Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/1992COBOUSSIONERS i 01- M, 0\\0% CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: ,._._t__ MINUTES — Ucwver o, ryvc ROLL CALL WDEX Present * * *- Chairman Edwards and Commissioner DiSano were absent. Absent * * s s r 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 Robert Kavert, Planner Don Webb, City Engineer . Dee Edwards, Secretary Y t ! Minutes of September 24 1992 Minutes Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the September 24, of 9/24/92 Ayes * * * * 1992, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain Absent Public Comments: Public Comment No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. s s x Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, October 2, 1992, in . front of City Hall. V N�MV\OA • CITY OF NE WPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX Traffic Study No. 84 (Public Hearing) stem No.1 Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow an existing 12,950 TS No. 84 square foot building used for general offices to be converted to medical office use. Approved LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 84 -706 (Resubdivision No. 776), located at 1601 Avocado Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Avocado Avenue, between San Joaquin Hills Road and San Nicholas Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: C -O -H APPLICANT: The Carlson Company, Irvine OWNER: Pacific Mutual, Newport Beach Traffic Study No. 85 (Public Hearing) item No.2 Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow an existing 12,950 TS No.85 Approved square foot building used for general offices to be converted to medical office use. LOCATION: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 84 -706 (Resubdivision No. 776), located at 1605 Avocado Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Avocado Avenue, between San Joaquin Hills Road and San Nicholas Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: C -O -H APPLICANT: Newport Diagnostic, Newport Beach -2- • ����� '0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Vctober 25, IYYL ROLL CALL INDEX OWNER: Kanaflex Corporation, Compton Commissioner Merrill requested that the public bearing concerning Items No. 1 and No. 2 be heard simultaneously inasmuch as the locations are adjacent properties and the applications are similar requests. The Planning Commission concurred with the recommendation. James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that the following changes be made to Item No. 1, Traffic Study No. 84, 1601 Avocado Avenue, page 3 of the staff report, paragraph 1: correct the paragraph to indicate that there are currently 53 parking spaces in the parking lot as opposed to 43 parking spaces; that the subject site has a parking agreement with the parcel located adjacent to its northerly boundary located at 1605 Avocado Avenue. The agreement reserves four parking spaces from 1601 Avocado . Avenue for use of the tenants at 1605 Avocado Avenue at all times. Therefore, the total number of parking available for the proposed project is 49 parking spaces and the project meets the City's parking requirements. Mr. Hewicker explained that when the buildings at 1601 Avocado Avenue and 1605 Avocado Avenue were constructed, there was a parking agreement entered into which provided for four additional parking spaces at 1601 Avocado Avenue that had surplus parking to the benefit of the parcel located at 1605 Avocado Avenue that had deficient parking. He said that the parking agreement is being recognized in the request to convert the tenancy of the buildings from typical office use to medical office use. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hewicker explained that the 1 percent volume test conducted at the six study intersections addressed the two subject locations. The public hearing was opened in connection with the Traffic Studies. -3- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Paul Coulter appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, The Carlson Company, Item No. 1, Traffic Study No. 84, property located at 1601 Avocado Avenue. Mr. Coulter concurred with the findings in Exhibit "A". notion Motion was made and voted on to approve Traffic Study No. 84 Ayes * * subject to the findings in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. Absent FINDINGS: A. CEQA COMPLIANCE That the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from, the provisions of CEQA (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) B. TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE STUDY NO. 84 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy S -1. 2. That the traffic study indicates that the traffic projected one year after project completion, during any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection, will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour period. Mr. Gregg Kinney appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, Peregrine Management Corporation, Item -4- coh"IISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX No. 2, Traffic Study No. 85, property located at 1605 Avocado Avenue. Mr. Kinney concurred with the findings 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 Traffic Study No. 85 Ayes * * * subject to the findings in Exhibit "A". Commissioner Debay Absent explained that inasmuch as the buildings are currently vacant that the proposed use will assist the economic base around Newport Center. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: A. CEQA COMPLIANCE . That the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) B. TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE STUDY NO. 85 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy S -1. 2. That the traffic study indicates that the traffic projected one year after project completion, during any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection, will be increased less than 1010 by traffic generated from the project during any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour period. -5- COM MSSIONERS Zpd'�YOn UN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 'qW I I I I I October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX s • x Variance No. 1183 (Public Hearing) item No.3 Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling v No, ila which exceeds the maximum allowable height in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District on property located in the R -1 District. Approved The height of the proposed dwelling will not exceed the height of the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed dwelling to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Ocean Boulevard. LOCATION: Lot 15, Tract No. 1257, located at 3619 Ocean Boulevard, on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard between Orchid Avenue and Poinsettia Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Alfred G. Martini, Newport Beach OWNER: William H. Parker, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to a letter that was received from Thomas D. Peckenpaugh, dated October 5, 1992, addressed to the Planning Commission. The letter addresses concerns that the proposed structure may encroach into the public right -of -way and a portion of the building may protrude above the sidewalk on Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Hewicker explained that the structure encroaches only to the front property line on Ocean Boulevard and not into the public right -of -way. He further explained that there is no portion of the proposed dwelling, including chimneys, that extends above the top of the sidewalk on Ocean Boulevard. The proposed building height below top of curb on Ocean Boulevard is approximately 12 feet 6 inches. Mr. Hewicker stated that the Uniform Building Code requires the top of the chimney to be a distance of two feet above the roof and a -6- COMMISSIONERS V Rob, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES NW October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX horizontal distance of ten feet from the closest roofs surface, and an additional foot is allowed for an ornamental chimney cap. In response to comments expressed by Commissioner Merrill with respect to Mr. Peckenpaugh's letter concerns regarding landscaping, the Commission and Mr. Hewicker discussed the feasibility of adding a condition that would require any landscaping planted on Ocean Boulevard be restricted to a specific height. Mr. Hewicker explained that the proposed structure will be built to the front property line adjacent to Ocean Boulevard, and there is no private property between the front of the house and the right -of- way on Ocean Boulevard. Any landscaping that could be planted that would block a view would be planted on public property. Acting Chairman Glover pointed out that the Commission does not preserve views of private citizens. . The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Alfred Martini, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Martini responded to the comments regarding the landscaping, and he indicated that he would agree to a condition that would state that the landscaping be consistent with the existing slope that has been planted and is consistent with the coastal shrub. He 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 to approve Variance No. 1183 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Following a discussion with Don Webb, City Engineer, Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that Condition No. 16 be added to Exhibit "A" stating that any on -site * * * * * landscaping shall be maintained so as not to exceed a one foot Ayes Absent * * elevation above top of curb on the upper portion of Ocean Boulevard. