Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 85-1(B) VOL 7Newport Center and Peripheral Sites GPI 85=1(B) Environmental Impact Report Volume 7 sanchez talarico associates CERTIFIED FINAL EIR: JULY 14, 1986 CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B) NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 85061211 VOLUME 7 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 PREPARED BY: SANCHEZ TALARICO ASSOCIATES 359 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 JULY 14, 1986 VOLUME_ 7 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................... 1 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.................................124 PLANNING COMMISSION 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, April 24, 1986..................127 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, May 22, 1986....................167 1 Staff Reports to Planning Commission, April 24, 1986............ ..245 Staff Reports to Planning Commission, May 22, 1986...................289 CITY COUNCIL 1 City Council Minutes, June 23, 1986............ ...................... 341 City Council Minutes, July 14, 1986.. ........................355 Staff Reports to City Council, June 23, 1986............. .391 1 Staff Reports to City Council, July 14, 1986 .........................447 r J r 1 1 1 1 1 1 r Exhibit 1 ' CEOA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-10) NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS AND 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LOCAL COASTAL -LAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND AN APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT FOR THE NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES PROJECT, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA ' Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant ' environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. ' The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the 1 significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible ' the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." The City of Newport Beach is considering approval of development of Newport Center and Peripheral Sites 85-1(B). The project includes the certification of an EIR, a general plan amendment; a local coastal plan ' amendment, a development agreement, and an approval of amendment. Because the proposed actions constitute a project under the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR has identified certain significant effects which may occur as a ' result of the project, or on a cumulative basis in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Further, the City desires to approve this project and, after determining that the EiR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, the findings set forth are herein made: Ultimate development of the project will result in certain significant unavoidable adverse impacts to the environment, as indicated below and in the Final EIR. With respect to those impacts, the City Council of Newport Beach makes findings as stated on the following pages. I FINDINGS AND FACTS IN .SUPPORT OF FINDTNCS FOR t SIGNIrTCANTttVLTRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE .PROJECT' EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT r Based on the data in the CFEIR, the following art effects determined to be insignificant. Changes were made prior to plan review to insure the insignificance of these effects. LAND USE ' The proposed project will not have a significant impact on regional housing production, location, or distribution. ' The proposed addition of commercial development doom not represent a significant subregionol increase in office space construction, ' Recreational and open *Pecos planned for Newport Center will not occur. , _ ' The proposed project will change the zoning district for all C-O-H pro- parties in the Center to P.C. ' ' The proposed project will add 128,000 square feet to the existing re- gional shopping center. Required parking structur*(s) for the proposed development,have the potential for impacts. ' The P-C text will establish new development standards for FAshion Island. The addition of uses is not a significant impact. The adoption of the P.0 text, as proposed, will allow for considerable latitude in the allocation of development within the site. ' ' Block 600 is currently zoned C-O-H. The zoning will be changed to P,C. ' The P.0 Text will establish new development standards and uses for ' Block 600. ' The proposed project will add 50,000 square feet of office and/or institutional uses to the Civic Plaza Expansion Site. r ' Lind use changes in the Civic Plaza are consistent with the existing land uses or are an extension of existing land uses. ' The P-C Text for Civic Plaza will be changed for consistency. • Minor corrections to the P-C Text for consistency will be made for Block 800. ' The P-C Text will establish new development standards and uses for ' Block 800. ' Elimination of the last service station of the northerly side of Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and the westerly City boundary will be an inconvenience, - I ' The project will change the designation of the PCH/Jamboree sit* on the LCP. ' The P-C Text for Villa Point will be changed to delete Area 2 (office) and incorporate minor changes in the District Regulations. I • The proposed project would add 100.000 square feat of office , development to the existing allowed development in Corporate Plaza Vast, • Changes are proposed to the existing Cenral Plan land use designation r for the Corporate Plaza West site. ' The onsite open space area in Corporate Plaza West will not be impacted by the implementation of the proposed project. r s Proposed development of the Newporter North site will not adversely impact the implementation of the City's Master Plan of Bikeways. Deletion of the Couplet will effect the implementation of bikeways proposed adjacent to the Couplet, but will not adversely affect the implementation of the Master Plan of bikeways. Pedestrian The proposed expansion project on Fashion Island site will not adversely impact existing pedestrian sidewalk patterns. Development on Block 600 will not adversely impact existing sidewalks adjacent to the site. Expansion of development .in Civic Plaza will not adversely impact sidewalks adjacent to the project site. Development of Block 800 will not adversely impact pedestrian sidewalks adjacent to the site. Elimination of the Back Bay Drive extension pedestrian access is not an adverse impact. ° Development of the Corporate Plaza West site will not adversely impact existing adjacent sidewalks. Development of the Newport Village will not adversely impact sidewalks adjacent to the site. ° Existing sidewalks adjacent to the Avocado/MacArthur site will not be adversely impacted by development of the site. No significant pedestrian impacts are anticipated with the development of the Big Canyon/MacArthur site. No significant impacts from the development of the Bayview, Landing site are anticipated related to existing sidewalks. ° Existing trails along Back Bay Drive will not be impacted by the proposed development. NOISE ° Short-term impact on ambient noise levels from construction noise. ° Increase in CNEL generated by the project for all roadways other than San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Impact of operations at John Wayne Airport on the proposed project. Impact of roadway noise on proposed uses in Fashion Island, Block 600, Civic Plaza Expansion, and Block 800. • The impact of a grade separation at the East Coast Highway/Jamboree Road intersection. • The impact of Back Bay Drive extension on adjacent residential uses, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Development of the Fashion Island, Block 600, Block 800, PCH/Jamboree, — Corporate Plaza'West, Avocado/MacArthur, Big Canyon/MacArthur, Newport Village, and Bayview Landing sites will, remove existing vegetation. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Southern California Edison Company indicates that system demands are expected to increase annually, but no adverse impacts are anticipated. 6 1 ' Hospitals contacted indicated that the project will not adversely t impact tha present level of medical serviea. • Deletion of the Couplet will not adversely impact OCTD's ability to , construct the transit facility or affect its present transit routes. ' No adverse impacts are anticipated on schools and solid waste. ' EFFECTS DETERMTNEP TO St WT.TrGABLE TO A LIVIT, OF INSIGNIFICANCE LAND USE Significant Effect ' The proposed project represents an overall increase in density and Intensity. 'Finding Finding i- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project whioh avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. , Facts -in support of Finding The significant effect hag been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance ' by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The maximum allowable building height shall be 20 stories. ' 2. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the Central Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: , 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act , 4. Grading Permits 3. 'Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-1(B) , Newport Canter and Peripheral situ EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development t agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval Of the agraement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of , Newport Beath for the Newport Center and Peripheral Situ area, the P-C text *ball be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.l(S) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that ' additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Signifttent Effect' • The project requires an amendment to the Lend use, circulation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Batch Geheral Plan. Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. F ' Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of ' insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final SIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of ' the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. ' 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits ' 2. The residential developments shall conform to the City's park requirements. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport ' Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-l(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required ' for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of ' Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the ' development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." ' Significant Effect The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the existing General Plan growth limitations and land use designations. Finding Finding I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant ' environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final SIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: ' 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. ' 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits t 2. The residential developments shall conform to the City's park requirements, 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport ' Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.l(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Cantor and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA BS-1(9) Newport Cantor and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of tho text." BisnificanttEffect ' Additional development could be utilized under the proposed general plan amendment and P-C text to develop free standing commercial structures within Fashion Island. Eini Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated Into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. Feet& in SUUUOrt of Findins The significant effect hem been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final SIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and toning. The following discretionary approvals: I. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed, if it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 3. 'Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." ' The proposed project would add 300,000 square feet of office development to Block 600. The existing end proposed height regulations oot structure. Itrwould become ak600 lsignificant landmark d allow for the tintthe ncommunity. fThe additional Allowable development will create significant shade/shadow impacts, potential traffic and circulation impacts, and major visual and sasthatic impacts. 1 t P F 1 I I I 9 tFinding ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. ' Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into ' the project. These measures include the following: 1. The maximum allowable building height shall be 20 stories. ' 2. The new parking structure(s) in Block 600 shall provide for the 212 parking spaces presently required for the Wells Fargo Building. These spaces shall be located in the closest proximity to the Wells Fargo Building in a manner approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. ' 3. The proposed parking structure(s) shall be provided in such a manner so as to restrict the access to the parking spaces in Block 600 allocate to the Four Seasons Hotel. This shall be accomplished in a ' manner approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 4. The proposed parking structure(s) shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) ' and/or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and shall be consistent with ingress/egress, site design, and public safety concerns. 5. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. ' 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits ' 6. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is ' determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." ' 7. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated ' impacts have been adequately addressed. I£ it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." ' Significant Effect - — The joint use of a parking structure for hotel and office uses in Block 600 can create significant impacts, 'Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated ' into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 10 The significant effect has boon substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The new parking strueture(s) in Block 600 shall provide for the 212 parking spaces presently required for the Wells Fargo Building. Thus spaces shall be located in the closest proximity to the Wells Fargo building in A manner approved by the City public Works and Planning Departments. 2. The proposed parking structura(s) shall be provided in such a manner so as to restrict the access to the parking spaces in block 600 Allocate to the Four Seasons Hotel. This shall be accomplished in a manner approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 3. The proposed parking structure(s) shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) and/or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and shall be consistent with ingress/agtess, site design, and public safety concerns. 4. The development of each mite shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 5. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites BIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 6. 'Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(b) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites BIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall bt completed prior to the approval of the text.' Siyniticant Fffa" ' Locating parking in an area that could reduce the viability of the Pour Seasons Hotel and/or existing office buildings in block 600, Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant envitonmental affect as identified in tho Final EIR. Fn_chs in Sunnort of Findlna The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures idsntified in the Final EIR And incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: J LJ I LJ I 1] 11 I I 1 I 1, The new parking structure(s) in Block 600 shall provide for the 212 parking spaces presently required for the Wells Fargo Building. These spaces shall be located in the closest proximity to the Wells Fargo Building in a manner approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments, 2. The proposed parking structure(s) shall be provided in such a manner so as to restrict the access to the parking spaces in Block 600 allocate to the Four Seasons Hotel. This shall be accomplished in a manner approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 3. The proposed parking structure(s) shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) and/or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road end shall be consistent with ingress/egress, site design, and public safety concerns. 4. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map 'Act 4. Grading Permits 5. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 6. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect • Required parking structures in Block 600 have the potential for impacts to public safety and aesthetics. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The maximum allowable bulding height shall be 20 stories. 2. The new parking structure(s) in Block 600 shall provide for the 212 parking spaces presently required for the Wells Fargo Building. These spaces shall be located in the closest proximity to the Wells Fargo Building in a manner approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. t 12 1 3. The proposed parking structura(s) shall be provided in such a manner , so as to restrict the access to the parking spaces in Block 600 allocate to the Four Seasons Hotel. This shall be accomplished in a ' manner approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 4. The proposed parking structure shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) , and/or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and shall be consistent with ingress/egress, site design, and public safety concerns. S. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of , the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. ' 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Hap Act 4. Grading Permits 7. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport ' Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Situ SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed, If it is determined that additional onvironmontal documentation is required , for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the sgreement." 8. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of 1 Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Situ area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(1) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the ' development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant rffe t , ' The proposed project would preclude the development of residential davalopmsnt on Block $00. Find1Dg ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated ante, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant anvitonmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially leesoned to a level of insignificance , by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation HeasUres identified in the Final SIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the followings 1. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral situ area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have boon adequately addressed. If it is ' determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement," 2. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral sites arose, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been , adequately addressed. If it is determined that I 13 ' additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." ' Significant Effect • The location of uses could be a significant impact on the privacy of adjacent residential areas depending on the location of the office ' buildings on the site and the location of uses in the structures. Finding ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. '. Facts J.n Support of Finding The significant effect 3as been substantially lessened to a level of ' insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The maximum allowable building height shall be 20 stories. ' 2. The proposed parking structure shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) and/or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and shall be consistent with ingress/egress, site design, and public safety concerns. 3. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The ' following discretionary approvals: I. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 4. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport ' Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed ' prior to the approval of the agreement." 5. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the ' P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ' • The height limit of 375 feet would allow for the provision of uses with a significant impact potential. Mitigation measures would eliminate — the potential for this impact if incorporated into the project ' approval. