HomeMy WebLinkAboutAMEND TO REVISE NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS*NEW FILE*
AMEND TO REVISE NOISE
LEVEL CONTOURS
• 0-
February, 1976 General Plan
Amendment Session
Proposed amendment to the Noise Element to revise the airport
noise level contours. (This proposed amendment has been
included based on Planning Commission direction during discussion
of the Adirport Environs Land Use Plan. At the January 12, 1976
City Council Study Session, the Mayor expressed concern with
this proposed amendment since the Airport Land Use Commission
noise contours result in a narrowing of the noise impact area.)
January 22, 1976 - Planning Commission did not set this
proposed amendment for public hearing.
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF N EWPORT tf�CH
■I,,, PAI,
January 22, 1976
MINUTES
INDEX
spaces shall be maintained on the site.
Item #7
Rean eAserinuor General
ENERAL
LAN
_1roposed
meo befcargy,p976, General
MENDMENTS
Plan Amendment Session.
1. Planning Commission reviewed the request as
3ET FOR
11 as the results of the meeting with the
ne hborhood associations, the developer, The
Irvi Company, and representatives of Parks,
FARING
Beaches and Recreation. It was pointed out
that the oposed General Plan Amendment could
be advertis in such a manner so as to allow
consideration f all the options available.
Dave Neish, with a Irvine Company, appeared
before the Commissio to comment on the
request and the police of The Irvine Company
with respect to grants m e by the Irvine
Foundation.
Motion
Ayes
Absent
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Following discussion, motion wa made that a
public hearing be set for Februar 12, 1976,
to consider a proposed amendment to he Land
Use Element, and possibly the Recreat' n and
Open Space Element, to either add "Admi 'stra-
tive, Professional and Financial Commerce "
as an alternate use, in addition to the
"Recreational and Marine Commercial" designa-
tion, or to change the designation to "Recrea-
tional and Environmental Open Space," for the
property at the southeast corner of Bayside
Drive and Marine Avenue.
2. Community Development Director Hogan reviewed
the airport noise level contours contained in
the Airport Environs Land Use Plan as opposed
to those contours expressed in the Noise
Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. He
informed the Commission of the Mayor's concern
that the width of protection not be reduced
until such time as it is proven to be warranted.
Motion
Ayes
Absent
X
X
X
X
X
X
Following discussion, motion was made that the
proposed amendment to the Noise Element to
revise the airport noise level contours was
unwarranted at this time.
Page 10.
Planning Commission Meeting January 22, 1976
Agenda Item No. 7
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
January 16, 1976
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: Proposed General Plan Amendments for the February, 1976
Amendment Session
Pursuant to City Council Policy Q-1, General Plan Amendment
Sessions are held three times per year, with Planning
Commission public hearings in the months of February, June and
October.
Four amendments to the General Plan are proposed for the
February, 1976 Amendment Session:
2.
3.
Requested reinitiation of General Plan Amendment No. 32 --
proposed amendment to the Land Use Element to add
"Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial"
as an alternate use, in addition to the "Recreational
and Marine Commercial" designation for the property
at the southeast corner of Bayside Drive and Marine
Avenue. (At its November 20, 1975 meeting, the
Planning Commission removed this item from the October, 1975
group of General Plan Amendments to allow for discussion
of possible public use with the nearby neighborhood
associations. The meeting with the neighborhood associations
is scheduled for January 20, 19,76; staff will report
verbally on the results of this meeting to the Planning
Commission.)
Proposed amendment to the Land Use Element to change the
designation of a portion of the industrially -designated
area of the Newport Place Planned Community to "Retail
and Service Commercial". (Requested by Snyder -Langston,
Inc., general contractors -- letter attached.)
4. Proposed amendment to the Land
designation of a portion of the
area of the Koll Center Planned
"Administrative, Professional,
"Retail and Service Commercial"
Newport -- letter attached.)
Use Element to change the
industrially -designated
Community to a mixture of
and Financial Commercial" and
. (Requested by Koll Center
A fifth General Plan amendment should be added if the Planning
Commission desires to consider a reduction of the permitted
density on the "land trade remnant"; this amendment would change
the wording on Page 25 of the Residential Growth Element to
reduce the permitted maximum density on the land trade remnant
parcel.
