Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAND TRADE REMANT111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111 *NEW FILE* LAND TRADE REMANT Proposed amendment to the Residential Growth Element to reduce the permitted maximum density on the land trade remnant parcel. January 22, 1976 - Planning Commission did not set this matter for public hearing. COMMISSIONERS is ro i 0^11 rAl i ip CITY OF ME°a'+iPORT JEACH January 22, 1976 MINUTES IWO X4 3. Bill Langston, 18 Oak Crest Lane, appeared before the Commission and requested that their proposed General Plan Amendment also include "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Motion X Motion was made that a public hearing be set Ayes X X X X X for February 12, 1976, to consider a proposed Absent X X a ndment to the Land Use Element to change the desi ation of a,portion of the industrially- designa d area of the Newport Place Planned Community t the intersection of Bristol Street and Sp a Avenue) to a mixture of "Administrative, ofessfonal and Financial Commercial" and "Re 1 and Service Commercial." '-Motion X 4. Motion was made that a pu 'c hearing be set Ayes X X X X X for February 12, 1976, to con 'der a proposed Absent X X amendment to the Land Use Elemen to change the designation of a portion of the dus- trially-designated area of the Koll Ce r Planned Community (at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street) to a mixture of "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Retail and Service Commercial " 5. Community Development Director Hogan commented Pn the density of the "land trade remnant" as presently established by the General Plan (i.e 10 dwelling units per acre) and advised that although the disposition of the parcel was unknown at this time, the Commission may want to consider a reduction in the density. In discussing the parcel, Advance Planning Administrator Cowell advised that the current zoning was R-3-B which would permit approxi- mately 30 units per acre. Dave Neish with The Irvine Company appeared before the Commission and commented that perhaps 10 dwelling units per acre was too intense, however for lack of a better indica- tion as to what was appropriate at this time, as well as the fact that public hearings would have to be held in connection with any develop ment which may take place, felt that a General Plan Amendment was premature in connection with this parcel. Tq yiPw nf the fart that geypral _gtudips presently under way will provide more infor- mation at a later date, and in order to avoid Page 11. COMMISSIONERS - CITY OF N Est PORTOVEACH O^11 rAII January 22. 1976 MINUTES Win, 3T4 unnecessary hearings as to what changes should be made ,- motion was made that no change to_ha Motion X General Plan bg made at this time in connec- Ayes X X X X X Absent X X tion with the "land trade remnant." Resolution No. 942 reflects the above actions in connection with the February 12, 1976 public hearing to amend the General Plan. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Chairman Beckley reviewed the discussion held at the afternoon joint study session with the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission relative to the proposed plan for landscaping of the Piazza Lido and the consensus that no change be made relative to planting trees within the public right-of-way. He also pointed out that with the exception of two people who were in favor of the plan, all those who spoke were in favor only so long as there was no cost to them. S11kce there seemed to be no overwhelming public suport in connection with the plan and recogniz- the ing views of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission pertaining to the budget and the set- ting of precedent, Planning Commission recom- mended tha no further encroachments be permitted into the pub is right-of-way area of Piazza Lido for the purpos of planting trees and landscaping. Motion X Planning Commission a opted Resolution No. 943, Ayes X X X X X setting a public hearin for February 12, 1976, Absent X X to consider the extensio of Use Permits 1244, 1272 and 1419 on property cated at 3295 Newport Boulevard on the westerly si of Newport Boule- vard, between 32nd Street and in1ey Avenue, which govern the hours of operation an allow on -sale alcoholic beverages, live entertai ment and dancing in conjunction with an exis 'ng restaurant known as Smokey Stover's. 1 Page 12. 9 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 16, 1976 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development January 22, 1976 7 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: 1. 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, 1976; staff will report verbally on the results of this meeting to the Planning Commission.) 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 Airport 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.) 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 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 consideration, 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, qfrq?ctor ) By �/il Tim Advanc Plan TC:jmb Att: Letters of Memo from Administrator request City Attorney SNYDER-LANGSTON, INC. 0 general coniractors • calaornia • 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 lA, 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. I will make myself available to provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Bill Langston irvinC industrial complex • 1761 reynolds avenue • irvine, california 92705 9 (714) 557-7533 fV)OPOSBO PIL-'TAIL 1 COMML�p�C�.1A►► pc►Sr2 Arai. #- w2sAv►c4c aommrR4 P X / /r lit /• OYRI4[ J/!t 4r cAv N \ c OFF2E S/TE 34 .n(Lvm.L r/R.vrl rr r� aK l4a r� 1 (NnuSTR/AC 3 S/TE A rrr r. / INOOSTR/AL S/TE 4 nrr rA. LAND USE NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA FOR wAu.