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated ' into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. I 15 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated ' impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ' The proposed project would add 440,000 square Peet of office development to Block 800. The proposed height regulations for the block would allow for the construction of a 375 foot structure. This would create a significant landmark in the community. Odin Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant ' environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding ' The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of ' ' the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 12 stories. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed t prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by .the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the ' P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior ' to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ' Additional allowable development in Block 800 will create significant shade/shadow impacts, potential traffic and circulation impacts, and major visual and aesthetic impacts. ' Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant ' environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 16 Fats in Su000rt of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning, The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites In the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use, Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 12 stories, 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the city of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect Patking structures in Block $00 have the potent;&, for impact to public safety and aesthetics. Findine Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts. in Suoport of Findine ` The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These messures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific piano and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal ,Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 12 stories. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required I 1 I 1 1 t 1 I 17 ' for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-l(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect • The change in the General Plan land use designation would preclude the development of residential uses in Block 800. "Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center- and Peripheral Sites area, the ' development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed ' prior to the approval of the agreement." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport ' Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the ' development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect The location of the uses in Block 800 could be a significant impact on ' the privacy of adjacent residential areas depending on the location of the office buildings on the site and the location of the uses in the structures. ' iF nding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. is `J Facts in Suppurt of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Find EIR and incorporated into the project. Theme measures include the followingt 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4, Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 12 stories. 3. *Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Nawport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall he completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-l(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites BIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addreamod. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ' The 375 feet height limit in Block 000 would allow for the provision of uses with significant potential impacts. Pilndina Finding I- Changes or Alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project Which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect an identified in the Final SIR. Facts in c.Ipoort of Finding , The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plane and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1, Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Ume Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 12 stories. 3. 'Prior to approval of A devslopment agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sktas area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is 1 I FJ 1 �J i� J 19 ' determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." ' 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." ' Significant Effect • The general plan amendment would change the existing designation of the PCH/Jamboree site to Multiple Family Residential. The project would preclude the development of floating residential development on the site. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding ' The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. ' 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits ' 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(3) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites SIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. 'If it is ' determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-l(B) Newport ' Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." ' Significant Effect The proposed project would add 345,000 square feet of office uses and 59,250 square feet of commercial uses to the Newport Village site. Onsite uses will include restaurants and commercial uses near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway. The location of this use at this location could be a significant impact on ' the adjacent residential areas to the east. Impacts will result from nighttime activities. 20 Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The significant effect has been substantially loatened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the Project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the Central Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone, 2. Site Plan Rtviaw and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The -residential developments shall conform to the City's park requirements. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have bean adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed Prior to the approval of the agreemant." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites Area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect The project would preclude the development of floating gasidsntial development on all sites. Find1na Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Su000rt of }indtne The significant offset hike been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These mesaUres include the following: 1. The development of each site shell be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits E C CI C I I 21 ' 2. "Prior to approval development of a agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. I£ it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." ' Significant Effect Implementation of the proposed project would delete a designated recreational area from the Newport Village site. Findiniz ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding ' The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The ' following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act ' 4. Grading Permits 2. The residential developments shall conform to the City's park requirements. ' 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the ' associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it' is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." ' 4, "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport ' Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text.^ ' Significant Effect ' The proposed project would add 44,000 square feet of office uses and an Orange County Transit District facility in the Avocado/MacArthur site. 22 Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The significant effect has bean substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all Applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beech for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.l(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Sig,Rificant Effect The project would preclude the development of floating residential development in the Avocade/MACArthur site. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect so identified in the Final BIR. Facts in Su000rt of Finding The significant affect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignifieanca by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plane and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 20 stories. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Site# area, the 1 I I I I 1 F 1 t 1 ' 23 development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." ' 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-l(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated ' impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." ' Significant Effect The loss of the view park and bicycle staging area on the upper portion of the Bayview Landing site is considered a significant land use impact ' of the project. Finding ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding ' The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into ' the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: ' 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act ' 4. Grading Permits 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed, if it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of ' Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area; the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that ' additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ' • The ultimate dispensation of John Wayne Gulch is unknown. Leaving the area as open space assumes ownership of the area by the adjacent homeowners association or dedication to a public agency. 24 Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of Insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Meaauras identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and toning. the following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone, 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA SS-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for tbs Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Existing Newporter North site cultural resources may delay development of the project. This would preeluda phasing for the project as indicated by the project proponent. Finding Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. these measures include the following; 1. The davalopment of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone, 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85i1(B) I t P u t ' 25 ' Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is ' determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts ha•:e been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the apprnval of the text." Significant Effect ' Non-residential uses of the Newporter North site will create significant impacts on the residential community. ' Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding ' The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of ' the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. ' 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport ' Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. 'If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by ,the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." ' Significant Effect • Development of the Newporter North site with a maximum building height of 50 feet would be an unavoidable adverse impact. ' Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated ' into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 26 ' Facts in Su000rt of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of ' insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These mitigation measures include the following: 1. The development of each sit* shall be subject to the requirements of ' the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone ' I. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Nap Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 35 fast with up to 40 , feet in height with a pitched roof. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport ' Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to aasees whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required , for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior Co the approval of the agreament." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Canter and Peripheral Sites area, the ' ' P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to Assagg whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior ' to the approval of the text." AESTHETICS Significant Effect , The use of illuminated signage high on the sides of highrise building in visually prominent locations is considered a significant project t Impact. Findint Finding I- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant Offset has been substantially lassenad to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Further visual analysis shall be conducted at the time of subdivi- sion review for the residential areas and use permit or site plan review for the remaining uses, ' 2. No exterior signs shall be permitted abova the second floor slava- tion of Any structure (except In Fashion Island), 3. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. ' 27 4. illuminated No signs shall be roof mounted. ' 5. No illuminated building signs oriented toward MacArthur Boulevard shall be permitted. Significant Effect Parking structures in Fashion Island can create adverse aesthetic ' impacts. Finding ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findina The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements ' and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. All screening shall conform to the height limit in each area. 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the ' approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect • The expansion of the shopping center and introduction of new uses will introduce more lighting into the existing land uses causing a potential adverse impact. ' Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support Find of nst The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements ' and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: F1 1. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 2. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 3. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in conjunction with the Planned Community District Regulations, 4. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 5. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect The height in Block 600 of proposed development is considered a signi- ficant aesthetic impact. 28 Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated Into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the Significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. Facts in Support of Ftndins The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final SIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following; 1. Further visual analysis Shall be conducted at the time of subdivi- Sion review for the residential areas and use permit or site plan review for the remaining uses. 2. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 stories. 3. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant x fIct The visibility of roof top and wall mounted illuminated Signs would be considered a significant adverse impact of the Block 600 specific project. E Finding �1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR, Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final SIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Further visual analysis shall be conducted it the time of subdivi- sion review for the residential areas and use permit or site plan review for the remaining uses. 2. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except Fashion Island), 3. Signage end exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 4. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 5. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in conjunction with the Planned Community District Regulations. 6. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 stories. 7. The project Shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent proportion. 8. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, slavations, and sections. F3rLSsiFTGi# ' Potential significant height and sign impacts in Block 600 would be increased by nighttime lighting. I I I I lJ I 7 U J I r ' 29 ' Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated ' into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding iThe significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: ' 1. Further visual analysis shall be conducted at the time of subdivi- sion review for the residential areas and use permit or site plan review for the remaining uses. 2. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except Fashion Island). 3. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning ' Department and the Public Works Department. ' 4. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. ' 5. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in conjunction with the Planned Community District Regulations. ' 6. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 7. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the ' approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect The proposed Civic Plaza Expansion project may impact existing views ' from the Newport Center branch public library. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated ' into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ' Facts in Support of Finding ` The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections, Significant Effect • On the PCH/Jamboree site, if the combination of the building pad height and the building height is less than 140 feet above sea level, the ' project would be within acceptable Limits. Finding ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. L 30 r The significant effect has been substantially loosened to a level of ' insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into rho project. These measures include the following: 1. Earth berms and graded slopes, as required, shall be contoured and r landscaped to the approval of the Building and Planning Department. 2. A lands;aped edge treatment shall be provided on Jamboree Road and ' East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan rev{,aw. 3. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community District Regulations r text for the PCH/Jamboree site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. 4. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the r approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Signi. ficanEffect On the PCH/Jamborso site building types, materials, and landscaping are ' unknown. Potential aesthetic impacts cannot be fully determined at this time. Findine Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated Into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental affect as identified in the Final EIR. r Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of , insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. Theme measures include the following: I. Earth berms and graded slopes, as required, shall be contoured and ' landscaped to the approval of the Building and Planning Department. 2. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to r approval by the Planning Department, the Department of Parks, Batches, and Recreation, and the Public Works Department. 3. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the Approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect The location of night lit structures and signs along East Coast Highway, will tie the Corporate Plata West site to Corporate Plaza lost site and the Corona del Mar commoteiai area, This may be viewed as a significant impact by soma members of the general public. dint Einding Finding I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated - r into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant r environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant affect has been substantially lessened to a level of ' insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: r 31 ' 1. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except Fashion Island). '2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning _ Department and the Public Works Department. 3. No illuminated signs shall roof mounted. ' 4. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in con- junction with the Planned Community District Regulations. 5. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as ' noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the Corporate Plaza West site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. ' 6. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjaccnt properties. ' 7. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect • No significant impacts are anticipated from the proposed landscaping so long as it meets proposed height restrictions in the Newport Village site. ' Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant ' environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findin¢ The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of ' insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: ' 1. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the Newport Village site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. 