In response to a suggestion by the City Attorney, staff suggests
that a new numbering system and modified procedure be initiated
with the February, 1976 amendment session. (Attached is
the November 20, 1975 memo from the City Attorney.) The
numbering system would label all of the February, 1976 amendments
TO: Planning Commission - 2
as General Plan Amendment 76-1, with each individual amendment
receiving a letter designation. (e.g., the first amendment
would be labeled General Plan Amendment 76-1-A, the second
amendment labeled 76-1-B, etc.) The procedure would require
that all individual amendments be formally adopted at one time
and by one action of the Planning Commission.
Recommended Action
City Council Policy Q-1 states in part:
"If the Planning Commission, after examination, is
convinced that the proposed change is worthy of
consi'deration, it may initiate amendment as set forth
above" (by setting a public hearing).
"If not, the Commission shall forward the request to the
City Council with its recommendation that consideration
of amendment is unwarranted."
Staff suggests that those amendments that the Planning Commission
finds worthy of consideration be set for public hearing at the
February 12, 1976 Planning Commission meeting.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Hogan, Qyrejctow-'�
By /
Tim
Advanc Plan
a.
TC:jmb
Att: Letters of
Memo from
Administrator
request
City Attorney
•
SNYDER-LANGSTON, INC. 0 general coniractors • calil'ornia . arizona • nevada
December 15, 1975
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
City Hall
Newport Beach, California
Honorable Commission:
We would like to take this opportunity to request that the general
plan be amended in the Newport Place planned community.
The existing general plan shows the land use for auto center site
IA, 2A, and the southwesterly quarter of industrial site 1A, as
retail and service commercial. We are requesting that the retail
and service commercial land use be extended from its present boundry
northerly to Spruce Avenue. We are enclosing a plan to more clearly
define this extension.
2 will make myself available to provide you with any additional
information.
Sincerely,
Bill Langston
iivine industrial comptux • 1761 reynolds avenue • irvine, california 92705 • (714) 557-7533
PP�OPOGfro PSC-TAIL I
COM MLA PtiC�.t q �►
Fc ►sr G g wrA%L. {.
SaavIua aommaR,
D�V
OFFICE SITE 3A R£S
rrrwmw ux+vN siw<. SIfI
IN/ STR/AL SIrE 3A
I.4VSi
NFT�r bl w�
INDUSTRIAL SITE A
cr Mii<
LAND USE
NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA FOR
EMKAY DEVELOPAIENrr COMPANY
wwi u
M rE4
EC
AC
RESTAURANr
44
ALL
NET(dEAELE AREA
Gsc
AC
OrARTN ffp w hdr•wr. u.�ow—.I
10
AC
INT£RIp STREETS
'It
AC
PAVA SED FREE~ R/N
"s
AC
✓A4EDREE RD �DICAT/ON
37
AC
TDTAL AREA
Zmn
AC
NEWPORT PLACE
ramurugwsu
Asw M
MAY RC
LANGDON & WLSON
..o.Rn
MORRWN-KNLO NGOlVuAMNC
E
KOLL CENTER NEWPORT
December 19, 1975
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Commissioners:
As owners of Roll Center Newport, a planned community district, we
propose a General Plan amendment to the Land Use Plan (map). The
subject site is a 5.317 acre lot at the west corner at Jamboree
Boulevard and Birch Street within Roll Center's industrial site
number two. The current General Plan designation is general
industrial and its current zoning is light industrial as defined
in the Planned Community Development Standards.
We are currently working towards a program for developing this
lot. This program requires that the land use element of the General
Plan be revised to allow a mixture of retail and service commercial
and administrative, professional and financial commercial. These
uses are illustrated on the attached proposed land use exhibit
dated December 18, 1975. Within this mixture of land uses we
propose to develop the lot with administrative, professional and
financial uses with some limited retail uses such as restaurants.
Specific limits. and guidelines for the proposed development will
be finalized in an amendment to the Planned Community Development
Standards following this requested General Plan amendment. A
negative declaration, including a supplementary traffic study,
will be presented as part of this subsequent phase.