•.nH-•rwo8r EMKAY DEVELOPMENT C0MPik NY I =-__ AVTEL OC AC RESTAORANr 44 AC NET fQEAEG£ AAEq IASc AC to AC INTERIOR STREETS I91 AC PROPoJEO FREENAr R// AOS AC ✓AYEOREE RO n 'otrION 37 AC TOTAL AREA ZLVO 4C NEWPORT PLACE Am+o w EMKAY DEVa0IVA NT COMPANI M Laern/ml•aa/mwgrc LANGDON & WLSM MMORRMM-MOSEN OOMFOM M KOLL CENTER NEWPORT December 19, 1975 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Commissioners: As owners of Koll 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 Koll 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 Koll Center Newport "village area" was conceived iri'September of 1972. The implementation process hap 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 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, I CE ER NEWPO T Timothy. Strader General Partner TLS:dh d • • ; S G1�1=�NMGNT �DUcc�TIoN �. �-2 INS�iTUTIoh�L. FbG1U?It:� ; 1412 .. -Birch Street.._— (,t6NrvtZA._ m i Partial Newport Beach General Plan- Land Use I = 20o for Koll Center Newport- 12'8 '5 -M&Or N= 'I15 I,rJ'r 157 5.3t'i'b�2:�. LAND U�� P.=�l A'riclJ r_XlyriNGT (,t�t•I�RDd- lh���,,r a./1pMiN., pRoF.: �INArI. GvMNEP.:!:atr CoMM�I�Lr:� 0- ii ®0M c^z V-712LS0GMI f - C F: e r L_' C T S (> n 4' PLACC NEWPORT BEACH, CA,40RN,A 92660 PHONE (714) 833.9193 t �••.. .. 00ULdVARO, LOU ANG"a, OALIPOLNIA 00006 PHONW (213) 300-9030 .....W.....•. rl 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 Planning Commission and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Joint Meeting January 22, 1976 Joint Meeting Agenda Item No. B CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 15, 1976 TO: Planning Commission Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: "Land Trade Remnant" Attached is the memo sent to the City Council for the January 12, 1976 City Council Study Session. As indicated in this memo, the question of public acquisition and use of the land trade remnant parcel was referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council for consideration and recommendation. Staff suggests that the major considerations involved are: A) What are the potential public uses and benefits that could be ach1eved? B) Is public purchase of this property warranted based on the potential public uses a-nd benefits? C) Could some, or all, of the potential public uses and benefits be preserved while still permitting private development? Staff further suggests that there are three alternative recommendations that the Planning Commission could submit to the City Council: 1) That the land trade remnant parcel be acquired as public open space, or 1 ' 2) That the land trade remnant be rezoned to the Planned Community Zoming District and that public access and smaller open space areas be required in the development plan (in conjunction with this alternative, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend an amendment to the General Plan to reduce the permitted density from the current 88 dwelling units ),or 3). That development be permitted under the current zoning and General Plan designations, with no special requirements for public access or open space. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. Hogan, 're to By i owe11 Advance Planning Administratr TC:jmb Att: Memo sent to the City Council for the January 12,'1976 City Council Study Session. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Community Development Department January 6, 1976 STUDY SESSION NO. 10 TO: Robert Wynn, City Manager FROM: Tim Cowell, Advance Planning Administrator SUBJECT: "Land Trade Remnant" -- Undeveloped 8.8 acre site adjacent to the Bluffs. Background During Planning Commission hearings in May of 1975 on Tentative Tract 8680 in the "Bluffs" area, concern with the possible develop- ment of the adjacent 8.8 acre "land trade remnant" was raised. In response to this concern, The Irvine Company withdrew the application for Tentative Tract 8680 until a determination on the possible public acquisition of the land trade remnant is made. At the June 9, 1975 City Council meeting, the Council referred the May 21, 1975 letter (copy attached) from The Irvine Company to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. This letter requested the City Council to reach a decision on purchasing the land trade remnant by October 1, 1975. A subsequent letter from The Irvine Company extended the time for consideration to December 1, 1975. On June 10, 1975, a letter was sent to The Irvine Company by the Mayor, requesting that The Irvine Company propose a price for public acquisition of the land trade remnant. By letter of November 10, 1975 (copy attached), The Irvine Company has indicated that their appraised fair market value of the land trade remnant is $550,000. (It is staff's understanding that The Irvine Company, in view of the date of the appraisal, is agreeable to a reasonable review period extending beyond the December 1, 1975 date.) Zoning and General Plan Designation The land use remnant parcel is currently in the R3-B zoning district, which would permit multi -family residential development. However, the General Plan designates this parcel as "Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space" with an alternate use of residential (with a maxi- mum of approximately 88 dwelling units) if public purchase, or other means of preserving the property as open space, does not prove feasible. Department of Fish and Game Evaluation The State Department of Fish and Game, at the request of the City conducted a cursory evaluation of all undeveloped lands adjacent to the Upper Bay Ecological Reserve in September, 1975. The