1 2. Landscaped entry statements shall be provided at the intersections of Avocado Avenue and San Miguel Drive, San Miguel Drive, and MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue and East Coast Highway and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with Site Plan Review. 3. Overhead utilities shall be removed between San Miguel Drive 'and East Coast Highway on MacArthur Boulevard. ' Significant Effect The potential for night lit signs facing MacArthur Boulevard in the Newport Village site is a significant impact on several residents in Harbor View Hills. ' Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as,identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Su000rt of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements 32 , and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into , the project. These measures include the following: 1. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor aleva- , tion of any structure (except Fashion Island). 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning , Department and the Public Works Department, 3. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 4. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in , conjunction with the Planned Community District Regulations. S. No illuminated building signs shall be permitted oriented toward MacArthur boulevard. , S. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. Significant effect ' ' Lighting for commercial operations in the Newport Village site is a Potential significant impact at this location. dine Einding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated , into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant , environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of , insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final SIR And incorporated into the project. Theme measurse include the following: 1. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except Fashion Island). 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning t Department and the Public Works Department. 3. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 4. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in con. junction with the Planned Community District Regulations. 5. No illuminated building signs shall be permitted oriented toward MacArthur boulevard. , 6. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 7. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the , approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect Development on the bayview Landing sit* will have a significant impact ' on the aaathetic environment, _ Flnding FinI. Changes or alterations have boon required in, or incorporated ' into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ' 33 ' Facts in Support of Findine ' The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Landscaping plans shall indicate that only native vegetation compa- tible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. I I F 2. In conjunction with site plan review or use permit approval, the project proponent shall prep+re a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop setback. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, Building Department, and the Planning Department. 3. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations Text for the Bayview Landing site. 4. Landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. Significant Effect The potential exists for significant adverse impacts from onsite signs on the Bayview Landing site. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Sunuort of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except Fashion Island). 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 3. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 4. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in con- junction with the Planned Community District Regulations. S. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. Significant Effect The loss of the public view park on the Bayview Landing site is consi- dered a significant adverse aesthetic impact of the project. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 34 The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. In conjunction with site plan review or use permit approval, the project proponent shall prepare A detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop setback. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beachee, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, Building Department, and the Planning Department. 2. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department, the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, and the Public Works Department. 3. The landscape plan *hall include a maintenance program which con. trols the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 4. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. • The prominence of future public views from the Bayviev Lending site of Upper Newport Bay could be lost depending on site design. Finding Finding I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. Theme measures include the following: 1, In conjunction with site plan review or use permit approval, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop setback. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, Building Department, and the Planning Department. 2. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations Text for the Bayview Landing site. 3. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site And shall be approved by the City in conjunction with the subdivision or nits plan review, 4. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Pffect ' Development of the Sayviev Landing site with lighted signs and atrue- turAs will substantially impact the visual appearance of the site during the evening hours. This will be perceived as a significant impact by some users. Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated 1 I LJ 17 F 1 i 35 1 i L J into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor sieve tion of any structure (except Fashion Island). 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 3. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 4. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. All screening shall conform to the height limit in each area. 5. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in con- junction with the Planned Community District Regulations. Significant Effect Given the lack of details regarding the proposed lowering of MacArthur Boulevard, the impact should be considered significant. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findina The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Earth berms and graded slopes, as required, shall be contoured and landscaped to the approval of the Building and Planning Department. 2. A landscape edge treatment shall be provided along EAst Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, Avocado Avenue, and San Miguel Drive, Landscaped entry statements shall be provided at the intersections of San Miguel Drive at Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard to be approved by the City in conjunction with site plan review. 3. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department, the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, and the Public Works Department. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Vehicular Significant Effect • The proposed project will add traffic to the following intersections: Coast Highway at: Orange Street Prospect Street Bayside Drive Jamboree Road Goldenrod Avenue 36 Marguerite Avenue Poppy Avenue Jamboree Road at: MacArthur Boulevard Bristol Street MacArthur Boulevard at: Bison Avenue Ford Road Campus Drive at: Bristol Street North Bristol street Birch street at: Bristol Street north TSndins Finding 1- Changes or alterations have boon required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Prior to the occupancy of Any CPA 85.10) permitted structure the project proponent shall implement an overall Transportation Management System (TMS) for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The THS shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Prior to the occupancy of any individual structure permitted by CPA 85-1(B), A Nita specific TSH component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 9. Prior to the occupancy of Phase I, the intersection improvements listed on Table 1-000 shall have been constructed. 4. The project proponent shall pay "Fair Share" fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. S. The project proponent shall pay San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Pees as required by the Newport Beech Municipal Code, Sienificant Effect ' The inclusion of the proposed CPA traffic would increase the ICU values at several additional intersections to greeter than 0.00 in 1989. These intersections ores Jamboree Road at: Newport Boulevard at: Bison Avenue Son Joaquin Hills Road Santa Barbara Drive Hospital Road Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which Avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of Insignificance by virtue of the Standard city Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Prior to the occupancy of any CPA 85.1(1) permitted structure the project proponent shall implement an overall Transportation Management System (THS) for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The TMS shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach. 1 1 U r 1 I L L ' 37 by GPA 2. Prior to the occupancy of any individual structure permitted 85-I(B), a site specific TSM component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. ' 3. Prior to the occupancy of Phase II, the intersection improvements listed on Table 1-III shall have been constructed with the exception that the project proponent shall monitor traffic volumes and re-evaluate the need for improvements at the Jamboree Road intersection of Ford Road, Bison Avenue, and East Bluff Drive (N) in a manner acceptable to the city. Improvements shall be made to these intersections prior to the occupancy of Phase II if it is deemed appropriate by the City. ' 4. The project proponent shall pay "Fair Share" Lees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. The project proponent shall pay San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Significant Effect • In 1993 with the superimposition of Phase 2 of the proposed GPA, the following additional intersections would be congested: Jamboree Road at: Ford Road/Eastblu££ Drive ' MacArthur Boulevard at: San Niguel Drive Coast Highway at: Balboa Blvd./Superior Avenue Riverside Avenue Tustin Avenue Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive Bayside Drive Jamboree Road Goldenrod Avenue Jamboree Road at: Campus Drive Eastbluf£ Drive North MacArthur Boulevard at: San Joaquin Hills Road Finding Finding I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ' Facts in Support Finding of The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements ' and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Prior to the occupancy of any GPA 85-1(B) permitted structure the ' project proponent shall implement an overall Transportation Management System (TMS) for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The INS shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Prior to the occupancy of any individual structure permitted by GPA 85-1(B), a site specific TSM component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 3. Prior to the occupancy of Phase II, the intersection improvements ' listed on Table 1-III shall have been constructed with the exception that the project proponent shall monitor traffic volumes and - re-evaluate the need for improvements at the Jamboree Road a manner acceptable to the city. Improvements shall be made to ' these intersections prior to the occupancy of Phase II if it is deemed appropriate by the City. 4. The project proponent shall pay "Fair Share" fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 38 ' ' 5. The project proponent shall pay San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Bicycle Significant Effect , • Deletion of the Couplet will change the proposed configuration for ' bikeways along Avocado Avenue. indinit b i Finn1• ehaages or alterations have been required in, or incorporated , into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Suaaort of Fitidina , The significant offset hes been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into ' the project. These measures include the following: 1. The project proponent shall install all bicycle paths adjacent to each project site and provide all local connections. ' 2. The project proponent shall prepare a phasing plan for all bicycle paths to be approved by the City. 3. The project applicant Shall install and maintain bicycle racks to encourage the use of alternative transportation modes. 4. The project proponent shall design and implement on alternative bicycle route to the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard On* -Way ' Couplet bikeway. The route shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Public Works Department* and approved by the City Council, S. The City shall insure implementation of a bikeway system to ' encourage cycling as an alternative mode of transportation consistent with the Master Plan of Bikeways. 6. The Master Plan of Bikeways shall be implemented concurrent with highway ' and street improvements, consistent with the City,s financial ability to do so, and the availability of alternative funding sources. 7. Appropriate bikeway improvements may be required as a condition of ' development approvals. B. The City will work with surrounding agencies for development of connecting bikeways. ' Significant .ffa • Elimination of the designated trail staging area on the Bayvisw Ending site will , adversely impact bicycle Staging uses designated for the site. Finding I- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated Into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Supoort of Findina ' The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into ' the project. These measures include the following: I 39 '• 1. The project proponent shall install all bicycle paths adjacent to each project site and provide all local connections. ' 2. The project proponent shall prepare a phasing plan for all bicycle paths to be approved by the City. 3. The project proponent shall install and maintain bicycle racks on the Bayview Landing and Newporter North project sites to encourage ' the use of alternative routes for the project sites. 4. The City shall endeavor to provide a full range of year-round recreational facilities and instructional programs to adequately ' meet the current and future needs of each resident. The varied programs and facilities shall include water sports and activities, beach and harbor facilities, active park facilities, passive open areas and view parks, senior citizen facilities, and bicycle• trails, pedestrian trails, and scenic highways. 5, The City shall insure implementation of a bikeway system to • encourage cycling as an alternative mode of transportation consistent with the Master Plan of Bikeways. 6, The Master Plan of Bikeways shall be implemented concurrent with highway and street improvements, consistent with the City's financial ability to do so, and the availability of alternative ' funding sources. 7. Appropriate bikeway improvements may be required as a condition of development approvals. ' 8. The City will work with surrounding agencies for development of connecting bikeways. 9, The City shall maintain a comprehensive signing program of City coastal resources including accessways, bicycle routes, public beaches, and vista points. ' Significant Effect • Elimination of the trail staging area is considered an adverse impact. Finding ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ' Facts in Support Finding of The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements ' and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The project proponent shall install all bicycle paths adjacent, to ' each project site and provide all local connections. 2. The project proponent shall prepare a phasing plan for all bicycle paths to be approved by the City. ' 3. The project proponent shall install and maintain bicycle racks on the Bayview Landing and Newporter North project sites to encourage the use of alternative routes for the project sites. ' 4. The project proponent shall fund the implementation of designated bicycle routes for the project site. ' 5. The City shall endeavor to provide a full range of year-round recreational facilities and instructional programs to adequately meet the current and future needs of each resident. The varied programs and facilities shall include water sports and activities, 40 beach and harbor facilities, active park facilities, passive open areas and view parks, senior citizen facilities, and bicycle trails, pedestrian trails, and scenic highways. 6. The City shall insure implementation of a bikeway system to encourage cycling a an alternative mode of transportation consistent with the Master Plan of likoways. 7. The Master Plan of Bikaways shall be implemented concurrent with highway and street improvements, consistent with the City'■ financial ability to do so, and the availability of alternative funding sources. B. Appropriate bikeway improvements nay be required as a condition of development approvals. 9. The City will work with surrounding agencies for development of connecting bikeways. 10. The City shall maintain a comprehensive signing program of City coastal resources including accessweys, bicycle routes, public beeches, and vista points. NOISE Significant Effect Construction traffic noise in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental affect as identified in the Final SIR. Fats ID Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final SIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. It is the standard unwritten policy of the City of Newport Beach to require approval by the City Traffic Engineer and Building Department of all construction truck traffic routes. 2. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for situ in the Coastal gone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits. 3. Construction traffic shall not be routed on San Miguel Drive or San Joaquin Hinz Road east of the MacArthur Boulevard. Increase in CNEL generated by the project for San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Findina nding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. I 7 41 Facts in support of Finding ' The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: ' 1. The project will contribute to "Fair Share" funds which can be uti- lized for the construction of Noise Walls. 2. As a condition of project approval, units located inside the 65 CNEL contour shall be mitigated to experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL and indoor noise levels less than 45 CNEL. Specific provisions shall be determined prior to obtaining any grading permit and shall be installed in accordance with a further acoustical study ' to be prepared for the specific project. 3. The project proponent shall be responsible for expense and con- struction of sound barrier walls along MacArthur Boulevard. The final barrier height shall be determined in gonjunction with the chosen roadway configuration for MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. Preliminary sound wall heights for the three alternatives to mitigate noise impacts are as follows: ' NOISE BARRIER REQUIREMENTS ALONG HaCARTHUR BOULEVARD BARRIER HEIGHT (FEET; ' LOCATION WITH COUPLET NO COUPLET-ALT A NO COUPLET-ALT B 'DEPRESSIONS' 'NO DEPRESSIONS' A 7.0 7.5 7.0 B 4.0 5.0 6.5 C 0.5 0.0 2.5 D 1.5 1.5 5.5 E 2.5 1.0 6.0 ' F 2.0 0.0 5.0 G 2.5 0.0 5.5 H 1.5 0.0 5.0 I J 2. 2.55 0.0 0.0 5.5 5.5 K 1.5 0.0 4.5 L 2.5 0.0 6.0 M 3.5 1.5 7.0 N 4.5 3.0 8.0 ' 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2.5 2.0 4.0 , Q 5.5 5.5 6.5 R 4.0 4. 5.5 ' S 4.0 4.00 5.5 T 5.0 6.0 6.5 U 5.5 5.5 6.0 V 4..0 . W 4.00 .0 4.0 4.55 4 ' X 4.5 4.5 4.5 Y 0.0 6.0 6.0 ' Significant Effect ° Impacts of roadway noise on project uses proposed on PCH/Jamboree, Corporate Plaza West, Newport Village, Avocado MacArthur, Big ' Canyon/MacArthur, Bayview Landing, and Newport North. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated ' into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 42 Facts in Su000rt of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lemmsned to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project, Theme measures include the following: 1. As a condition of project approval, units located inside the 65 CNEL contour shall be mitigated to experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL and indoor noiw levels less than 45 CNEL. Specific provisions shell be determined prior to obtaining any grading permit and shall be installed in accordance further acoustical study to be prepared for the project site. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, an acoustical study shall be prepared bawd on actual pad, property, roadway grades, building locations, and orientation to assuro that noise impacts do not exceed 50 CNEL for interior areas of office buildings and 55 CNEL for interior areas of retail/commarcial sstablishments. 