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the previously certified . environmental document, making the following findings: -7- COAUMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 'ROW October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX 1. The Planning Commission has previously approved an environmental document in conjunction with its consideration of the subject project. That all significant environmental concerns have been addressed in the previous certified environmental document and there are no additional reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with the proposed project. 2. That the contents of the previous environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That based on the information contained in the environmental document, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant . environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. Mitigation Measures: 1. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 3. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 4. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. -8- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL IlVDEX 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 6. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. B. Variance No, 1183: Approve the subject variance with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property maintains a very steep slope which is significantly different than the other lots on the upland side of Ocean Boulevard. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is of comparable or lesser height to other buildings on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, 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 -9- I e M'po"�4on- • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Uctober if, 19YZ ROLL CALL INDEX circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 4. That the modification to allow the proposed building encroachments within the ten foot front yard setback, will not under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that said modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 6. That public improvements may be required of the developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved roof plan, site plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That the applicant shall provide verification during the course of construction that the proposed development fully complies with the approved plans. Required verification shall be prepared and certified by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to final inspections of rough framing. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. -10- COMMISSIONERS Vt9 � e \N *\\001 I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES NEW October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That no grading of the slope within the Ocean Boulevard right -of -way shall take place which will reduce the usable area at the top of slope adjacent to Ocean Boulevard, and that the existing public walkway presently located along the Ocean Boulevard frontage shall stay in its present location. 6. That an encroachment agreement be executed and approved by the City Council to provide for the construction and maintenance of retaining walls and other improvements to be constructed within the Ocean . Boulevard right -of -way. 7. That a barrier or railing be constructed at the top of any retaining walls higher than thirty (30) inches. 8. That the existing sewer located along the northerly property line be relocated to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. A sewer plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and shown on the City's standard plan and profile sheets. An easement for sewer facilities shall also be provided for the new sewer main if deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. 9. That the proposed roadway slope be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to determine the impact of constructing a retaining structure with recommendations as to the maximum allowable slope and the general stability of the area. 10. That the driveway area be designed to allow an on -site turn around with the design to be approved by the Public Works Department. -11- V-14VIMIEPd��o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 'Raw October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX 11. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 12. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 13. 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. 14. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 15. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. 16. That any on -site landscaping shall be maintained so as not to exceed a one foot elevation above top of curb on the upper portion of Ocean Boulevard. -12- • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 71111 NWOR-1 October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3460 (Public Hearing) stem No. Request to permit the establishment of a coin operated laundry, UP3460 on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial' area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan, Approved LOCATION: Lots 12, 13 and 14, Subdivision of Block 227, Section A, Newport Beach, located at 2815 Newport Boulevard, on the Newport Boulevard commercial island, between 28th Street and 30th Street, in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 . APPLICANT: PWS, Inc., Monterey Park OWNER: Newcomb Development, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, responded to questions posed by Commissioner Debay regarding required parking, whereby he indicated that the proposed establishment would provide more parking than is required by the Zoning Code. He further stated that the amount of water that would be required to maintain the proposed landscaping is minimal. The public hearing was opened in connection with this matter, and Mr. Julius Deocampo, Stark and Stark Enterprises, general contractor to construct the laundromat for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Deocampo concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Mrs. Martha Durkee, 8877 Waterdell Court, Huntington Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission, and she indicated that she has owned six and has operated four laundromat establishments, including facilities on the Balboa Peninsula. Mrs. . Durkee addressed her concerns regarding the traffic on Newport -13- ON' 10 \19\0 \�\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES NOW October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL UMEX Boulevard during the summer months, and the impact the proposed use would have in the area. Mr. Hewicker stated that based on the adjacent residential areas of the laundromat, it is feasible that the customers using the facility would be walking to the laundry. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Glover, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the City Traffic Engineer does not have a traffic generation rate for laundromats. Mr. Webb speculated that most of the laundromat's patrons would probably use the facility during off -peak traffic hours when the parking demand is not as great as it is during the heavy traffic hours. He further stated that the recent road improvements on Newport Boulevard improved the traffic problems significantly.. Mr. Hewicker stated that the proposed site is located on a through lot, and there is one -way Newport Boulevard traffic on each side . of the property. Mrs. Durkee and Commissioner Gifford discussed the traffic flow at the site of Mrs. Durkee's laundromat located on the northwesterly comer of West Balboa Boulevard and Island Avenue on the Balboa Peninsula, and the available parking spaces at the proposed location. Mr. Don Insley, 623 St. James Place, owner of two laundromats in the City, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he requested a Traffic Study. Mr. Insley expressed his concerns that the proposed laundromat would increase traffic in the area, and the facility could attract an undesirable group of people. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Insley replied that his laundromats are located at 504 West Balboa Boulevard, Mr. and Mrs. Durkee are the landlords, and a facility at 210 - 62nd Street. Mr. Insley explained that there are three laundromats located in the Balboa Peninsula area. He said that according to the business projections of the applicant, the proposed establishment would do twice the business of other . laundromats in the area. -14- i M41 4\011) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Insley explained that the applicant provided a projected financial statement indicating that the proposed income would be $15,000.00 a month whereby Mr. Insley explained that the monthly income of the majority of the laundromats in the area is approximately $7,000.00 - $8,000.00. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that staff could not determine Findings for Denial on the basis that the use as contemplated would not be contrary to the general welfare of the community, and facts would be required to support Findings for Denial. Mr. Bob Remer, C -B Commercial Brokerage, appeared before the Planning Commission and he stated that the proposed laundry site . is ideal for traffic circulation, parking, and pedestrian traffic. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford regarding the egress /ingress, Mr. Hewicker stated that driveways are located on both sides of the property. Mr. Robert Durkee appeared before the Planning Commission. He explained that the applicant is a large corporation, and the patrons that would be using their laundromat would not use the smaller establishments inasmuch as the applicant would be providing more incentives to use their facility. Mr. Durkee stated that the applicant is the largest laundromat broker in the United States, and he questioned who would own and operate the facility in the future. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Ms. Flory stated that the Commission cannot deny a project due to a restraint of trade. The Planning Commission must consider if a request is proper planning, and if the use would be in compliance with the general welfare of the area. Ms. Flory stated that who would own and operate the facility should not necessarily be a concern of the Commission inasmuch as a use permit runs with the -15- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ,-New October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX land. The requirement is that whoever operates the use must comply with the conditions of the use permit. . Mr. Remer reappeared before the Planning Commission, and he explained that the applicant intends to retain ownership of the establishment. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Ayes Motion was made and voted on to reopen the public hearing. Absent * * MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Steve Foley, 5505 Seashore Drive, property owner at 1007 East Balboa Boulevard, and owner of a laundromat at 4313 West Coast Highway appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Foley expressed his concern that the proposed laundromat would put another laundromat out of business; therefore, traffic would increase on Newport Boulevard. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3460 subject to the Ayes * * findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Absent Commissioner Pomeroy supported the motion. He expressed compassion for small businesses and the existing economy; however, he explained that the Commission makes decisions on planning issues and if the requirements are in compliance with the Zoning Code. Commissioner Merrill suggested that Condition No. 10, Exhibit "A ", include at least 583 square feet of landscape planter areas shall be provided on -site. Acting Chairman Glover supported the motion. She expressed empathy for small businesses and the poor economy; however, she . said that the Commission makes decisions on land use. -16- i N\04006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October s, voq z ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Debay addressed her concerns regarding the poor economic conditions for small businesses; however, she said that there is no legal way to deny the application. Commissioner Debay addressed the shortage of parking in the area wherein she suggested additional parking instead of the proposed landscaping. Commissioner Gifford stated that in view of the amount of cement and asphalt on the Peninsula, and the shortage of landscaping and foliage, that the residents would benefit from implementing the required amount of landscaping, particularly in view of the testimony of each laundromat operator that the in /out pattern of customers results in continuous availability of parking spaces. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3460 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended . Condition No. 10 as stated by the maker of the motion. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and with the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate on -site parking is provided for the proposed use. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3460 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of . persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be -17- COMMISSIONERS INOMON9\41-4 \0\1v CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES vctober 25, IYYL ROLL CALL IIVDEX detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public . improvements. 4. That the parking lot be striped to conform to City Standards prior to the occupancy of the building. 5. That the on -site parking and vehicular circulation system be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That the drive approaches be widened to a minimum width of 24 feet on the Newport Boulevard (northbound and southbound) frontages, and that the displaced and deteriorated sidewalk sections be reconstructed along the Newport Boulevard (northbound) frontage. One or more parking meters shall be removed to widen the drive approach along the Newport Boulevard (southbound) frontage, as deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall . be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment -18- COMbIISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 11MW I I I I I I I VCtODer K, 1vvL ROLL CALL INDEX and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 8. That the laundry facility shall only be open for business between the hours of 7:00 a.m, and 10:00 p.m. daily. 9. That employees shall park on site at all times. 10. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by the applicant, and shall be reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Planning Department. The landscape plan shall include trees, and shrubs or ground cover, and at least 583 square feet of landscape planter areas shall be provided on -site. . 11. The landscape planter areas shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining streets and properties. 13. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the establishment of the dry cleaning facility. 14. That a resubdivision to join the three subject lots into one parcel shall be approved by the Planning Commission and the parcel map be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 16. 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 -19- COMMISSIONERS 'INK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. s s s Use Permit No. 3461 (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to permit the installation of two 4 foot 6 inch high, 40± UP3461 Approved sq.ft. ground identification signs on property located in the O -S District. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 37 -23 (Resubdivision No. 297) located at 390 San Miguel Drive, on . the northerly corner of San Miguel Drive and Avocado Avenue, in Newport Center. ZONE: O -S APPLICANT: The Design Factor, Irvine OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. Gary Underwood appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant and he 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. 3461 Ayes * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION Absent * CARRIED. -20- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ,ROW October 8, 19992 [LOLL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed identification signs are consistent with the intent of the O -S District inasmuch as adequate landscaping is installed in the areas surrounding the signs. 2. That the proposed signs are in keeping with other project identification signs within Newport Center and Fashion Island. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3461 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That proposed signs shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and elevation, except as noted below. 2. That the signs shall identify only the Newport Center Medical Plaza. Identification of buildings or tenants occupying space within Newport Medical Plaza shall not be permitted. 3. That final location of the proposed signs shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer so as to insure compliance with the City's Sight Distance Standard 110 -L. -21- e M� *Wro& i \- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX 4. 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. A. Traffic Study No. 83 (Public Hearing) item No. Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the conversion TS83 of an existing 21,000t square foot manufacturing building to an automobile repair facility with a hand car wash service. UP3457 R983 AND Approved B. Use Permit No. 3457 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of an automobile repair facility with a hand car wash and detailing service, on property located in the M -1 -A District. Said proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit the use of tandem parking spaces for a portion of the proposed off - street parking spaces. AND C. Resubdivision No. 983 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide one lot and a portion of a second lot into a single parcel of land for an automotive repair facility in the M -1- A District LOCATION: A portion of Lot 54 and Lot 55, Tract No. 3201, located at 3767 Birch Street, on the northwesterly side of Birch Street, between Bristol Street North and Quail Street, across from the Newport Place Planned Community. i -22- COMMISSIONERS k\1N\M\ \00% \t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Superformance Costa Mesa Inc., Costa Mesa OWNER: M. J. Hogan Cabinet Company, Salt Lake City, Utah ENGINEER: Norris- Repke, Inc., Tustin Commissioner Pomeroy asked what are the costs for a Traffic Study and improvements to the sidewalk and driveway approaches? Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, replied that a Traffic Study generally costs between $3,000.00 to $10,000.00, and the subject Traffic Study costs approximately $7,000.00. The cost of a Traffic Study is primarily determined by the number of intersections the City Traffic Engineer believes may be impacted by a proposed project. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the improvements adjacent to the subject property would cost less than $10,000.00 and the property owner and applicant would determine who would be responsible to pay the cost of the improvements. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jeff Hirson, 2950 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hirson 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 Traffic Study No. 83, Ayes * Use Permit No. 3457, and Resubdivision No. 983 subject to the Assent * findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. -23- COMMISSIONERS 1 VON* W20 \\It CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX A. TRAFFIC STUDY: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary- modified,' or primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on all eleven of the eleven study intersections. B USE PERMIT NO. 3457 FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed application is support service in nature and an intensification of use of the existing structure within the limits specified by Chapter 20.07 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and as such, is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate parking exists on -site for the proposed development. 3. That the establishment of the subject business will not have any significant environmental impact. -24- 0 km$o WN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES NOW October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the proposed modification to the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking for a portion of the required on -site parking will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3457 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 983 shall be satisfied. 3. That all parking spaces shall be striped with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 4. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. -25- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL IIVDEX 5. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Birch Street and adjoining properties. 6. That all automobile repairs shall be conducted within the building and no outdoor display of vehicles for sale shall be permitted. 7. That grease interceptors shall be provided in all drains within the building where petroleum residues may enter the sewer system, unless otherwise permitted by the Building Department. 8. That no outdoor sound system shall be utilized on -site. 9. That all employees shall park on -site at all times. 10. That all signs shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of Newport Beach Sign Code. 11. That the car wash area shall be protected so as to prevent drainage from the parking lot from entering the sewer system. The drain shall be connected to the sewer system and have a grease trap. The design and installation of the above facilities shall be approved by the Utilities Department. 12. That the outdoor storage of tires and other auto related parts or merchandise shall be prohibited on -site. 13. That the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 14. That the approval of this application shall permit complete engine rebuilding (including electrical and transmission repair), as well as tune -ups, lubrication, smog testing and brake service and installation. No painting, body work or other operations of a similar nature shall be permitted on- -26- L MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IRMW I I I I I I I october 6, lYYL [LOLL CALL MEX site unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 15. That the Planning Commission may add 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. 16. 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. C. RESUBDIVISION NO, 983 FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. 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. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 5. That the flared drive apron on Birch Street will improve . ingress and egress to the subject property. -27- COMMISSIONERS V �'Ilk � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 'Raw October 8, 19YZ ROLL CALL INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. The parcel map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83) and that prior to recordation of the parcel 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 parcel 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 Section s 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 Comer unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That the existing drive approach be reconstructed using the . City's Flared Drive Approach Standard 166 -L; that the on- -28- 4 11 11 MIA 10\01\� MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX site drainage be collected and conveyed to Birch Street using a parkway drain; that the deteriorated sections of gutter and displaced sections of exposed aggregate concrete located between the sidewalk and the street curb be reconstructed along the Birch Street frontage and that the parkway landscaping along the Birch Street frontage adjacent to the driveway be pruned to provide sight distance in conformance with the City's Sight Distance Standard 110 -L All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. That a sign, pavement markings and directional signs shall be posted at the site entrance that prohibits left turns from the site during peak traffic hours (3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays). The design and placement of the signage shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 8. 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. 9. That this resubdivision 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. Y Y Y The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. -29- \N\1M\\@\01\t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX A General Plan Amendment No 89-2(H) (Continued Public item Now Hearin GPA 89 -2H Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to: reclassify the existing Balboa Island Fire Station site at 323 LCP 19 Marine Avenue from "Governmental, Educational and Institutional A 750 Facilities" (GEIF) to "Retail and Service Commercial" (RSC); and the new Fire Station Site located at 124 Marine Avenue from RSC UP3436 to GEIF. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. v 1182 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach R976 Cont 'd AND to 10/22/92 B Local Coastal Plan Amendment No 19 (Continued Public Hearin Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so as to reclassify the existing Balboa Island Fire Station site at 323 Marine Avenue from "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" (GEIF) to "Retail and Service Commercial" (RSC); and the new Fire Station Site located at 124 Marine Avenue from RSC to GEIF. LOCATION: Lots 17 and 18, Block 2, Section 4, Balboa Island, located at 124 Marine Avenue, on the southeasterly corner of Marine Avenue and Park Avenue (new Fire Station Site); and Lot 25, Block 13, Section 4, Balboa Island, located at 323 Marine Avenue, on the westerly side of Marine Avenue, between Balboa Avenue and the Balboa Island Bridge (existing Fire Station Site), on Balboa Island. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach . AND -30- r MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 8, IYYZ ROLL CALL INDEX C. Amendment No. 750 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 14 so as to reclassify the subject property from the C -1 District to the GEIF District. AND D. Use Permit No. 3436 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a new fire station facility on property proposed to be rezoned to GEIF (Government, Educational, Institutional Facilities). The proposed project will also include the construction of public restroom facilities within the same building. The proposal also includes: a request to exceed the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation J District; and a request to establish minimum setbacks for the project. AND E Variance No 1182 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a new fire station facility on property located within a Flood Hazard Area which includes a first floor elevation that is 1.02 feet below the base flood elevation level of 6.27 feet. AND F Resubdivision No 976 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing lots into a single parcel of land so as to establish a legal building site for a new fire station facility on Balboa Island. LOCATION: Lots 17 and 18, Block 2, Section 4, Balboa . Island, located at 124 Marine Avenue, on the -31- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX southeasterly corner of Marine Avenue and Park Avenue (new fire station site), on Balboa Island. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: The City of Newport Beach OWNER: Same as owner ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers & Associates, Costa Mesa James Hewicker, Planning Director, introduced John Douglas, Principal Planner; Bob Kavert, Planner; Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager; and Tim Riley, Fire Chief, as the staff members who have been primarily involved with the subject . project. Commissioner Gifford referred to the staff report whereby she requested a clarification of a statement on page 19 stating that If the City were to grant a variance that did not meet FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) regulations, federal flood insurance subsidies throughout the city could be jeopardized. If the proposed design is approved by the City Council, staff will contact FEMA prior to construction in order to address the concerns that have been identified to the extent possible. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the heights of the buildings in the surrounding area inasmuch as the proposed structure would be 35 feet and the structures surrounding the area is 24/28 feet, Mr. Hewicker explained that the commercial zoned property on Marine Avenue is 26/35 feet and the residential zoned property is 24/28 feet and the two zones and two height limits interface. John Douglas, Principal Planner, summarized the staff report and the supplement to the staff report. The proposed amendments • would change the designation on the existing fire station site from -32- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Now October 8, 1'J'JZ ROLL CALL INDEX Government, Educational Institutional Facilities to Retail, Service Commercial, and the designations on the proposed fire station site from Retail; Service Commercial to Government, EducationA Institutional Facilities; an amendment would change the zoning designation for the proposed fire station from C -1 District to GEIF District, and the site of the existing fire station would remain at C -1 District; the use permit would allow the proposed fire station and establish site development standards; the resubdivision would consolidate the two existing lots that the service station occupied into a single parcel; and the variance would allow construction of the proposed fire station with the first floor elevation below the City and Federal established base flood elevation. In response to Commissioner Gifford's aforementioned concern regarding FEMA, Mr. Douglas explained that FEMA establishes . floodplain regulations in flood prone areas, and Balboa Island is one of the areas. FEMA established a base flood elevation of 6.0 feet above MSL; therefore, there is a 1 percent chance in a year that flood waters will reach that level. The City established a base flood elevation of 6.27 feet above MSL, or approximately 3 inches higher than the Federal requirement for first floor elevations. The variance would allow the fire station to be built with the finished first floor at 5.25 feet above MSL or about 9 inches below the Federal minimum, and approximately 1 foot below the City's minimum standard. The existing sidewalk elevation is 4 -1/2 feet and in order to build up the site to obtain the finished floor up to the base flood level, it is necessary to have 1 -1/2 feet of fill which would require a steep approach angle on the driveway. There would be a potential of obstructing the under - carriage of the fire trucks as the vehicles leave the fire station. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act's requirement for handicapped access ramps, a short ramp is required so as to allow easier access. If the first floor of the building would be allowed at 5.25 feet MSL, the overall height of the building would be reduced approximately I foot. The truck traffic requirement to import the earth fill to build up the station would require approximately 20 -33- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX additional dump truck hauls which would create more traffic and pollution. The purpose of FEMA requirements is to minimize damage during flooding, and there are several different standards to comply with their regulations. Dry-flood proofing is either elevating the structure above the flood stage or sealing it completely so that in the event of flood no water would be able to penetrate the building. Wet -flood proofing would allow water to come in to non - sensitive areas, i.e. parking bay and restrooms, during times of flood as long as there would not be permanent damage; therefore the structure would be built out of water -proof materials. Also allowable would be to seal all of the external openings by means of water -proof doors or a steel gate that would flip up and seal around the opening of the garage doors. FEMA has indicated that if the variance is granted and the structure is built in a manner . that does not comply with their requirements, the worst case would be that FEMA. could remove the City from participating in the Federal Subsidized Insurance Program. The Fire Department and the Planning Department intend to work with FEMA as the design is finalized so as to address their concerns so that FEMA would not invoke the threat. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford regarding the options that the FEMA staff offered for eliminating the conflict with federal floodplain regulations along with the need for a variance, Mr. Douglas stated that the three methods listed in the staff report are examples of ways that FEMA would consider in compliance with their regulations. The most recent design of the fire station is that the first floor elevation of the entire first floor, i.e. the parking bay, the office areas, and the restrooms would be constructed at 5.25 feet above MSL which does not meet the elevation requirement of FEMA; therefore, FEMA would be looking at a dry-flood proofing approach which would be to seal the entire structure. Staff would not compromise safety in the design process: i.e. the emergency generator that is located in the fire station would be elevated so there would be no hindrance of . emergency capabilities of the fire station. Mr. Douglas stated that -34- COMMISSIONERS t+P �Oo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX if there would be problems concerning FEMA requirements after approval of the project by the Planning Commission and the City Council, that staff would come back to the Commission with design modifications if there would be a substantial change to the per• The City has never approved a variance for any structure to the proposed base flood elevation. FEMA does not have discretionary approval over any individual projects, and their way of enforcing regulations is a periodic review of the City's past actions. Mr. Douglas referred to the plans that were distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing and the addendum to the staff report wherein there is a comparison of the MSL elevation of top of eave of the proposed fire station at 25.5 MSL, and the adjacent residential buildings at 122 Marine Avenue . - 23.4 MSL, 125 Grand Canal - 24.2 MSL, and 127 Grand Canal - 21.0 MSL. The difference in eave height of the three structures would be between 1.3 feet and 4 -1/2 feet lower than the fire station. The starting point to measure the height of a building is at the pad elevation and not at sea level. Mr. Hewicker explained that the purpose of comparing the subject fire station and the adjacent structures at the height of the eave is that it has become an issue between the City and the owners of the residential properties that surround the site. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Douglas explained that the three residential structures were built lower than the maximum that would currently be allowed. The original plans of the roof height of the clock tower indicate that the height would not exceed the 35 foot maximum height limit, and the revised plans indicate that the average roof height of the clock tower would be approximately 36.5 feet which requires approval of a height variance. Mr. Douglas explained that if the Commission recommends approval of the revised plan with an average height of 36.5 feet, it would be necessary to continue the public hearing so as to renotice the height variance. i -35- COrMUSSIONERS 0\0 \t\- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH lu ITUF F October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker stated that four issues that have been expressed by the community regarding the fire station are that the front door on the fire station on Marine Avenue be divided so there would be two roll-up doors going into the truck bay instead of one door that has been proposed, and the City has agreed to provide the two doors; the elevation of the structure along Park Avenue in that there has been a discussion as to removing the two entrances to the restroom vestibules and combining the entrances into one entryway, and because of the elevation of the building along Park Avenue, it has been the position of the City that the plan would remain with the two entrances to the restroom facilities; the height of the clock tower was discussed and there was an indication that the City would be willing to raise the height; and that the Community Association requested that the name City of Newport Beach be removed from the face of the building, and it was . decided that the name would remain. Fire Chief Tim Riley appeared before the Planning Commission. Chief Riley addressed the meetings that staff had with the Balboa Island Design Review Committee concerning the aforementioned issues. The issue regarding the clock tower height concerned the visibility of the clock from different areas of the intersection. It was the desire of the Committee to have the architectural projection placed on the building to add a sense of community to the intersection recognizing that the intersection is the most predominant entrance into the community. The issue of the clock tower height had to do with sight line visibility, and the issue was how it could be seen from different corners at Park Avenue and Marine Avenue. The original elevations showed that the clock face is readily visible at the opposing corner at Park Avenue and Marine Avenue, and the issue was that on two corners the clock face was not visible; therefore, the City raised the clock tower approximately six inches and the revised plan represents the residents' desires and the clock tower should not be considered for any other height increases. Chief Riley stated that the existing fire station was constructed in . 