FAR is permitted subject to the approval of a Variance but only in very specific cases, and the cases relate to the traffic generated characteristics of that land use. In no case under the existing provisions could the Planning Commission grant a variance pursuant to those provisions beyond the .75 FAR. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. . Temple explained that to allow more than 0.75 FAR, it would be necessary to apply the more stringent variance criteria of hardship. Mariner's Mlle is within the flexible FAR area and based on the ultimate lot configuration the developer could achieve a 0.75 FAR for certain types of land uses. Ms. Temple further explained that the standard for approval of a variance is that there is a peculiarity related to the site itself that is different than the other lots in the area. The requirement for a 12 foot dedication would not be considered a peculiarity. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that a variance could be considered on an individual basis inasmuch as there may be a property that is extremely small and a 12 foot dedication may have a different affect than most of the other properties; however, that may not be a generalized statement that would apply to all of the properties. Ms. Temple stated that it is not feasible to use the fact that there is a dedication requirement to create the unique circumstance to approve a variance. John Douglas, Principal Planner, addressed the environmental process of the CEQA requirements. He explained that staff considered the proposed language the City Council adopted for initiation and conducted an Initial Study, and based on the -34- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX concerns that were expressed, the two aforementioned Mitigation Measures were proposed. On the basis of the mitigation measures staff prepared a proposed Negative Declaration, i.e. a draft document that was circulated for public review and comment. The draft Negative Declaration concluded that with those mitigation measures there would not be a significant environmental affect if the Amendment was adopted with the revisions that are in the mitigation measures. The proposed Negative Declaration was circulated for 30 days for public comment. Mr. Douglas addressed the letters that were received and distributed to the Planning Commission concerning the Amendment. If the Planning Commission does not agree that the mitigation measures would eliminate significant affects of the project then it is the Planning Commission's discretion to advise the staff to revise the document or to require an EIR if the Commission believed that the project may have significant environmental affect. The criteria and . standards are addressed in the original staff report. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Dr. Jan VanderSloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. He referred to his letter addressed to the Planning Department dated October 3, 1993, expressing his concerns. Dr. VanderSloot stated that his major concern would be the diversion of traffic off of West Coast Highway into the Newport Heights area, and also into the eastside of Costa Mesa. He addressed the cost to the City if West Coast Highway would be widened, and the Cost Analysis that is attached to his letter dated January, 1986. Dr. VanderSloot requested the cost be addressed in the Negative Declaration or an EIR. Mr. Ron Roman, 3110 Clay Street, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Heights Traffic Reduction Association. He stated that the Association is opposed to any activity that would increase traffic in their residential area. He expressed the Association's support of the original regulations regarding the dedication inasmuch as the existing regulations would make it easier for the State to acquire the property to allow the widening of West Coast Highway. Commissioner Pomeroy -35- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX explained that the Amendment would provide the City with the ability of acquiring the property at a lower cost as opposed to when the property would be dedicated. Commissioner Pomeroy, Chairman Merrill, and Commissioner Gifford discussed with Mr. Roman, the increase in traffic that has occurred in the City, and his recommendations to relieve the traffic in the Newport Heights area. Mr. Jim Kociuba, 2215 - 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission He emphasized his opposition to the Amendment, and his concerns regarding the increase in traffic in Newport Heights. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Kociuba explained that the proposal would have a negative affect on the traffic in Newport Heights because the majority of the automobiles that travel on 16th Street are avoiding the traffic on West Coast Highway, and he supports the widening of the Highway. Commissioner Gifford clarified Mr. Kociuba's concerns that by providing additional FAR the cost of acquiring the 12 foot strip would be greater than the existing regulations. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Kociuba replied that the cost of the acquisition would be used to stop the widening of the Highway. Mr. Steven Sutherland, a resident of Newport Heights, appeared before the Planning Commission as Co-Chairman of the Mariner's Mile Association. Mr. Sutherland stated that there is nothing in the proposal that is going to return land to any property owner in Mariner's Mile that has currently dedicated. Mr. Webb concurred that no land would be returned as a result of the subject proposal. Mr. Sutherland stated that in addition to West Coast Highway being on the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways that 17th Street is also on the Master Plan to be widened to six lanes whereby he stated that 16th Street is also used as a bypass to avoid 17th Street. Tle traffic on West Coast Highway has decreased compared to five years ago. Mr. Webb concurred that the traffic has decreased. Mr. Sutherland stated the Association represents business people and property owners in Mariner's Mile who have . worked with staff during the past two years regarding the proposal. -36- COMMISSIONERS .00h ��o f�c�o�ds • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INTUX® October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX He requested that Mitigation Measure No. 1 be approved as written. The Association opposes Mitigation Measure No. 2; and approves of the addition of Section 20.62.050 E. Dedication, Retail and Service Commercial - RSC District as recommended by the City Council. The dedication has impeded the revitalization of the area, and to remove the dedication would be the first step in improving the area. The Association supports the original Amendment that was presented to the City Council concerning the dedication issue. Mr. Leonard Horwin, property owner of Lots 1 through 17 in Tract 1210, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his support of the proposed Amendment and the Association's recommendations. He stated that there is very little likelihood that the State is at any time in the reasonable future going to spend the money that would be required of another 10 percent being added to the width of the Highway. During the period between 1971 and the present, the northerly side of Mariner's Mile has been in a depressed condition. It does not add to the stature of the City, and the proposal would promote quality development within the limitations imposed by the Amendment. Mr. Rick Pearlman, 437 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa, a member of the East Side Homeowners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. He read the Associations letter to the Planning Department dated October 6, 1993, signed by Robert D. Hoffman, President. The letter addresses the residents concerns regarding the traffic increase on residential streets to avoid the traffic on West Coast Highway, their support to widen the Highway, and to protest the Negative Declaration on the grounds that any action that delays widening of West Coast Highway would impact residential streets in the East Side of Costa Mesa. Mr. Ernie Liske, 503 - 32nd Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that there is nothing in the proposal that would hinder, deter, or help the development or the buildout of West Coast Highway inasmuch as the decision to widen West • Coast Highway will be made by CalTrans. The proposal would -37- s II COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX give the property owners fair treatment and would put all of the property owners on equal footing. Mr. Dickson Schaffer, 232 Evening Canyon Road, and property owner at 2510 and 2530 West Coast Highway, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his support of Mitigation Measure No. 1 and to oppose Mitigation Measure No. 2, and to approve the aforementioned 'B" Dedication of Section 20.62.050. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Webb explained that West Coast Highway widening is not in the STIP (the State Transportation Improvement Program). For CalTrans funding of a project it is necessary to place a project in the annual STIP program. Funding for projects such as West Coast Highway widening have to be programmed through the Orange County Transportation Authority, the City has to compete for funds with the other cities and the County, and there are a number of different sources of funds available for widening projects such as West Coast Highway. The chances of receiving State Highway money are pretty slim because the Transportation Commission has 'ear - marked' all of the State road widening funds for primarily freeway construction. He said that the Highway is not in the City's five year program for widening. CalTrans could make a determination of when to widen the Highway if they believed that there was a compelling need to improve the project and the City supported the project. The City Council will make the determination and direct the staff when to begin putting together a program for widening Coast Highway. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Webb explained that in the evaluation process more points are given by OCTA to projects that are supported by multiple agencies. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the traffic on Pacific Coast Highway has improved every place within the City with the -38- F, MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX exception of Mariner's Mile. He said that it is inconceivable to not support improving traffic flow through the area. He suggested that if there would be a vocal representation for widening West Coast Highway that it would be an issue that the residents would support. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that it would be fair that the property owners be given a 'density bonus' on their buildable area that does not currently exist; however, it would not be fair for the City to purchase the 12 foot rigbt -of -way strip. He disagreed with the appraiser that by giving the property owners a 'density bonus' it would decrease the value of the 12 foot right -of -way whereby he suggested that two appraisers outside the City be contacted to review the project. He stated that it is not an issue of the subject proposal but that he would support the widening of the Highway. Aforementioned Mitigation Measure No. 2 would affect only one landowner and that would not be fair to the City. Commissioner Gifford stated that this decision turns on a trade of an additional density for the prospect of reduced cost in acquiring the right -of -way. She stated that she would not be .prepared to tate that it would be a benefit to the City that there is as much certainty of the price being lowered as there is to the side of the equation that the price would be greater. The equation needs to be brought into balance with certainty on the price reduction side d that certainty is missing. She said that she does not have sufficient certainty on the City benefit side of the equation to support the proposal. Commissioner Glover stated that the City has never had a Redevelopment Agency; however, it is feasible that other cities would consider the Mariner's Mile area as redevelopment area. She commented that the Commission considers upgrading areas hroughout the City by instituting policies. One primary concern A the property owners in the Mariner's Mile area is the 12 foot edication, and there are several categories of how the different roperties have been treated. The business community has ttempted to implement policies that would have a sense of -39- Fr L V V CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October /, 1903 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion fairness. Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 786 (Resolution No. 1337), Mitigation Measure No. 1; Section 20.62.030(b)(5); and Section 20.62.050(E) Dedication, in accordance with the City Council's recommendation. substitut Substitute motion was made to continue Amendment No. 786. Motion Commissioner Pomeroy stated that if it is the City Council's intent to reduce the cost of the land to zero by giving the'density bonus'. that it would not make sense to eliminate the dedication. The City is trying to facilitate the revitalization of the area and to increase the use of the land by the 'density bonus' which he would support. He recommended that additional appraisal information be provided. Chairman Merrill and Mr. Webb discussed the request to contact additional appraisers to address the Commission's concerns, and the feasibility of distributing a questionnaire to the property owners in Mariner's Mile. Commissioner Gifford stated if it is the intent of the property owners that the value of the land would be reduced to zero, she asked if it would be possible in return for the increased Floor Area Ratio to require a dedication. Ms. Flory replied that the City requires the dedication and an option would be to only allow the FAR with the required dedication. One concern is that at some point in time it is likely that the Highway will be widened before development occurs and the City will end up paying for the property as if the current situation remains. It means that there would not be the option of dedication, and the City would be paying for the 12 foot right -of -way strip without the added development rights. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the City is attempting to speed up development so that by this measure the City would not have to pay as much for the land, could acquire it, and go forward. • -40- 1 COMMISSIONERS r �,y�p�l�.p'Pp `Ppsq`1'p CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Glover stated that the appraiser would not have all of the information required until each piece of property is developed. Sub Commissioner Pomeroy withdrew his substitute motion to continue Motion Amendment No. 786. Withdrawn * - Substitute motion was made to continue Amendment No. 786 for Substitut six weeks, and to request two individual appraisers to evaluate the Motion * concept. Commissioner Ridgeway explained that a'density bonus' and the acquisition by the City is not appropriate. He opposed the concept that the 'density bonus' reduces the price of the 12 foot right -of -way strip. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Ridgeway and Mr. Webb regarding contacting additional appraisers. Ms. Flory commented that the position from the appraiser would be the position that the City would take when the City would be acquiring the right -of -way. Ms. Flory and Commissioner Gifford discussed Ms. Flory's foregoing comments. Commissioner Edwards stated that regardless of the appraiser the method that is being proposed is not going to change. He commented that he is not inclined to support the method and there may be better ways to ultimately get what the property owners are requesting. The method is not to the benefit of the City and ultimately he was uncertain if it would be to the benefit of the landowners. Commissioner Pomeroy reflected that the Commission could have asked the Mariner's Mile businessmen what their opinion was of the value of their property. He considered letters from property owners on Mariner's Mile who have not dedicated stating that they have estimated the value of their 12 foot property would be near zero. He said that he would not want the benefit and a high price for acquiring the land to occur if there was the slightest chance of that happening. Ayes Noes * Substitute motion was voted on to continue Amendment No. 786. ent * MOTION NOT CARRIED. . -41- S1 S1 Mc A, Nt AI 1 COMMISSIONERS . I y�ONi%�'Po'Q1�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ed October 7 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX ibstitute Substitute Substitute motion was made and voted on to deny ibstitute Amendment No. 786. MOTION CARRIED. )tion (es * * * * * ssa Des Dsent . * General Plan Amendment 93 -3 Discuss Items Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan as follows: No. I A. Amling's Nursery Property: Request of Russell E. Fluter GPA 93- to amend the General Plan Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to increase the Initiat allowed development allocation on the Amling's Nursery site from 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. AND B. PacTel Site: Request of Ronald E. Soderling for Resco to amend the General Plan Land Element to change the land use designation from a mh-ture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to General Industry; and to increase allowed development allocation from 20,000 square feet to 106,000 square feet to allow the construction of a mini- storage facility and a self car wash, with associated office and a caretaker residence. AND C. Condominium Conversion Policies: A request to amend the Land Use and Housing Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to revise policy language contained in those documents pertaining to limitation to condominium conversions in order to allow changes to condominium conversion regulations contained in the Newport Beach . Municipal Code. -42- ed COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ryes * * * Motion was made and voted on to recommend that the City _ 93 -3A c * Council initiate General Plan Amendment 93 -3 (A), Amling's bsent * Nursery Property. MOTION CARRIED. Amlings In response to comments by the Commission regarding the PacTel yes * * * * * * Site, Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager, explained that the 93 -3B bsent site is under 2 -1/2 acres and the proposed FAR is .87. PacTel Commissioner Gifford stated that if the General Plan is initiated by the City Council that she would request that staff indicate in the future staff report how common it is to have General Industrial development in a similar residential area. Motion was made and voted on to recommend that the City Council initiate General Plan Amendment 93 -3 (B), PacTel Site. MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * Motion was made and voted on to recommend that the City Lbsent * Council initiate General Plan Amendment 93 -3 (C), Condominium 93 -3C Conversion Policies. MOTION CARRIED. Condo * e s Conversi< Temporary Structures and Uses D -2 Request from Hovik Abramian, Corona del Mar, to install coffee Temporar, carts at the following locations: uses Approved a. Albertson's Market - 3049 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, located on property within the RSC (Retail and Service Commercial) District • -43- vctooer i lyys ROLL CALL I INDEX INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach COMMISSIONERS o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ! I I I I I October "/, 1993 ROLL CALL MEX AND b. Beacon Bay Car Wash - 4200 Birch Street, located on property within the M -1 -A (light Manufacturing) District. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that if the subject proposals are approved, staff would be submitting an Amendment to the Zoning Code within a few months indicating that the Temporary Use procedure would be granted by the Planning Department staff and the request would not automatically come to the Planning Commission. The policy would be a procedure to accelerate the permit process. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hewicker replied that temporary uses would only be applicable on private property. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Glover and Mr. Hewicker regarding the number of carts that would be allowed in the City. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker explained that the current policy requires the Planning Director to take action on the request and the Director is required to report the request to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker indicated that a condition of approval states that the Planning Commission or the City Council could call up the application for review. otion Motion was made and voted on to approve Temporary Use, a yes * request of Hovik Abramian to install coffee carts at Albertson's bsent * Market and Beacon Bay Car Wash. MOTION CARRIED. s s s ADJOURNMENT: 10:55 p.m. Adjourn ANNE K GIFFORD, SECRETARY . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -44-