3. As a condition of project approval, units located inside the 65 CNEL contour shall be mitigated to experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL and indoor noise levels less than 45 CNEL. Spe- cific provisions shall be determined prior to obtaining any grading permit and shall be installed in accordance with a further acousti- cal study to be prepared for the specific project. 4. The project proponent shall be responsible for expense and con• struction of sound barrier wales along MacArthur Bouievard. The final barrier height shall be determined in conjunction with the chosen roadway configuration for MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. Preliminary sound wall heights for the three alternatives to mitigate noire impacts are as follows: NOISE BARRIER REQUIREMENTS ALONG MecARYMUR BOULEVARD BARRIER HEIGHT (FEET) LOCATION WITH COUPLET NO COUPLET-ALT A NO COUPLET-ALT B 'DEPRESSIONS' 'NO DEPRESSIONS' 7.0 7.5 7.0 4.0 5.0 6.5 0.5 010 2.5 1.5 1.5 5.5 2.5 1.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 2.5 0.0 5.5 1.5 0.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 5.5 2.5 0.0 5.5 1.5 0.0 4.5 2.5 0.0 6.0 3.5 1.5 7.0 4.5 3.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 6.5 4.0 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 515 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0.0 6.0 6.0 11 I I r I F I 43 h u F 4. Noise barriers shall be constructed of a wall, beam, or combination of wall and beam. The barriers may be constructed of 1/4-inch plate glass, and masonry material, or stud wall with stucco exterior. Other materials may be acceptable if properly designed. Significant Effect Deletion of the Couplet on noise levels adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. As a condition of project approval, units located inside the 65 CNEL contour shall be mitigated to experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL and indoor noise levels less than 45 CNEL. Spe- cific provisions shall be determined prior to obtaining any grading permit and shall be installed in accordance with a further acousti- cal study to be prepared for the specific project. 2. The project proponent shall be responsible for expense and con- struction of sound barrier walls along MacArthur Boulevard. The final barrier height shall be determined in conjunction with the chosen roadway configuration for MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. Preliminary sound wall heights for the three alternatives to mitigate noise impacts are as follows: NOISE BARRIER REQUIREMENTS ALONG MacARTHUR BOULEVARD BARRIER HEIGHT (FEET LOCATION WITH COUPLET NO COUPLET-ALT A NO COUPLET-ALT B 'DEPRESSIONS' 'NO DEPRESSIONS' 7.0 7.5 7.0 4.0 5.0 6.5 0.5 0.0 2.5 1.5 1.5 5.5 2.5 1.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 2.5 0.0 5.5 1.5 0.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 5.5 2.5 0.0 5.5 1.5 0.0 4.5 2.5 0.0 6.0 3.5 1.5 7.0 4.5 3.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 6.5 4.0 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0.0 6.0 6.0 r� 44 4. Noise barriers shall be constructed of a wall, beam, or combination of wall and beam, The barriers may be constructed of 1/4-inch plate glass, and masonry material, or stud wall with stucco exterior. Other materials may be acceptable if properly designed. AIR QUALITY Significant Efface • Air pollutants generated within parking structures could adversely impact downwind areas. rending Finding 1- Changes or alterations have bean required in, or incorporated Into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant offset has been substantially loosened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. An air quality assessment of the potential downwind air quality impacts of the proposed parking structures shall be included as part Of site plan review for these facilitioo. The features of the Parking structure which will minimize the downwind air contaminant levels shall be included in the report along with dispersion modeling projecting the downwind air quality levels in nearby areas. Parking structures when designed properly do not result in significant downwind sit quality impacts. EARTH RESOURCES Significant Effect ' The implementation of the project will create modifications to existing land uses changing topographical charactoriatics. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental Affect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measure* include the following: 1. Prior to implementation of the project the developer shall provide a geotechnical report for all sites included in OVA 2. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the building and Planning Departments. 3. A grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for tem- porary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants, 4. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and a seepage program designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. I 11 I F LJ ' 45 ' 5. 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 Board, Santa Ana Region. 6. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the project shall be ' evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 7. 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. E. Erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. ' Significant Effect Earth moving activities will impact all project sites through soil displacement. ' Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated ' into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findina The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of ' insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: ' 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. ' 2. A grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 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 Board, Santa Ana Region. 4. 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. Erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. WATER RESOURCES ' Significant Effect Implementation of the project will result in modifications to onsite and offsite stormwater runoff. 46 finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Any onsite systems or extension of culverts for contributory drain- age from areas outside the proposed developments shall be considered a localized condition. These culverts shall be studied during the design phase and any required improvements shall be installed in conformance with local ordinances and accepted engineering practice, 2. All existing and proposed desilting basins located within Newport Center or serving projects located within Newport Center shall be maintained by the project proponent. 3. Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach. 4. Any exposed slopes shall be planted so soon As possible to reduce erosion potential. S. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Departments, 6. A Master Plan of Drainage Facilities should be prepared for each site and/or link at the site specific or contributory drainage area level. These planned facilities should connect with existing or currently master planned facilities. Development of the sites will increase impervious surfaces which will Incrementally increase the &Mount and velocity of runoff. Binding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have bean required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, The significant effect has been substantially lessened to it level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final SIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Any onsite systems or extension of culverts for contributory drain- age from areas outside the proposed developments shell be considered a localised condition. These culverts shall be studied during the design phase and any required improvements shall be installed in — conformance with local ordinances and accepted engineering practice. 2. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department. A copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 3. Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Basch, I 1 LI i F LI I 47 4. All parking and other onsite paved surfaces shall be routinely vacuum -swept and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried ' 5. into the drainage system. The velocity of concentrated runoff from each site shall be evaluat- ed and controlled as part of project design to minimize impacts on adjacent areas. ' 6. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the design engineer shall re- view and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows ' from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 7. A Master Plan of Drainage Facilities should be prepared for each site and/or link at the site specific or contributory drainage area ' level. These planned facilities should connect with existing or currently master planned facilities, ' ,Slgnificant Effect Short-term sewage wastes generated during construction. ' Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Sunnort of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of ' insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The maintenance of sanitary conditions at the time of development of the project. 2. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit of any "specific" buildings, a program for the building for the sorting of recyclable ' materials from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. Significant Effect ' Short-term construction activities will add dust and debris to site runoff. FindIniz Finding I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ' Facts in Support of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: — 1. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department. A copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. ' 2. Existing onsice drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach. I 48 3. Any exposed slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce erosion potential. 4. All parking and other onsite paved surfaces shall be routinely vacuum -swept and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried into the drainage system. Significant Effect The decrease in interim desalting facilities on the Newporter North site. Fiiidine Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. Factsin n Supoort of Finding The significant offset has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final SIR and incorporated, into the project. These measures include the following: 1. All existing and proposed desalting basins located within Newport Center or serving projects located within Newport Center shall be maintained by the project proponent. 2. Existing onsits drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Seach. 3. A Master Plan of Drainage Facilities should be prepared for each site and/or link at the site specific of contributory drainage area level. These planned facilities should connect with existing or currently master planned facilities. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effect Development of the Newporter North site would result in the following: - Lost or degradation of buffer area for coastal scrub, Loss of wetlands Loss of endangered species habitation in John Vayna Gulch. rindint Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Sucoort of finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Setbacks of development from the bluff edge shall be no less than 100 feet to provide a partial buffer between development and resource &tees as wall as protect the bluff face coastal sage scrub. The 100 feet setback is the minimum needed to retain existing vegetation and wildlife habitat resources within the bluff face area. A setback of lose than 100 feat would not prevent human activity from disturbing the normal behavioral patterns of wildlife when resting, feeding, and reproducing. Allowable uses within the 100 toot setback shall be low intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, banches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Vorks Departments. I I I 1 L I 1 49 ' 2. Preservation of the John Wayne Gulch wetland areas as natural open space and setbacks of development from the edge of this area. To be fully effective, this setback shall also be a minimum of 100 feet. ' Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. ' 3. Erosion of development areas shall be strictly monitored and con- trolled and all graded areas shall be either built upon or revege- tated prior to the wet season. ' ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES • Significant Effect Loss of archaeological resources is considered a significant regional, subregional, and local impact. ndin Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ' Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements ' and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into ' the project. These measures include the following: 1. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the developer and grading contractor of the results of the ' study. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert ' construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. 2. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered, during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area ' of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and/or developer. ' Significant Effect ' Potential loss of resources in Newport Village. 'Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant ' environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of ' insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: ' 1. A survey of the site area shall take place d uring which time the surface material should be flagged. This will provide the horizontal ' surface boundaries of the locus. so 2. Following the identification of the surfaca extent of the cultural resources, 5 square meter grid system shall be laid out that encompasses all of the flagged material. 3. Using the grid system, all of the flagged material shall be systema- tically collected. 4. After the collection of the surface material, two to three units measuring 1 square meter shall be plated within the grid system. This will provide the limits of the vertical distribution of the cultural material As well as identifying its subsurface integrity. 5. Following the completion of the subsurface units, a series of hand - dug postholes shall be placed in the site to further define its subsurface horizontal distribution. 6. All material recovered from the surface collection and the subsur- face units shall be analyzed and catalogued. 1. If sufficient shellfish remains are recovered from the subsurface, at least two samples shall be submitted for C14 dating. 8. The results of the test program, including methodology, analysis of recovered material, and recommendations, if necessary, for further work shall be documented in a report and submitted to the client. 9. All of the Above work shall be undertaken by an archaeologist on the Orange County List of Certified Archaeological Consultants. 10. Because of the suspected disturbed nature of Locus B, an Orange County Approved Archaeologist shall be present during the initial grading phase at that location previously identified as that of Locus B. If a significant subsurface deposit is uncovered during the grading the client shall be prepared to have the material evaluated and if need be permit the introduction of a limited test -level investigation. Significant Effect • Potential loss of resources on the PCH/Jambores, Block B00, Bayviov Lending sites. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alternatives have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Find EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to A level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR And incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. A survey of the site area shall take place during which time the surface material should be flagged. This will provide the horizontal surface boundaries of the locus. 2. Following the identification of the surface extent of the cultural resources, 5 square eater grid system shall be laid out that encompasses all of the flogged material. - 3. Using the grid system, all of the flagged materiel shall be systema- tically collected. 4. After the collection of the surface material, two to three units measuring 1 square meter shall be placed within the grid system. This will provide the limits of the vertical distribution of the cultural material as wall as identifying its subsurface integrity. I I I I 1 1� 1 ' - 51 5. Following the completion of the subsurface units, a series of hand - dug postholes shall be placed in the site to further define its subsurface horizontal distribution. ' 6. All material recovered from the surface collection and the subsur- subsurface units shall be analyzed and catalogued. ' 7. If sufficient shellfish remains are covered from the subsurface, at least two samples shall be submitted for C14 dating. 8. The results of the test program, including methodology, an..lysis of recovered material, and recommendations, if necessary, for further ' work shall be documented in a report and submitted to the client. 9. All of the above work shall be.undertaken by an archaeologist on the Orange County List of Certified Archaeological Consultants. ' Significant Effect • Potential loss of CA-Ora-51, -52, -64, -100, and -158 on the Nevporter North site. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated ' into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ' Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the ' project. These measures include the following: 1. Each of the sites shall be surveyed with all of the surface material being flagged. Subsequently, a 100% surface collection of this ' material shall be implemented. 2. Following the collection of the surface material (and some determin- ation as to the horizontal surface material has been posted) 3-4 1 square meter units shall be systematically excavated to determine ' the sites' subsurface integrity, along with its horizontal and vertical extent. 3. All material recovered shall be analyzed and the results documented t in a report. In addition to the results of the excavation, statements shall be offered as to the significance of the site and if the resource area merits a mitigation program. If this is deemed necessary, a specific program shall be outlined. Normally this ' entails the excavation of a percentage of the total site area as determined by the test phase. Depending on the size of the site a 26-108 figure is usually considered adequate for mitigation. In the event that the site is only a surface manifestation or ' sufficient material was not recovered from the subsurface units to merit additional investigation, this shall be noted as well. In the case of the latter development would be permitted to proceed at the location of the site. On the one hand, the mitigation program ' would have to be implemented prior to any development. 4. Following the completion of the test -level excavation, and if — sufficient material was found to warrant salvage, the client would have the option to preserve the site. This can be done by several ' means that could be determined at the time of the report preparation. 