The Roll Center Newport "village area" was conceived in September
of 1972. The implementation process has been one of continued
cooperation and dialogue between our single ownership development
and the City of Newport Beach staff, Planning Commission and City
Council. We feel that this proposed amendment to the land use
4100 MacArthur Blvd. • Newport Beach • Callfornla 92660 • (714) 833-9123
E
Planning Commission
Page Two
December 19, 1975
element of the General Plan and subsequent amendment of the Planned
Community Development Standards is in keeping with the established
long range common goals and will result in a desirable development
of the subject site. The proposed uses of this site will serve
the needs and improve the "Planned Community Concept". In addition,
we feel that this change is in keeping with the General Plan's
long range goal of "assuring harmonious groupings of uses and
assuring a continuing high commercial tax base".
It is Koll Center Newport's desire to be scheduled for the February
General Plan amendment session. We are at your disposal and look
forward to working with you on this project.
Very truly yours,
K CE ER NEWPO T
Timothy. Strader
General Partner
TLS:dh
t
a
�' GIfJ�RNMF.N'f t;DUcn,-(IoN �.
f�°' j 1N�1'CU'f'{oN*L F/�GiU'fIE� ;
.. _Birch Street.
.a V; �t: t•, t��� :-.lei �b`�•�
r%r�=Gy�IGNbL,
GirSHVZAI.
INOW-.fP k-e
-tRbel--t He 115
I%Xlh !qA
4t rlt4CAt- 1tg0u' -.cY
MWP 16r- o MIX or%;
a, ftfJMil�l., p20F :*
FINA1.1. GoMNEP.�!-��t�
b.KEtalt. i
6oMMG-C1GA:�
i
Partial Newport Beach
General Plan- Land Use "1°200
for Koll Center Newport 12 18 75
r R G ®® Y tP,�c,� (F�� W V 11// LSO
pV it
1'
Ci H e r C. fC T S (' u
1° PLAC( NEWPORT BEACH, CA.40MA 92668 PHONE 1714) 833-9193
l •. . .. DOVLJVARD. LOU AN�iC�.. J. OAL VOI,NIA V0003 PHONPi (213)'J00-DD30
•
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 20, 1975
TO: Community Development Director
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment Procedure
Under our current procedures, General Plan Amendments
are processed three times a year in February, June and
October. Section 65361 of the Government Code states
that mandatory elements of the general plan cannot be
amended more frequently than three times a year. We
have been interpreting this section to mean, and I be-
lieve rightfully so, that the Planning Commission
cannot initiate amendments more than three times a year.
Because certain amendments are continued from time to
time, the City Council in practice ends up actually
adopting amendments more than three times a year.
After surveying the procedures of various other cities
and counties in California, we have concluded that we
should change our policy to conform to that of the
majority of the other jurisdictions we contacted, that
is processing General Plan Amendments as a group from
beginning to end. Should one of the amendments be
held up for some reason then all amendments should be
held in abeyance pending resolution of that amendment
which was delayed. If that particular amendment
cannot be resolved within a reasonable time, then it
should be continued over until the next group are ready
to be processed.
The Planning Commission should informally act on each
amendment separately, perhaps by a straw vote. When
all of the various amendments have been acted upon, the
Planning Commission should take one formal vote on the
entire amendment package. I would suggest that each
group of amendments be labeled as one separate amendment
Memorandum to Community Development Director
Page Two
November 20, 1975
with the individual amendments being labeled as sub -parts
of that main amendment. The City Council should follow
the same procedure.
I realize that this new procedure will probably cause
you much administrative difficulty. I believe, however,
that in an attempt to comply with a literal interpreta-
tion of Section 65361, we should make an effort to give
it a try beginning with the February amendments. If
we find the -new procedure is entirely unworkable, then
we will have to work something else out.
It should be noted nothing in this memo is to be
interpreted as a waiver of our right as a Charter City
to reinstate our original procedures for processing
General Plan Amendments, if we deem it to be necessary,
nor are we in any way implying that prior amendments
have not legally been adopted.
DENNIS O'NEILL
City Attorney
DO:mjk