Page Two "Reconnaissance Survey" report, previously distributed to the City Council, ranks the land trade remnant in Priority 3, on a priority scale from 1 (highest) to 7 (lowest), and states that the land trade remnant contains "valuable buffer space qualities" and would serve as a vista point. The evaluation further states that "there is public parking within the Eastbluff Park, and access through the park to the site and thence to the Ecological Reserve by Trail," and that "the wildlife habitat potential is considered good because of the condition of the bluffs and existing natural cover." Coastal Commission Acquisition List The land trade remnant, along with all undeveloped properties adjacent to the Upper Bay, is on the Coastal Commission's prelim- inary property acquisition list. It is expected that final action on this acquisition list will be taken by the State Coastal Commis- sion in February, 1976; this action will consist of a recommendation to the Legislature and Governor that the lands on the final acquisi- tion list be purchased, or otherwise acquired, by the public. Planning Commission Review After receiving The Irvine Company's appraisal, the land trade remnant subject was placed on the Planning Commission Study Session Agenda. The Planning Commission decided to continue discussion of this matter until the January 22, 1976 joint meeting with the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission; this will allow the two Commis- sions to discuss the potential public recreation and open space values of the land trade remnant prior to the Planning Commi.ssion's formulation of a recommendation to the City Council. ance Manning Hoministra TC:jmb Att: 1) Letter from The Irvine Company dated May 21, 1975. 2 Letter from The Irvine Company dated November 10, 1975. w May 21, 1975 Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 -E IRVINC COMPANY 610 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 ✓ 'RECEIVED Comrriuniry Development Dept. MAY 2 21975o.- NEW CIlTY F EACH, / Mayor McInnis: Your City staff has indicated to The Irvine Company several concerns regarding Tentative Map No. 8680 and Use Permit No. 1729 involving a site in the Eastbluff area. As you are aware, these items are presently being considered by the Planning Commission. Apparently, several questions concerning the "Land Trade Remnant" parcel have been raised because of its proximity to and impacts on the site in question. ,Accordingly, we have asked the applicant, IDH, applications joint venture, and theyishave agreed, to withdraw its ion made by the City Council on the "Land Trade Remnant" ,parcel. The Residential, Growth Element of the adopted General Plan states that the "Land Trade Remnant" adjacent to the "Bluffs"' shall be rezoned from R-3-B to a yet -to -be -developed zoning district•which will permit a maximum density of ten dwelling units per gross acre although it is proposed that,,if possible, this land be acquired as open space as part of the "Upp P ort Bay Wildlife Reserve." difor The Irvine Company is prepared to start preliminary stues the development of the subject parcel. Such studies will necessaril involve substantial expenditures. However, before we can proceed, we wish to know the City's intentions concerning this parceling to pure could offer the parcel to any governmental aoency chase it for fair market values. However, if there is no interest in a purchase, we would then pursue development in accordance with the adopted General Plan. In order to resolve the question, we request that the City reach a decision by October 1, 1975 whether or not public ownership• of this parcel is to be undertaken and how it is to be funded. This should allow sufIfcthettime to decision istmadenthatthe thefeasibility land should of such a purchase. • Newport Beach City Council - 2 - • May 21, 1975 be acquired, then The Irvine Company would like to finalize the terms of the purchase by June 1, 1976. If it is decided that the property should not be acquired for public use, then we would assume that processing development plans, at a residential density of ten dwelling units per gross acre, as provided in the General Plan, would be allowed. Whichever decision is made by the City, the status of the pending applications for approval of Tentative Tract No. 8680 and Use Permit No. 1729 will then be clarified and appropriate resubmissions thereof can be made. We respectfully request your consideration of this matter and will welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you and the Members of the City Council, perhaps at an early study session. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly y rs, janFk E. Hughes President / Residential Divi cc: ' D. Hogan rot+ r Mnnnaar .- IIAE IRVINE CNF2,IN Y 610 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 November•10, 1975 The Honorable Donald McInnis, Mayor of Newport Beach ' 330Q Newport Boulevard Newport Beach; California 92660 Dear Sir: Re: Lot 83, Tract 6230 and Land Trade Remnant The Irvine Company.has completed an appraisal of the subject parcel6 and concluded that the current fair market value of the approximate 8.8 acres is $550,000. If the City elects to purchase the land, the offer would have to' be. presented to the Board of Directors of The Irvine Company and, therefore, The Irvine Company is not malting any binding' arrangements at this time and will be bound only when the final documents are executed and delivered. We shall be pleased to meet with members of the City staff .for further negotiations. Ver rely y r , [crence A. [delslt Director, Leasing Commercial Division TAW: ka cc: Robert Wynn, City Manager ,,,xichal.d Hogan, Director Community Development Dept.