5. Taking into account the magnitude of systematic testing that trans- pired at Ora-64 during the 1970s it would seem that any additional excavation to determine the horizontal and vertical distribution of ' the resources or which cultural groups are represented would be 52 redundant. Therefore, three options are being presented for the future management of this important prehistoric site: Option sl - Preservation This option would preclude for the immediate future disturbance to the site. The act of total preservation entails, for example, leaving the site area in its natural state, capping with clean fill dirt (soil which is known to be without cultural material that may have been removed from another site), or the placement of asphalt across the site. If capping with fill is chosen, it would enable the site are to be used as an open space area, park, golf cour&e, of other similar use. Structures that require no major subsurface disturbance for their construction would be permitted, but the installation of, for instance, subsurface sprinkling systems and certain types of plant materials would have to be approached with caution and would possibly require monitoring by a certified archaeologist. if possible, the placement of these watering systems and drains should be placed shove the known cultural deposits so as to minimize any disturbances to the cultural resources. This same tare should be exercised in the event that asphalting is chosen for the site area. If total preservation is chosen for Or*-64, it is recommended that prior to the introduction of fill or asphalt a 100% surface collection be initiated to remove any artifacts that were not collected during the earlier investigations or those that have surfaced since the termination of the last excavation program. This collection should be done in a systematic fashion and be under the direction of on archaeologist that is on the Orange County List of Authorized Archaeologist Consultants. Any recovered material would be analyzed with the results being incorporated into that corpus of data that already exists for the site. It is also recommended that a 100% surface collection take place even if the site is to be left in its natural state, It is assumed that even If Ora-64 is left in its present condition, construction will take place in the immediate vicinity and because of this, access to the sit* area will increase. This increased access could create a hazard for those surface artifacts that may be present. Option 2 - Salvage A second option would permit development to take place within the entire site area. A program of this nature constitutes the destruction of an important cultural remource area and should be Approached accordingly. Even though the term salvage implies the excavation of the whole site, this is not the case, but instead only a predetermined percentage of the site would actually be excavated. In the case of Ora•64 to consider more than a percentage would not only be prohibitive but extremely time consuming as wall. Much of what is outlined below for the partial salvage of Ora-64 in Option 3 can be applied to this second alternative, The project director must show through past projects that he is capable of handling an excavation the site that would be required for the mitigation of a mite with the potential of Ora-64. The research design would have to be one that incorporates both regional and local questions concerning the prehistoric inhabitants of the area and as will considers the important data gathered during previous investigation. It is imperative that the craw be comprised of experienced and professional excavators. This is not a venture that could utilize a field class or volunteers who can participate on weekends or only sporadically throughout the duration of the field portion of the project. U I 1 E n L7 I 1 ' 53 The salvage of Ora-64 would require a permit from the Coastal Commission and Native American involvement that goes beyond notification. The latter requirement would be necessary because of the known existence of burials. Option 3 - Preservation/Salvage This alternative would permit a portion of the site to undergo a. salvage program. This would permit future construction to take place, while at the same time preserving a portion of the site. ' That sector which is to be preserved versus that to be salvaged could most accurately be determined during the early planning stages for the intended use of the site area. Elements to be considered here would be those areas where burials are known to exist and the sectors with the greatest amount of cultural material. It is recommended that the preservation/salvage ratio be roughly equal in amount. In that area to be preserved it is suggested that the same procedures and limitations be adhered to that were noted for Option 1. ' The portion to be mitigated would require a research design that is based on tho previous knowledge gleaned from the site but that also incorporates those questions that have become pertinent since that ' last investigation. This program would require a 100% surface collection, a specific number of hand dug excavation units, analysis of the recovered material, additional C14 dates, and a report that documents the results of the current investigation and which also incorporates the earlier data. A program of this expected magnitude would require a crew of professional archaeologists who would be ' ' under the direction of an archaeologist who has the experience and credentials to conduct a project the size of that anticipated even for the partial salvage of Ora-64. This is meant to include an individual, preferably a Ph.D., who has considerable large-scale ' excavation experience, who has illustrated that he can complete a major project within the specified time limit that the designated budget, one who has produced scholarly site report, also within the agreed upon time frame. A program of this nature would require a coastal permit and Native American involvement particularly if additional burials were encountered. It is anticipated that the field endeavor could consume several months, depending upon the size of the area to be ' excavated and the number of crew persons. 6. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the developer and grading contractor of the results of the ' study. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert ' construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess'the significance of the find, 7. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area ' of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and/or developer. ' 8. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the appli- cant shall waive the provisions of AB 952 related to city of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts ' in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effect ' Potential loss of areas with a moderate to high paleontological sensitivity. 54 1 Irbidtne Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in tha Final SIR. The significant affect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final SIR and incorporated into the project. Those measures include the following: 1. Any fossils collected during grading or axcavation shall be offered to an institution with educational and research interests such as the Natural History Foundation of orange County or the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles. 2. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and/or developer to attend pregrada meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. 3. Archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the coastal zone shall be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or presentation) shall be adopted on a cue -by -came basis in accordant* with regular City policy. 4. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and his- toric resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. Significant Effect ' Potential loss of areas with significant paleontological resources. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. Facts in Support of Findine The significant affect his been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements And Mitigation Measures identified in the Final SIR and incorporated into the project. These measures includo the following: 1. Any fossils collected during grading or excavation shall be offered to an institution with educational and research interests such as .the Natural History Foundation of orango County or the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles. 2. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and/or developer to attend pregrada meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. 3. Archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the coastal zone shall be investigated in acdordanco with acceptable scientific procedures and appropriate mitigation measures (including tasting, salvage, or presentation) shall be adopted on a came -by -case basis in accordance with regular City policy. 4. Prior to any development, archesologieal, paleontological, and his- toric resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. 11 1 1 1 1 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 55 I '1 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Significant Effect • The proposed project will create project -related adverse impacts on the presently provide service levels of the City Fire Department. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Sunnort of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The project proponents shall provide a five (5) year reservation for ' a fire station on the San Diego Creek South site. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 3. Any cul-de-sac, building address, and street name shall comply with city standards and shall be approved by the Fire Department. 1 4. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 5. As equipped and approved by the Fire Department, all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 6. All accesses to the buildings shall be approved by the Fire Depart- ment. 7. All onsite fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department Connec- tions) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. ' 8. Fire vehicle access shall be approved by the Fire Department. Significant Effect ° Southern California Gas Company expects to provide gas servide without any significant impacts. Finding ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding No significant effect has been identified, ' Significant Effect There is a concern expressed that the new construction on the Civic — Plaza Expansion site provide adequate off-street parking. 'Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant ' environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 56 I Facts. in Suoport.. of Findine The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of Insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The project proponent shall submit a parking plan for the Civic Plaza Expansion site to be approved by the City. Saanificant Effect • Potential adverse impacts could result if existing bus stops were removed or restricted baud on increased traffic volumes or due to reduced pedestrian accessibility. Finding Fii1- Changes or alterations have bean required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts. in Support of Finding The significant offset has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final SIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The applicant shall consult with the City of Newport beach Public Works Department and OCTD regarding proposed changes to existing OCTD facilities (i.e., bus shelters and bus stops). 2. The applicant shall be responsible for the provision of OCTD facilities if the project results in the removal of any existing bus stops, bus shelters, or related amenities (i.e., benches), Significant Effect ' The City of Newport Beach water supply for the area is almost at capa- city. FiTidina Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially loosen the iignificaht environmental affect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Suopdrt of Findine: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the Project. These measures include the following: I. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for the project lavatories and other water using facilities. I I I I ' 57 SIGGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED ' The following effects are those determined by the City of Newport Beach to be significant environmental effects which cannot avoided if the project is implemented. All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. The remaining, unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement ' of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the ' remaining, unavoidable significant effect. LAND USE t Significant Effect • The proposed project will convert existing vacant areas, undeveloped, and underdeveloped lands to urbanized and more intensive uses. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make ' infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in ' the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support Finding of The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation ' Measures. 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The ' following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act. 4. Grading Permits. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the ' project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. , 1. The intensities of development for the project have been reduced for the project on the following sites by the selection of project alternatives: ' A. Bayview Landing B. Newport Village 2. The densities of development have been reduced by the selection of project alternatives on the following sites:. A. Bayview Landing B. Newport Village ' 3. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing I 58 C The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the pestbiy parcel which will reduce perceived intensities/ densities. 5. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 6. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport gay, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. 7. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. ' The significant effects have been substantially lessened to the extent feasible. However, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR, 1. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each individual site and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above end in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect The amendment will change the existing stated direction of future resi-' dentist development. Most of the future residential development will be morn dense and located outside of Newport Center with the exception of the Villa Point and PCH/Jamboree sites. Fitldito Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Find EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened ed the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures, , 1. The residential developments shall conform to the City's park requirements, 2. Prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits for CPA 85-1(1), an agreement shall be entered into by the project proponent with the City. The agreement shall indicate how the project will meet thn Housing Element's goals and objectives. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially loosen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. - 1. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing opportunities within Newport Center on the Newport Village site. 2. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sitest A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing I Ii I 1 I I I I ' 59 3. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensi- ties/densities. 4. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future ' discretionary actions. 5. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. 6. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be ' avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. 1 7. The Villa Point, PCh/Jamboree, and Newport Village sites are all presently vacant or substantially vacant parcels in Newport Center that will ultimately be developed for residential land uses. 8. The Newport Center Area as a complex of uses provides significant housing for a variety of needs. These units are and will be provided in close proximity to employment opportunities. 9. Residential development located outside of the Newport Center area is a reasonable use of these sites. The development proposed blends in a harmonious manner with adjacent developments. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible. However, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in' the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each individual site and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. 3. The project proponent has indicated that housing is not a reasonable alternative that will meet their objectives for development in Block ' 600 and 800. 4. The major source of income that allows construction of the needed circulation system improvements is the office development of the pro- ject. ` ' Significant Effect • Changes to the development plan in Civic Plaza have not been submitted and must be considered as creating potentially significant impacts until they can be reviewed. Finding Finding I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in _ the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. E 60 ' 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone, 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act. 4, Grading Permits. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental affect as identified in the Final SIR. ' 1. The City of Newport Beach has traditionally reviewed specific site plans at future discretionary actions (Use Permits, Site Plan Reviews,. etc.). ' 2. The alternative of increased institutional uses was chosen as an alternative land use to the project. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final SIR. 1. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of uses ' for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each individual site and the project' , were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. 3. The project proponent and the applicant are working toward major increases in cultural amenities in the Civic Plaza area, these , include but are not limited to the following: A. Increase library space. B. A larger Art Museum. 4. The increase in museum space and library space was supported by that community in public testimony at the public hearing regarding the project. Significant Effect • The change of the lower portion of the Dayview landing site.from recre- ational vehicle camping at similar recreational uses is an unavoidable adverse impact of the project. Fi Finding1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated Into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental affect as identified in the Final SIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations sake infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final SIR (Section 15001 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that r changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental ' offset as identified in the Final EIR, 1. Changes have been made to the project to preserve a significant view amenity on the upper portion of the site for the general public, , ' 61 The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The maintenance of the site for recreational vehicle camping was rejected for the reasons stated in this Statement of Finding and Fact in support of those Findings. 2. The top portion of the site will be retained to an extent for public uses that will include opportunities for the general public to enjoy coastal resources. ' 3. The commercial establishments provide visitor serving facilities • which while not coastally dependent are an important aspect of overall coastal planning. ' 4. The City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange have an agreement for the improvement and enhancement of recreational vehicle camping on the Newport Dunes site. The site is immediately adjacent to the project, 5. The modified plan will permit the construction of a view park on the top portion of the site at no cost to the tax payers. The view park is an important resource for the enjoyment of the Upper Bay and other coastal resources. 6. Given all the alternatives for the project the proposed project rep- resents the best mix of uses for the project area, all factors con-. sidered. 7. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and for the overall project were rejected for the reasons stated above and in the subsequent sections of this statement. S. None of the alternatives with the exception of the No Project will reduce or eliminate the impact. The No Project Alternative has been reject for the reasons stated in this statement. Significant Effect ' The introduction of the general public into the bluff setback area in the Newporter North site should be considered an unavoidable adverse impact of the project on public safety and liability. Finding ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility' and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. ' Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." - Facts in Suaoort of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent ' feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Prior to the submission of any map for lease, sale, or division of the site, the project proponent shall submit a detailed survey of the ' project site for approval by the City. 62 ' 2. The survey shall indicate the location and extent of all coastal bluffs as defined by the Newport beach Municipal Code. 3. A preliminary grading concept shall be submitted with the detailed survey. The grading concept shall be in sufficient detail to indicate all locations of proposed access and access impacts on coastal bluffs as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. The property line sotbacko shall be no closer to the bluff top than 40 feet or a property line setback shall be no closer to the bluff top than a 2:1 (26.6 degrees) imaginary projection line from the toe of the bluff to the top of the mesa (whichever is greater). ' 5. Structural construction shall be no closer than 20 feet to the bluff property line setback. 6. Access to the site shall be from Jamboree Road. If access is taken from San Joaquin Hills Road, additional investigation and analysis shall be conducted regarding the stability of the north facing slop* along San Joaquin Hills Road. A buttress may be recommended for stabilization of the slope. A backdrain system for the buttress would aid in controlling the seepage problem. If a buttress fill is neeassary, the slope shall be rebuilt at a ratio of 2:1 (26.6 degrees), thereby gaining additional space at the top of the slope. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. A large portion of the site will remain undeveloped to preserve the important cultural resources. 2. The preservation of the cultural resources as open space will lsssen the amount of land in the bluff set back. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible by virtue that changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the find- ing. 1. The State Department of Fish and Came and other State Agencies are responsible for monitoring the Upper Newport bay resources. 