1931; however, it is unsuitable as a current fire station. A primary -36- COMMISSIONERS 01 NO \1 00 \\71 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL MEX reason why the current fire station is not suitable is the seismic safety requirement. As an essential public building, the City's seismic regulations require that the building be remodeled or demolished by January 1, 1994, and it is staff's opinion that it is impossible to retrofit the fire station to meet the seismic codes inasmuch as it would be necessary to fortify the apparatus door opening where the fire engines egress /ingress. The apparatus door is currently too small for a fire engine, and the fire engines that are used on Balboa Island are specially designed to fit in the existing fire station. If the water tank is not filled in the fire engine to weigh the springs down, it is impossible to drive the fire engine in and out the door. The door size of the building is not adequate, and to reinforce the door to meet seismic requirements requires the need to remodel the opening which limits the size even further. Chief Riley said that for the City to construct a fire station to meet the current needs as a Fire Department at the existing site, the City's codes would not be met regarding setbacks, off - street parking for the employees, and not provide the service that is needed now and in the future. The existing site will be sold following the demolition of the existing site to off -set the costs of the proposed facility. Chief Riley addressed the need for a fire station on Balboa Island wherein he indicated that there are only two sites for a facility: the existing site or the proposed site. The proposed site is ideally suited for the needs of the building that has been designed, and the ability to service Balboa Island. Chief Riley addressed concerns regarding peak traffic and gridlock on the week -ends and peak hours during the week. He indicated that to provide adequate access for Balboa Island a fire station needs to be located in an area so as to respond to the Island so as not to be affected by the traffic pattern. He referred to response time studies done using a computer model, and he noted that Balboa Island Fire Station during normal traffic times will provide response services to Balboa Island and the area immediate off of the Island on to Bayside Drive, assuming normal traffic flow. -37- - N� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX Chief Riley explained that the project was initiated in 1990 -91 wherein the Fire Department requested that the existing fire station be replaced with a new fire station at the proposed site. The project became a capital improvement project during the fiscal year 1991 -92 when it was approved by the City Council, and the design process commenced. The original design criteria was 6,100 square feet accommodating five fire fighters. The original design was modified based on community input wherein the plan was reduced to 5,150 square feet. The City Council authorized the revised design in March, 1992. Subsequent to the March, 1992, City Council approval of the revised plan and meetings with the community regarding their concerns pertaining to public restrooms, the site of the fire station, and the design of the fire station, the revised plan was reduced to 4,398 square feet. The current plan meets the Fire Department's minimum requirements for the existing service levels and the ability to provide some expansion in the future, if necessary. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Chief Riley explained that approximately 65 percent of the Fire Department's calls are medical in nature. Chief Riley stated that a full-sized van is used for paramedic level treatment. The proposed fire station accommodates one fire engine and one light/ air unit. The light /air unit is an auxiliary unit that is not staffed 24 hours a day. It has the capability of going out to an emergency scene and refilling the air bottles when the fire fighters are inside hazardous environments and there are light towers that light up the scene at night. Chief Riley explained that each of the fire stations has a different responsibility and the Balboa Island fire station has the responsibility of the light /air unit. The light /air unit is currently located at the Newport Center fire station, and if the unit is needed, the Balboa Island fire engine drives off of the Island and picks up the light /air unit to drive to where it is needed. Chief Riley described the fire engines that are currently used and the engines that are proposed for the fire station. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Chief . Riley explained that a paramedic unit is not located on Balboa -38- ANS N W\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 'Raw October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX Island. He further explained the procedures that are required if the ladder fire truck is needed on Balboa Island, and the response times for medical aid and fires. Chief Riley addressed the City Council's policy, and the results of the Fire Department's study concerning the risk factors involved to maintain a fire station on Balboa Island. Chief Riley described the necessity to have a quick attack on a fire, and the difference between a five minute and a ten minute response time. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford, Chief Riley explained that if the fire station only accommodated what is needed for Balboa Island and other assigned responsibilities, that the only modification would be to house only one piece of equipment instead of two pieces of equipment, and one -half of the double doors could be eliminated and the rest of the building would remain as proposed. The number of fire fighters would . remain the same. Chief Riley further explained that the percentage of calls out of the existing fire station off of the Island is 2.2 percent of the time. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Tom Sullivan, 121 Marine Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Balboa Island. Mr. Sullivan addressed the video that he distributed to the Commission prior to the subject public hearing and his letter dated August 19, 1992, that is attached to the staff report. He explained that the existing fire station could be remodeled to meet the City's existing zoning requirements; however, he is not opposed to the proposed fire station inasmuch as the location would be more beneficial to the residents on the Island. He addressed his concerns regarding the proposed fire station as follows: that the residents were previously informed that the subject site would be used as a park; that the public was parking in the alley between Grand Canal and Marine Avenue when the portable restrooms were previously on the site and the automobiles were obstructing the residents' traffic circulation; that the demographics of visitors and residents to Balboa Island have improved in recent years and the location of the proposed fire -39- COMMISSIONERS 0 Olk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX station would have a negative noise and traffic impact on the existing residents and the businesses; and the light /air unit should not be located on the Island. He rebuked the check marks in the Negative Declaration concerning the over -all response plan, and the change in government services. Commissioner Gifford clarified Mr. Sullivan's aforementioned concerns and he concurred that he does not object to the idea of a fire station in the proposed location. The restrooms would cause traffic blockage in the alley for the residents on Marine Avenue and Grand Canal, blockage. of the bridge, and a change in demographics; and the extended siren noise would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Sullivan explained that the residents requested that the public restrooms be closed at nigbt, and he questioned if the persons using the restrooms could be charged twenty -five cents. He suggested that the restrooms be enclosed and no signs indicating that the restrooms are available. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Webb explained that the City Council could request limited parking on Balboa Island. The Grand Canal alley is used by maintenance vehicles for the residents, fire station access, trash vehicles, etc. and it could not be gated. Mr. Ellis Morcos, 122 Marine Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Balboa Island. Mr. Morcos submitted a petition signed by the concerned citizens on Balboa Island who oppose the proposed fire station wherein Mr. Morcos and Commissioner Merrill discussed the individuals who signed the petition. Mr. Morcos stated that the proposed fire station would have an adverse impact on the residents, and the restrooms and the 24 -hour operation would cause offensive odors and noise, and would create a hazard and nuisance to the residents. He expressed his concerns that the residents were not aware of the proposed fire station until 1992 when they were invited to review the plans, and in accordance with CEQA's requirements, environmental documents and a public . hearing were not provided earlier in the process; that the existing -40- COMMISSIONERS r o0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES lqw October 8, 1992 ROLL, CALL DMEX fire station could be remodeled at less cost than the proposed facility; and the proposed fire station is designed to add more fire fighters in the future. The residents have requested an independent impartial study for a new fire station. Mr. Morcos stressed his concerns that the proposed fire station would be constructed adjacent to the residential area. In response to Acting Chairman Glover's request, Mr. Douglas replied that the environmental analysis under CEQA is required as soon as possible in the planning process; however, until a project is defined it is difficult to evaluate an environmental analysis. He addressed the revisions to the proposed plan, and he pointed out that no irrevocable decisions have been made by any City body that has committed a fire station at the subject location. The subject public hearing is the first action taken regarding the final disposition of the fire station, and the City Council's actions that have been taken up to this point have been for study purposes only. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Morcos explained that with the exception of Mr. Tom Sullivan's name on the aforementioned petition, the remaining signatures are from individuals opposed to the new fire station. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Glover, Ms. Flory explained that the policy determination on the expenditure of funds for a fire station is the decision of the City Council. Acting Chairman Glover pointed out that the Commission makes land use decisions and not policy. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the service station that was previously located at the subject site, Mr. Morcos explained that the service station closed at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Morcos expressed concern that the fire station is open 24 hours and the siren noise would have an adverse impact on the residents during the night. Chief Riley reappeared before . the Planning Commission wherein he explained that the vehicle -41- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX code requirement states that under certain conditions the fire engines enter an intersection with a red light and siren simultaneously. He described why it would be difficult to utilize the existing site currently unless the size of the fire station's apparatus area would he reduced. Mrs. Maureen Morcos, 122 Marine Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Morcos expressed her concern regarding the ingress /egress of the fire trucks at the fire station. Chief Riley explained the method of circulation that would be used by the fire engines to back the engines into the fire station, i.e. the alley or Marine Avenue. In response to a question posed by Mrs. Morcos, Chief Riley explained that the expansion capabilities of the fire station would be to accommodate one additional person. There is currently a design for three dormitories, one restroom facility, and one exercise training room which is a City requirement. If there would be a need to add one additional fire personnel it would be necessary to convert the exercise training room into one additional dormitory and one additional restroom facility. There would be no additional increase in the structure size or mass. Mr. Mike Sullivan, 121 Marine Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sullivan expressed his concerns that the fire station would be moved from a commercial zone to a residential zone; that the City should provide an Environmental Impact Report to explain what environmental impact the fire station and public restrooms would have on the adjacent residences; that the proposed public restrooms would be adjacent to a residential area; that the existing location is where a fire station should be; and it is feasible to construct a 5,100 square foot fire station at the existing location. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the restaurant that is located to the west and across the street from the proposed fire station, Mr. Hewicker confirmed that a restaurant could also be developed at the subject location -42- COBUMSSIONERS 100t- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX inasmuch as the property is currently zoned Retail Service Commercial. Mr. Don Deputy, 110 Marine Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission regarding the fire engine's proposed traffic pattern. Chief Riley explained the two approaches from the alley or Marine Avenue that the fire engine could take to back into the fire station. Mr. Deputy responded that the fire engines could be very noisy driving through the alley during the night, and he expressed his concern regarding the trucks' maneuverability around the comers on Marine Avenue and the alley. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that there are residential units above the commercial businesses on Marine Avenue, and he asked if there are residential units adjacent to the existing fire station. Chief Riley explained that there are residential units over the . businesses on each side of the existing fire station, and there are residences behind the fire station. He was not certain if there are residences immediately across the street. Mrs. Carol Deputy, 110 Marine Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Deputy expressed her concern that the fire engine would have a noise impact on the residential area. Mr. Gary Sadler, 125 Grand Canal, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his concern regarding the impact that the fire station and restrooms would have on the residents. Commissioner Gifford requested that staff provide information concerning the compatibility between the fire station and the residences adjacent to the fire station on Balboa Peninsula; if the City owns the two parcels or has an option on the parcels; and if a fire truck is capable of maneuvering in the alley. Mr. Hewicker responded that the City owns the two parcels. Chief Riley responded that there is no place in the City that would not accommodate a fire engine, and there have been no complaints, with one exception, in a residential area regarding equipment use. -43- • A� 0 *0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Now October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Chief Riley explained that the Balboa Island fire station has responded to 447 calls on and off Balboa Island; that the predominant number of calls require a red light and siren; since he has been Fire Chief there have not been any complaints from residents regarding sirens. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy concerning a Negative Document, Ms. Temple explained that during the Initial Study for the project it was the opinion and determination of staff that a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Additional public testimony and additional comments indicated certain types of problems by adjoining residents. In CEQA, it is left up to the jurisdiction to determine the level of significance. There could be an adverse impact and not have it significant. The subject action is to determine the adequacy of the document that serves as the environmental document for the project. In terms of whether the findings are correct, the only observation regarding the technical CEQA evaluation would be that levels of significance are to be determined in the context to the area. CEQA clearly states that an environmental impact in an undeveloped rural area could be engendered by a relatively small increment of change whereas in an urbanized environment an incremental change may not be considered at the same level and significance. In the subject case, staff would not change its opinion as to the level of significance defined or lack thereof within the Initial Study, and therefore, it would still be of the opinion that an Negative Declaration is adequate. However, the Commission does not have to agree with staffs opinion, and if it is Commission's opinion that a significant environmental affect is engendered, then it would be necessary to direct staff to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Pomeroy indicated that the existing and proposed fire stations each are located in areas that have residential and commercial properties. In response to a rebuttal from Mr. Sullivan, Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that staff provide the Commission with a list of residential uses adjacent to the existing . fire station. -44- • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Ms. Temple explained that an EIR is a different form of environmental document, and it is done whenever a project would have a significant adverse affect on the environment. If through the Initial Study process it is determined that there is a possibility that a significant adverse impact on the environment would result from implementation of a project, an EIR must be prepared regardless of the size of the project. An EIR has nothing to do with the size of a project or an area of influence, it has to do with the level of significance of impact. Ms. Temple explained that a subsequent staff report would elaborate on the physical environment and the Initial Study checklist, and the specific areas that have been defined by the State through the CEQA guideline process. Commissioner Debay questioned if the four adjacent residences comprise an environment, and Ms. Temple explained that it attaches to the level of significance. Commissioner Debay commented that in a Negative Declaration alternative uses are not addressed, and she suggested that it should be stated what other uses could be developed on the lot in the C -1 District. Acting Chairman Glover and Ms. Flory discussed the procedure to request an EIR for the project. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford regarding the Negative Declaration, Ms. Temple explained that staff reviewed the changes in the context of the existing environment and believed that while changes would be incurred by the implementation of the project, that they were not of a level of significance to require an EIR. A Negative Declaration with the Initial Study is an environmental document on a smaller scale with a somewhat different time frame and requirements. Ms. Flory explained that the Initial Study that is done for the Negative Declaration is the same one that is done in the initial process when a decision has been reached to make an EIR. The levels of significance have been determined or estimated by staff and those areas that are mitigatable have mitigation measures, and . a similar type of situation that exists in an EIR. The -45- COMIIOSSIONERS P \N\N\0\\0\4?