2. The Project Proponent will be responsible to sscuring appropriate Permits from State Agencies for development adjacent to Upper Newport bay. , The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent fess• ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations mike infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The City of Newport beach has reviewed the liability and public safety and has found that the importance of the resources outweigh the over rail liability for the reasons stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. Given all the alternatives for the project the proposed project rep. resents the best mix of uses for the project area, all factors con. sidered. , 3. The alternatives described for each of the individual situ and for the overall project were rejected for the reasons stated above and in the subsequent sections of this statement. ' 4. None of the alternatives with the exception of the No Project will reduce or eliminate the impactThe No Project Alternative has been reject for the reasons stated n this statement. i , ' 63 significant Effect • Development of the Newporter North site will result in the unavoidable loss of vacant land. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Findin¢ The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act. 4. Grading Permits. 2. Prior to the submission of any map for lease, sale, or division of the site, the project proponent shall submit a detailed survey of the project site for approval by the City. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that ' changes or alterations have been required in,•or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The intensities of development for the project have been reduced for the project on the following sites by the selection of project alter- natives: A. Bayview Landing B. Newport Village 2. The densities of development have been reduced by the *election of I project alternatives on the following sites: A. Bayview Landing ' B. Newport Village 3. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: • A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing 4. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensities/ densities. — 5. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 6. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an environmental resource of statewide • significance. I 64 The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considored. 2. The alternatives described for each individual site and the project were rejected for the reasons as set Forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Senificant Effect • Existing Newporter North site's cultural resources may delay development of the project. This would preclude phasing of the project as indicated by the project proponent. Findina Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantiaily lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in' the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans And zoning. The following discretionary approvals, 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act. 4. Grading Permits. 2. Taking into account the magnitude of systematic testing that trans- pired at Ora-64 during the 1970s it would seem that any additional excavation to determine the horizontal and vertical distribution of the resources or which cultural groups are represented would be redundant. Therefore, three options are being presented for the future management of this important prehistoric site. Option 01 - Preservation This option would preclude for the immediate future disturbance to the site. The act of total preservation entails, for example, leav- ing the site area in its natural state, capping with clean fill dirt (soil which is known to be without cultural material that may have been removed from another site), or the placement of asphalt across the site. If capping with fill is chosen, it would enable the site area to be used as an open space area, park, golf course, or other similar use. Structures that require no major subsurface disturbance for their construction would be permitted, but the installation of, for instance, subsurface sprinkling systems and certain types of plant materials would have to be approached with caution and would possibly require monitoring by a certified archaeologist. If possible, the placement of these watering systems and drains should be placed above 1 I I I 11 i� 65 the known cultural deposits so as to minimize any disturbances to the cultural resources. This same care should be exercised in the event that asphalting is chosen for the site area. If total preservation is chosen for Ora-64, it is recommended that prior to the introduction of fill or asphalt a 100% surface collec- tion be initiated to remove any artifacts that were not collected during the earlier investigations or those that have surfaced since the termination of the last excavation program. This collection should be done in a systematic fashion and be under the direction of an archaeologist that is on the Orange County List of Authorized ' Archaeologist Consultants. ' Any recovered material would be analyzed with the results being incorporated into that corpus of data that already exists for the site. It is also recommended that a 100% surface collection take place even if the site is to be left in its natural state. It is ,.. assumed that even if Ora-64 is left in its present condition, con- struction will take place in the immediate vicinity and because of this, access to the site area will increase. This increased access could create a hazard for those surface artifacts that may be pre- sent. ' option 2 - Salvage ' A second option would permit development to take place within the destruc- entire site area. A program of this nature constitutes the tion of an important cultural resource area and should be approached accordingly. Even though the term salvage implies the excavation of L the whole site, this is not the case, but instead only a predeter- mined percentage of the site would actually be excavated. In the case .- of Ora-64 to consider more than a percentage would not only be pro- ' hibitive but extremely time consuming as well. below for the salvage of Ora-64 in much of what is outlined partial Option 3 can be applied to this second alternative. The project director must show through past projects that he is capable of hand- ling an excavation the size that would be required for the mitigation of a site with the potential of Ora-64. The research design would have to be one that incorporates both regional and local questions concerning the prehistoric inhabitants of the area and as will con- siders the important data gathered during previous investigations. It is imperative that the crew be comprised of experienced and pro- fessional excavators. This is not a venture that could utilize a field class or volunteers who can participate on weekends or only sporadically throughout the duration of the field portion of the pro- I ject. The salvage of Ora-64 would require a permit from the Coastal Commis- sion and Native American involvement that goes beyond notification. The latter requirement would be necessary because of the known existence of burials. Option 3 - Preservation/Salvage This alternative would permit a portion of the site to undergo a sal- vage program. This would permit future construction to take place, while at the same time preserving a portion of the site. ' That sector which is to be preserved versus that to be salvaged could most accurately be determined during the early planning stages for the intended use of the site area. Elements to be considered here would be those areas where burials are known to exist and the sectors ' with the greatest amount of cultural material. It is recommended that the preservation/salvage ratio be roughly equal in amount. In that area to be preserved it is suggested that the same procedures and limitations be adhered to that were noted for Option 1. ' The portion to be mitigated would require a research design that is based on the previous knowledge gleaned from the site but that also incorporates those questions that have become pertinent since that 66 last investigation, This program would require a 100% surface collec- tion, a specific number of hand dug excavation units, analysis of the recovered material, additional C1e dates, and a report that documents the results of the current investigation and which also incorporates the earlier data. A program of this expected magnitude would require a crew of professional archaeologists who would be under the direc. tion of an archaeologist who has the experience and credentials to conduct a project the size of that anticipated even for the partial , salvage of Ota-64. This is meant to include an individual, prefer- ably a PhD., who has considerable large-scale excavation experience, who has illustrated that he can complete a major project within the specified time limit that the designated budget, one who has produced scholarly site report, also within the agreed upon time frame. , A program of this nature would require a coastal permit and Native American involvement particularly if additional burials were ancoun- tared. It is anticipated that the field endeavor could consume sev- eral months, depending upon the size of the ate& to be excavated and the number of crew persons. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changer or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental affect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been modified to restrict development on the cultural resources. 2. The phasing of the development of the site bits be changed by the city, -to allow the phasing of development with the circulation system. 3. The project proponent has agreed to modify their phasing plan for development based upon the actions of the City Council. The significant effect has bean substantially lessened to the extent feas- ' ible, however, specific economic, social; or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the but reasonable balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each individual site and the project Vora rejected for the reasons as not forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. AESTHETICS Significant Effect ' Proposed highriae structures would be visible, creating new visual focal points in Newport Center. This is a change in the visual character of Newport Center. Findina Finding I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final SIR (Section 15001 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Findins The significant effect has bean substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 67 Block 600 1. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 stories. 1 Block 800 1. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 12 stories. 1 The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. ' 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. ' 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. 3. The alternative for Block 600 and Block 800 that would reduce the height of the buildings are not acceptable to the applicant and pro- ject proponent as they would hinder meeting the project objectives. The majority of the funds for the construction of roadway improve- ments are anticipated to come from the office developments in these two blocks. 4. The office developments in the two block will be phased with the cir- culation system to provide for improvements in excess of require- ments. Significant Effect The introduction of development on the Newporter North and Bayview Land- ' ing sites combine to create a significant impact on the openness of the area around Upper Newport Bay. The development of these two sites and other presently vacant sites will incrementally contribute to a emula- tive loss of open space. The loss of open space may be viewed by mem- bers of the general public as a significant impact of the project on the local environment. Findi g Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Earth berms and graded slopes, as required, shall be contoured and landscaped to the approval of the Building and Planning Department. ' Newporter North 2. Landscaping plans shall indicate that only native vegetation compa- tible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. 3. Measures, such as fencing and signs, shall be incorporated into plans to protect the bluff from pedestrian disturbance znd as a safety fea- ture to lessen the possibility of someone falling from the bluff edge as required by the Public Works Department. - 68 r 4. Prior to subdivision of site plan review, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop set. back. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, and the Planning Department. S. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 6. The height limitations shall be thirty-five filet for the Newporter North site. Bayview Landing 7. Landscaping plans shall indicate that only native vegetation compatible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. S. Measures, such as fencing and signs, shall be incorporated into plans to protect the bluff from pedestrian disturbance and as a safety feature to lessen the possibility of someone falling from the bluff edge. 4. In conjunction with site plan review or use permit approval, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop setback. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, and the Planning 10. Department. Height limitations be those shall as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations Text for the BayvAw Landing site. 11. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and ' East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review, The changes significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that have ' or alterations been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final MR. 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site. 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been mods - fled to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree Road will loss the visibility of the structures. 3. The location of the development on the Newporter North site has bean ' restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. 4. The development on the Newportar North site will be limited by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent fees. able, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered, 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the t project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. 1 1 1 69 eioni£icant Effect • At the General Plan level, it is not necessary to submit site plans, landscape plans, elevations, ate. The extent of potential adverse impacts cannot be fully determined at this time. EindiSg have been required in, or incorporated Finding 1- Changes or alterations into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make in infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Sunnort of Findina The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation 1 Measures. 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act. I 4. Grading Permits 2. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to ' approval by the Planning Department, the Departments of Parks, Public Works Department. Beaches, and Recreation, and the 3. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 4. The landscape plan shall place emphasis on the use of drought - resistant vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. 5. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 6. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved 1 plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Block 600 7. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 stories. Block 800 ' S. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 12 stories. PCH/Jamboree ' 9. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided on Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review, — 10. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as 1 noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the PCH/Jamboree site in order to minimize view impacts across •the site. 70 ' ' Corporate Plata West 11. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the Corporate Plata West site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. Newport Village ' 12. No illuminated building signs shall be permitted oriented toward MacArthur 3oulevsed. 13. Haight limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the Newport Village site in order to minimise view impacts across the site. 14. landscaped entry statements shall be provided at the intersections of Avocado Avenue and San Miguel Drive, tan Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue and East Coast Highway and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with Sits Plan Review. ' 15. Overhead utilities shall be removed between San Miguel Drive and East Coast Highway on MacArthur Boulevard. Avocado/NaeArthur ' 16. No illuminated building signs oriented toward MacArthur Boulevard shall be permitted. 17. Haight limitations shall be those a noted in the Newport Canter Planned Community and District Regulations text for the Avocado/MacArthut sit* in order to minimise view impacts across the site. ' 18. Overhead facilities shall be removed between San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive on MacArthur Boulevard. 19. A landscape edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills , Road, MacArthur boulevard, Avocado Avenue, and San Miguel Drive. Landscaped entry statements shall be provided at the intersections of San Joaquin Hills Road and Avocado Avenue, San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard, and San Miguel Drive at Avocado Avenue and ' MacArthur Boulevard to be approved by the City in conjunction with Site Plan review. Dig Canyon/MacArthur 20. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to the site and shill be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. , 21. Haight limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Canter Planned Community and District Regulations text for Big Canyon/ MacArthur. , Bayview lending 22, Landscaping plans shall indicate that only native vegetation , compatible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. 23. Measures, such as fencing and signs, shall be incorporated into plans to protect the bluff from pedestrian disturbance and as a safety feature to lessen the possibility of someone falling from the bluff ' edge. 24, In conjunction with sit* plan review or use permit approval the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping , plan for the blufftop setback. The plan shall be reviewed by the I 72 1. Further visual analysis shall be conducted at the time of subdivision review for the residential areas and use permit or site plan review t for the remaining uses. 2. Earth berms and graded slopes, as required, shall be contoured and landscaped to the approval of the Building and Planning Department. 3. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor elevation of any structure (except Fashion Island). 4. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 5. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 6. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. All screening shall conform to the height limit in each area. 7. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in conjunction with the Planned Community District Regulations. 8. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage 9. onto.adjacent properties. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that. ' changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ' 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site. 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree Road will less the visibility of the structures. 3. The location of the development on the Newporter North site has been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. 4. The development on the Newporter North site will be limited by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. , 5. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing opportunities within Newport Center on the Newport Village site. 6. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas following sites: that will reduce perceived intensities on the A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing 7. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensities/ ' 6. densities. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 7. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bey, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. 8. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. J 1 73 feas- The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final SIR. 1. The project represents the bast balance and mix of uses for the Pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect • Short-term visual impacts include construction activities replaced by the long-term impacts of urban development, increased human activity, and a modified landscape. Findin¢ Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make ' infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding , The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor elevation of any structure (except Fashion Island). 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning '• Department and the Public Works Department. 3. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 4. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. All screening shall conform to the height limit in each area. 5. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be'prepared by ' a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department, the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, and the Public Works Department. ' 6. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 7. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental ' effect as identified in the Final EIR. _ 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site. ' 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree Road will lessen the visibility ' of the structures. 