\k CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October S, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX environmental document is meant to be an information document to the agency, the decision makers, and the public so that it identifies there are concerns for environmental impacts and identifies what the estimated levels of those impacts are, and it is basically the same process with an environmental document. An EIR would estimate that there are significant severe impacts that need to be looked at on a larger scope. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding a provision for an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Protection Act, Mr. Douglas explained that the environmental assessment is equivalent to the State Initial Study. Ms. Flory stated that there is information in the Environmental Document and from the testimony that there is an indication that there would be an impact from the proposed fire station and public restrooms on the adjoining neighbors, and it is the decision of the Commission on the compatibility of the two uses. She further explained that the use permit makes a determination upon the findings that support the fact on the detriment to the surrounding neighborhood and how that balances with the use of the fire station and the benefits to the community. Commissioner Merrill and Ms. Temple discussed the Environmental Analysis Checklist as evaluated by staff. Commissioner Gifford requested that staff provide the time of day when typical fire calls occur, and if there is a pattern to the calls. She requested the research that staff did to evaluate the environmental analysis checklist. Ms. Temple explained that most, if not all, of the evaluation with the exception of technical traffic issues are done based on prior experience. Staff did not have a noise consultant provide background information; however, if the Commission has a desire to have information of that nature staff would have to contract outside consultants. Commissioner Gifford and Ms. Temple discussed the feasibility of staff providing information regarding a noise study for the purpose of giving the Commission a basis of how staff arrived at the evaluation on the . environmental analysis checklist. -46- Q\1 I I I \k CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CA LL MOM In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Chief Riley replied that it is the Fire Department's policy to provide response services by the closest fire station in any single location in the City, and depending upon time of day and availability that could vary. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Chief Riley stated that staff could provide a computer model against the existing site response distances vs. the proposed site response distances so as to demonstrate how there may be minor changes in the response areas. Commissioner Gifford requested information indicating if the fire station would be relocated how many of the calls would not be responded to because the Fire Station would not have carried that area. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that if a fire station is necessary on Balboa Island that he would have to consider as a fact that the new proposed location would better serve Balboa Island because of the location, and would have nothing to do with what would occur off of the Island. Commissioner Merrill stated that Marine Avenue and Park Avenue is a location that would serve Balboa Island well. He said that the subject location is a commercial site, and a fire station is needed on the Island. Commissioner Gifford asked if other sites had been considered for public restroom location. Chief Riley replied that the only consideration was during early discussions, and it was the City Council's belief that there were two alternatives: one alternative was to install the restrooms with the new fire station and the second alternative was to install them on the existing site and develop a mini -park; however, it was decided to sell the existing site and use the proceeds of the sale to replenish the General Fund expenditures for the proposed fire station. Acting Chairman Glover asked if it would be feasible to provide . five minute parking for the public restrooms, or if there would be 47- �� Ll0 `�d�drs cs� C�l��� p _ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 6, vo5pz ROLL CALL INDEX a method to prohibit parking in the alley. She asked if the hours of the public restrooms could be restricted and still make them useful. Motion was made and voted on to continue General Plan Motion - Amendment No. 89 -2(H), Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 19, Ayes Absent k * * * * Amendment No. 750, Use Permit No. 3436, Resubdivision No. 976, and Variance No. 1182 to the October 22, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 776 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.s Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport A776 . Beach Municipal Code so as to revise Chapter 20.74 Adult Entertainment Businesses. (Res 1319 Approved INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that any business which dedicates more than one -third of its total floor area to the sale or rent of adult merchandise or products would be a good average to be considered an "adult novelty store'; that the suggested percentage would encompass a majority of the businesses, and would not result in an emphasis of adult merchandise in a typical business. Commissioner Pomeroy expressed his approval of the redefined definition. There being no one to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Merrill and Ms. Flory discussed the one -third of the total floor area in conjunction with an "adult novelty store" as recommended by staff. -48- .00� Clo 1d�$$R\041 lit 1, • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1319, and Ayes * * * * recommend Amendment No. 776 to the City Council. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. ses DISCUSSION ITEM: General Plan Amendment No. 92 -3 Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan as follows: A. Campus Drive Industrial Tract: Request to amend the GPA92 -3A Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to redesignate the properties bounded by Campus Drive, Initiate Bristol Street North, Birch Street and MacArthur . Boulevard from Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to Retail and Service Commercial. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to initiate General Plan Ayes * * * * Amendment No. 92 -3 (A). MOTION CARRIED. Absent s * B. 3500, 3510. 3520 and 3530 Irvine Avenue: Request of GPA92 -3B David Magilavy and Florentino Apeles to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to Initiate redesignate these properties from Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to Retail and Service Commercial. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to initiate General Plan Ayes * * * Amendment No. 92 -3 (B). MOTION CARRIED. Absent x s . -49- • 0\01� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX C. 1701. 1719. and 1815 Westcliff Drive: Request of Richard GPA92 -3C Dick and Associates to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to redesignate these Initiated properties from Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to Retail and Service Commercial. Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, recommended that the entire area from Irvine Avenue up to the parcel at the corner of Dover Drive and Westcliff Drive be included in the amendment, in addition to the addresses on the Agenda Item. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to initiate General Plan -Ayes Amendment No. 92 -3(C). MOTION CARRIED. Absent * * D. Central Balboa: Request to consider an amendment to GPA92 -3D the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to revise initiated the permitted building floor area ratios and /or building bulk limitations in the Central Balboa Specific Plan area. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the request would consider restoring some of the floor area ratios and intensity of development that was reduced under General Plan Amendment No. 87 -1 adopted in 1988. Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, related several comments that have been made by members of the Central Balboa Specific Plan Committee regarding ways and means to up -grade land uses and encourage land development. In response to comments posed by Commissioner Gifford, Ms. Temple explained that the subject request is not a commitment in terms of actually making an amendment to the General Plan. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the adoption of the General . Plan wherein he stated that the commercial floor area ratio -50- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1992 ROLL CALL INDEX reduction was made primarily to meet the traffic requirements, and he recommended that the Commission review floor area ratios City -wide. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to initiate General Plan Ayes * * Amendment No. 92 -3(D). MOTION CARRIED. Absent K K K ADJOURNMENT: 12:12 a.m. Adjourn K K K HARRY MERRILL, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -51-