17 J 74 I 3. The location of the development on the Newportat North site has been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. 4. The development on the Newportor North site will be limited by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. 5. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing Opportunities within Newport Cantor on the Newport Village site. 6. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites; A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing 7. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intopal- ties/densities, 8. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 9. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Say, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. 10. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof.. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extant feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations sake infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the beat balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the Project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect • Partial view interruptions will occur in the immediately surrounding hillside communities and existing development within Newport Center, Minding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Fact■. in Sunoort of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lossaned to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. Block $00 1. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 stories. Block 800 2. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 12 stories. 1 LJ 1 1 --I L �I F �I L� J '1 L F� LJ 75 PCH/Jamboree ' 3. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regula- tions text for the PCH/Jamboree site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. I Corporate Plaza West 4. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as crated in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regula- tions text for the Corporate Plaza West site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. Newport Village 5. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regula- tions text for the Newport Village site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. Avocado/MacArthur 6. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the Avo- ' eado/MacArthur site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. Big Canyon/MacArthur 7. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for Big Canyon/ MacArthur, ' Bayview Landing B. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations Text for the Bayview Land- ' ing site. Newporter North 9. The height limitations shall be thirty-five feet for the Newporter ' North site. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the ' project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. , ' 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site, 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road, The siting of the development near Jamboree Road will less the visibility of the structures, 3. The location of the development on the Newporter North site has been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. ' 4. The development on the Newporter North site will be limited by the - requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. 5. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing opportunities within Newport Center on the Newport Village site. - 76 6. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Nowportar North B. Bayviaw Landing 7. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Uestbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensities/ densities. B. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 9. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an environmsntal resource of statewide significance. 10. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. The significant effect box been substantially lessened to the extant feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIk. 1. The project represents the beat balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as eat forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect The lack of specific site plans for Block 600 precludes the identifica- tion of potential shadows impacts on adjacent properties. finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIS. (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Su000rt of Finding The significant effect box been substantially lessened to the extant feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation measures. 1. The maximum height of all now structures shall not exceed 20 stories. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental affect as identified in the Final EIn. 1. The mitigation measures have been reviewed and changed base upon tes. timony at public hearing to incorporate changes that would lessen the impact 0f parking structures on the visual environment. 2. The height of the building discussed in the Draft EIk was 375 feet. The approved height will be 20 stories. I 1 r J 1 I I FI 77 lessened to the extent The significant effect has been substantially feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect The relationship of views from Block 600 to the onsite hotel and across to Big Canyon have the Potential for significant adverse impacts. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." ' Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation' Measures. 1. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 stories. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ' 1. The mitigation measures have been reviewed and changed base upon tes- timony at public hearing to incorporate.changes that would lessen the impact of parking structures on the visual environment. ' 2. The height of the building discussed in,the Draft EIR was 375 feet. The approved height will be 20 stories. 3. The location of the parking for the proposed office uses will be allowed to be located to better serve the site. Site plan review will provide strict standards under the P-C zoning that are not incorppr- ated into the existing C-0-H zoning on the site. ' The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. ' 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the ' project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in _ subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ' Implementation of the project is expected to change the visual appear- ance of the undeveloped Newport Village site. 78 1 F.lridini Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant ' environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make Infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in ' the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Cuidalines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant offset has been substantially lessened to the extent ' feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Polities and Mitigation Measures. 1. No illuminated building signs shall be permitted oriented toward MacArthur boulevard. _ 2. Haight limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Canter Planned Community and District Regula- ' tiohs text for the Newport Village site is order to minimize view impacts across the site. 3. Landscaped entry statements shall be provided at the intersections of Avocado Avenue and San Miguel Drive, San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue and East Coast Highway and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with Site Plan Review. 4. Overhead utilities shall be removed between San Miguel Drive and East' Coast Highway on MacArthur Boulevard. The significant affect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The proposed use of the site has not been changed from the existing planned land use. ' 2. The site will be developed for residential land uses. 3. The development of the site with residential land uses will serve to , bring the existing residential communities to the east of Newport Center into the Center. This will make the Center more attractive to visitors and residents. 4. The only change to the development of the site by the project will be in the number of units and in the timing of their development with the circulation system. The significant effect has bean substantially lessened to the extent fees• ' ible, howevar, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses far the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as not forth above and in ' subsequent sections of this statement. — Significant Effect • Development of the Newporter North project will have a significant impact on the visual character and aesthetic qualities of the site. 79 Findin¢ ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ' Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding, The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. ' 1. Landscaping plans shall indicate that only native vegetation compa- tible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. 2. Measures, such as fencing and signs, shall be incorporated into plans ' to protect the bluff from pedestrian disturbance and as a safety fea- ture to lessen the possibility of someone falling from the bluff edge as required by the Public Works Department. 3. Prior to subdivision of site plan review, the project proponent shall ' prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop set- back. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, and the Planning Department. , ' 4. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 5. The height limitations shall be thirty-five feet for the Newporter North site. 6. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage ' onto adjacent properties. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the ' project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the ' Bayview Landing site. 1 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree Road will lessen the visibil- ' ity of the structures. 3. The location of the development on the Newporter North site has been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. ' 4. The development on the Newporter North site has been restricted by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. 5. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing_ opportunities within Newport Center on the Newport Village site. 6. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: ' A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing 7. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensi- ties/densities. - Bo 8. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 9. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport gay, which is an environmental resource of statewide ■ignificance, 10. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. The significant effect has bean substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible, the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final SIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of use,# for the pro. Jett area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project ware rejected for the reasons as mat forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ' Views from adjacent roadways and uses to the Newporter North site will be, changed. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation memmutas or project alternatives identified in the Final SIR (Section 1$091 of the Guidelines).' Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Polities and Mitigation Measures. 1. Landscaping plane shall indicate that only native vegetation compa- tible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. 2. Measures, such as fencing and signs, shall be incorporated into plans to protect the bluff from pedestrian disturbance and as a safety fea- ture to lesson the possibility of someone falling from the bluff edge as required by the Public Works Department. 3. Prior to subdivision of site plan review, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop get - back. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beeches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, and the Planning Department. 4. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 5. The height limitations shall be thirty-five feet for the Newporter North site. The significant affect has bean substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SIR. t L 1 1 n V 81 R I 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site. 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree Road will less the visibility of the structures. 3. The location of the development on the Newporter North site has been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. 4. The development on the Newporter North site will be limited by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. 5. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing opportunities within Newport Center on the Newport Village site. 6. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing 7, The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensities/ densities. 8. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 9. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. 10, The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project. alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect , • Development of the Newporter North site with residences will substan- tially change the appearance for the site during evening hours. This change may be perceived by some as a significant impact of the project, Findln¢ Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 7 LJ 82 L 1. Further visual analysis shall be conducted at the time of subdivision review for the residential aroes and use permit or site plan review for the remaining uses. 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 3. The project shall be designed to eliminate, light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties, Tho significant offset has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site, 2. The development on the top of the Aayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree Road Mill less the visibility of the structures. 3. The location of the development on the Newportor North site box been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. 4. The development on the Newporter North site will be, limited by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. 5. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing' opportunities within Newport Cantor on the Newport Village site. 6. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Newporter North B. bayview Landing 7. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Wastbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensities/ densities, , 8. Additional specific mitigation meamurom may be required of future discretionary actions. 9. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an onvitonmontal tasourea of statewide significance. , 10. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. The significant offset has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make Infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro• ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the - project were rejected for the reasons as mot forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. I7" J LJ I 17 u r u L r F u 83 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Vehicular Signifigant Effect The proposed project will add 37,062 average daily trips. Finding Finding 1- Changes or, alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. inding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent ' feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Prior to the occupancy of any CPA 85-1(B) permitted structure the project proponent shall implement an overall Transportation Manage-' ' ment System (TMS) for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The TMS shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Prior to the occupancy of any individual structure permitted by CPA ' 85.1(B), a site specific ISM component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 3. Prior to the occupancy of Phase I, the intersection improvements ' listed on Table 1-GGG shall have been constructed. 4. Prior to the occupancy of Phase II, the intersection improvements listed on Table 1-III shall have been constructed with the exception that the project proponent shall monitor traffic volumes and ' re-evaluate the need for improvements at the Jamboree Road intersection of Ford Road, Bison Avenue, and East Bluff Drive (N) in a manner acceptable to the city. Improvements shall be made to these intersections prior to the occupancy of Phase,II if it is ' deemed appropriate by the City. 5. The project proponent shall pay "Fair Share" fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ' 6. The project proponent shall pay San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ' 1. The City of Newport Beach has developed a phasing plan for the pro- development ject that is consistent with the overall proposal. 2. The applicant will, be required to improve several roadways with capacity not only for his project, but to serve existing develop- ' ments and anticipate committed projects. 3. The project overall intensity has been reduced by the elimination of office development on the Newport Village site and commercial devel- opment of the Bayview Landing site. 84 L 4. The peak hour impacts of the project have been lessened by the change in primary land use on the Civic Plaza site from office to institu- tional. This use will allow for the expansion of existing public uses on the site. 5. The addition of a health club to the overall plan will reduce the peak hour traffic away from the Centsr. 6. The addition of childcare will reduce the length of trips. ?. The location of the Orange County Transit District facility will reduce the ADT from the project. S. The introduction of the tsen center on the layview Lending site will reduce the number of employment trips and their length of young resi- dents of the community, Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the finding. 1. The State Department of Transportation has the overall responsibility for major roadways in the region. 2. The County of Orange is responsible for the implementation of the San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor. 3. The widening of MacArthur Blvd, to four lanes will occur in the City of Irvine. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent fees-' able, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro• ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. AIR QUALITY Significant Effect Impact on air quality from emissions generated by motor vehicles. FindIn Finding 1- Changes or alterations have bean required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2. Such changes or alterations ate within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Find EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." _ Facts in Sgpoort of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1 1 n u LJ 85 ' the 1. Prior to the occupancy of any CPA 85-1(B) permitted structure project proponeht shall implement an overall Transportation Manage- ment System (THS) for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The TMS shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Prior to the occupancy of any individual structure permitted by CPA 85-l(B), a site specific TSM component shall be prepared and approved t by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 3.. Mass transit facilities shall be accoomtodated and integrated into the proj e.:t. 4. Service establishments including but not limited to .restaurants, be within the reproduction centers, gyms/health clubs may provided office areas to minimize the number and length of vehicular trips to ' obtain these common services. has been lessened to the extent that The significant effect substantially changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The City of Newport Beach has developed a phasing plan for the pro- ject that is consistent with the overall development proposal. 2. The applicant will be required to improve several roadways with capacity not only for his project, but to serve existing develop- ments and anticipate committed projects. '• 3. The project overall intensity has been reduced by the elimination of the Newport Village site and commercial devel- office development on opment of the Bayview Landing site. 4. The peak hour impacts of the project have been lessened by the change ' in primary land use on the Civic Plaza site from office to institu- tional. This use will allow for the expansion of existing public uses on the site. ' 5. The addition of a health club to the overall plan will reduce the peak hour traffic away from the Center. 6. The addition of a childcare facility will reduce the length of trips. '• 7. The location of the Orange County Transit District facility will reduce the ADT from the project. 8. The introduction of the teen center on the Bayview Landing site will ' reduce the number of employment trips and their length of young resi- dents of the community. I• Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the finding. 1. The State Department of Transportation has the overall responsibility 2. for major roadways in the region. _ The County of Orange is responsible for the implementation of the San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor. 3. The widening of MacArthur Blvd. to eight lanes will occur in the City ' of Irvine. — 4. The State Air Resources Board is responsible for the attainment of National air quality standards. 5. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for basin wide air quality. ' 6. The Southern California Association of Governments in association with the SCAQMD is responsible for the Air Quality Management Plan • (AQMP) for the airshed. 86 The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final SIR, 1. The project represents the best balance and nix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant tffect • Impact on air quality from emissions generated by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and generation of electricity. Findint Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental affect as identified in the Final SIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in' the Final SIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines).• Facts in Support of Finding The significant affect has bean substantially leaxened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Utility energy conservation experts shall be consulted with and energy conservation standards beyond the minimum Title 24 require- ments shall be encouraged. , 2. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administra- tive Code dealing with energy requirements. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the ixtant that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially losacn the significant environmental affect as identified in the Final SIR. 1. The City of Newport Beach has developed a phasing plan for the pro- ject that is consistent with the overall development proposal. 2, The applicant will be required to improve several roadways with capacity not only for his project, but to serve existing develop- ments and anticipate committed projects. 3. The project overall intensity) hex been reduced by the elimination of office development on the Newport Village site and commercial daval- opmant of the 8ayview landing site. 4. The peak hour impacts of the project have be lessened by the change in primary land use on the Civic Plaza site from office to institu• tional. This use will allow for the expansion of existing public uses on the site. 5. The addition of a health club to the overall plan will reduce the peak hour traffic away from the center, 6. The addition of a childcare facility will reduce the length of trips, I I 1 [1 ' 87 7. The location of the Orange County Transit District facility will reduce the ADT from the project. 8. The introduction of the teen center on the Bayview Landing site will reduce the number of employment trips and their length of young resi- dents of the community. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the finding. another public agency and not the one making 1. The State Department of Transportation has the overall responsibility ' for major roadways in the region. 2. The County of Orange is responsible for the implementation of the San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor. ' 3. The widening of MacArthur Blvd. to four lanes will occur in the City of Irvine. 4. The State Air Resources Board is responsible for the attainment of National air quality standards. 5. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for • basin wide air quality. ' 6. The Southern California Association of Governments in association with the SCAQMD is responsible for the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) ,for the airshed. ' The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. ' 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro - jeer area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the ' project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. ' Significant Effect Impact on air quality from emissions generated by the use of natural gas and oil for the generation of offsite electricity. ' Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and ' should be adopted by such other agency. • Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make ' infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines). - Facts in Suovort of Finding ' The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Utility energy conservation experts shall be consulted with and energy conservation standards beyond the minimum Title 24 require- ' ments shall be encouraged. BB I 2. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administra- tive Code dealing with energy requirements. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the finding. 1. The State Department of Transportation has the overall responsibility for major roadways in the region. 2. The County of Orange is responsible for the implementation of the San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor. 3. The widening of MacArthur Blvd. to four lanes will occur in the City of Irvine. 4. The State Air Resources Board is responsible for the attainment of National aft quality standards. 5. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for basin wide air quality. 6. The Southern California Association of Governments in association with the SCAQHD is responsible for the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the airshed. The significant affect bat been substantially lessened to the extent feas• ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in' the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and six of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons is eat forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. ENERGY Significant Effect • The proposed project will generate energy demands for entire utilisation of energy resources. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental affect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidslines)." Facts in Sueoort of Finding The significant affect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Passive solar energy capture techniques and active solar systems for heating pools and spas shall be incorporated into building design. 2. Utility energy conservation experts shall be consulted with and energy conservation standards beyond the minimum Title 24 requirements shall be encouraged. 3. All new structures will comply with applicable building code require. ments. t I I t 89 Paragraph 6, 4. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administra- tive Code dealing with energy requirements. 5. The project shall investigate the use of alternative energy resources (i.e. solar) and to the maximum extent economically feasible, incorporate the use of said resources in project design. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation• measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. ' 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. ' 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. ' Significant Effect The construction of buildings will entail a one time expenditure of fos- sil fuel energy resources. 'Findiniz Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant ' environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in ' the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent ' feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Utility energy conservation experts shall be consulted with and ' energy conservation standards beyond the minimum Title 24 require- ments shall be encouraged. 2. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California`Administra- ' tive Code dealing with energy requirements. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas-ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. ' 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in ' subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ' • The energy used on all sites will increase. ndin Finding I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated ' into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 90 Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Susoort of Finding The significant affect has been substantially lessened to the extant feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Passive solar energy capture techniques and active solar systems for heating pools and spas shall be incorporated into building design. 2. Utility energy conservation experts shall be consulted with and energy conservation standards beyond the minimum Title 24 requirements shall be encouraged, 3. All new structures will comply with applicable building code require- ments. 4. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administra- tive Code dealing with energy requirements. 5. The project shell investigate the use of alternative energy resources (i.e. solar) and to the maximum extent economically feasible, incorporate the use of said resources in project design. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make' infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement, EARTH RESOURCES Significant Effect The project structures will be subject to seismic activity. Fidina ning 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)," Facts in Support of Finding The significant affect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Prior to implementation of the project the developer shall provide a geotechnical report far all sites included in CPA 85-1(3) Bayview Landing 2. The possibility of stabilizing the bluffs for construction of an East Coast Highway entrance shall be evaluated economically and geotechni- cally and shall be approved by the Building, Planning, and Public Works Departments of the City of Newport Beach. I I I 1 1 I FI I L7 91 be 3. Additional investigation of the possible fault trace shall con- ducted to determine the recency of offset. If the overlying terrace deposits are offset, the fault shall be assigned a preliminary rating of "Potentially Active". The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the b-st balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in ' subsequent sections of this statement. WATER RESOURCES Significant Effect ' Construction activities will increase levels of potential pollutants. Finding ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and - jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. ' Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." ' Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation ' Measures. 1. Any onsite systems or extension of culverts for contributory drainage from areas outside the proposed developments shall be considered a localized condition. These culverts shall be studied during the ' design phase and any required improvements shall be installed in conformance with local ordinances and accepted engineering practice. 2. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be prepared by the ' applicant and approved by the Building Department. A copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 3. Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved or updated ' to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach. 4. Any exposed slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce ' erosion potential. 5. All parking and other onsite paved surfaces shall be routinely _ vacuum -swept and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried ' into the drainage system. The significant effect has been substantially lesseneed to the extent feasible by virtue that changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one ' making the finding. 92 1. The State of California - Regional pater Quality Control Board for the Santa Rana Region has responsibility for overall water quality in this area. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas. ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ' paters will carry higher quantities of potential pollutants, including fertilisers, petroleum hydrocarbons, and heavy metals. Findina Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have bean adopted by such other agency or can and' should be adopted by such other agency, Finding 3• Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified In the Final EIR (Section I5091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Findina The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Any onsite systems or extension of culverts for contributory drainage from areas outside the proposed developments shall be considered a localized condition. These culverts shall be studied during the design phase and any required improvements shall be installed in conformance with local ordinances and accepted engineering practice. 2. All existing and proposed desilting basins located within Newport Center or serving projects located within Newport Center shall be maintained by the project proponent. 3. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department. A copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Hater quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 4. Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach, 5. Any exposed slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce erosion potential. 6. All parking and other onsite paved surfaces shall be routinely vacuum -swept and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried Into the drainage system, 7. The velocity of concentrated runoff from each sit* shall be evaluated and controlled as part of project design to minimize impacts on adja. cent areas. P I E I LJ I 93 ' PCH/Jamboree B. For the PCH/Jamboree site, a drainage study should be prepared during ' the design phase and an offsite storm drain system be constructed which will outlet to the Back Bay or to an existing system with adequate capacity, or some type of onsite retention facility should be constructed such that the peak flows generated do not exceed the ' capacity of downstream facilities. This study should also address potential groundwater problems and necessary mitigation. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible by virtue that changes or alterations are within the responsibility t and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the find- ing. 1. The State of California - Regional Water quality Control Board for ' the Santa Ana Region has responsibility for overall water quality in this area. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ' ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Significant Effect Development of the Newporter North site adds to the loss of open space buffering Upper Newport Bay and subjects the Newport Bay Ecological Reserve to greater encroachment of urban development and harassment of wildlife. indin ' Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ' Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Setbacks of development from the bluff edge shall be no less than 100 _ feet to provide a partial buffer between development and resource areas as well as protect the bluff face coastal sage scrub. The 100 feet setback is the minimum needed to retain existing vegetation and wildlife habitat resources within the bluff face area. A setback of less than 100 feet would not prevent human activity from disturbing the normal behavioral patterns of wildlife when resting, feeding, and reproducing. Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low 94 intensive uses such eat bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 2. Preservation of the John Wayne Gulch wetland areas as natural open space and setbacks of development from the edge of this area. To be fully effective, this setback shall also be a minimum of 100 feet. Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 3. Erosion of development areas shall be strictly monitored and con- trolled and all graded areas shall be eithat: built upon or ravage - rated prior to the vat season. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extant that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which. avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The cultural resource area on the Newporter North site will be retained as open space. This will expand the area of available with- out major harassment. 2. The Westbay site development rights will be transferred to Newport Center. This area will remain in open spaces uses. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible by virtue that changes or alterations are within the responsibility - and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the find- ing. I. The State Department of Fish and Game (DF&C) has the responsibility for the Upper Newport gay Ecological Reserve. 2. The DF&G has indicated that a 100 feet setback is a reasonable dis- tance to protect the resources, The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the Project were rejected for the reasons as sat forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect • Development of the Newporter North sits will result in the folloving: ' - Removal of significant habitat ' - Lost of buffer areas Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated _ into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency, 1 P 10 u I 1 I f] I ' 95 ' Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent ' feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Setbacks of development from the bluff edge shall be no less ttan 100 feet to provide a partial buffer between development and resource ' areas as well as protect the bluff face coastal sage scrub. The 100 feet setback is the minimum needed to retain existing vegetation and wildlife habitat resources within the bluff face area. A setback of less than 100 feet would not prevent human activity from disturbing ' the normal behavioral patterns of wildlife when resting, feeding, and reproducing. Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 2. Preservation of the John Wayne Gulch wetland areas as natural open space and setbacks of development from the edge of this area. To be fully effective, this setback shall also be a minimum of 100 feet. Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. ' 3. Erosion of development areas shall be strictly monitored and controlled and all graded areas shall be either built upon or ' revegetated prior to the wet season. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible by virtue that changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the find- ing. 1. The State Department of Fish and Game (DFW) has the responsibility for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. ' 2. The DF&G has indicated that a 100 feet setback is a reasonable dis- tance to protect the resources. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make ' infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. CULTURAL RESOURCES ' Significant Effect The cost incurred to the City for mitigation of Archaeological site(s) — and/or long term liability for the site(s). 'Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated ' into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 96 , Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make , infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." , Facts in Support of Finding The significant affect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation ' Measures. The significant affect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of , the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approval&; 1. Coastal Permits for situ in the Coastal Zone. ' 2. Site Plan Review and/or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act. 4. Grading Permits. 2. Taking into account the ' magnitude of systematic testing that transpired at Or&-64 during the 1970s it would seem that any additional excavation to determine the horizontal and vertical distribution of the resources or which cultural groups are represented would be redundant. Therefore, three options are being ' presented for the future management of this important prehistoric site. option ML - Preservation ' This option would preclude for the immediate future disturbance to the site. The act of total preservation entails, for example, leaving the site area in its natural state, capping with clean fill , dirt (soil which is known to be without cultural material that may have been removed from another site), or the placement of asphalt across the site. If capping with fill is chosen, it would enable the site area to be used as an open space area, park, golf course, or other similar use. ' Structures that require no major subsurface disturbance for their construction would be permitted, but the installation of, for instance, subsurface sprinkling systems and certain types of plant ' materials would have to be approached with caution and would possibly require monitoring by a certified archaeologist. If possible, the placement of these watering systems and drains should be placed above the known cultural deposits so as to minimize any disturbances to the ' cultural resources. This same care should be exercised in the event that asphalting is chosen for the site area. If total preservation in chosen for Ora-64, it is recommended that ' prior to the introduction of fill or asphalt a 100t surface collection be initiated to remove any artifacts that were not collected during the earlier investigations or those that have surfaced since the termination of the last excavation program. This ' collection should be done in a systematic fashion and be under the direction of an archaeologist that is on the Orange County List of Authorized Archaeologist Consultants. Any recovered material would be analyzed with the results being incorporated into that ' corpus of data that already exists for the site. It is also recommended that a 100% surface collection take — place even if the site in to be left in its natural state. It is assumed that even if Ora-64 is left in its present condition, construction will take place in the immediate vicinity and because of , this, access to the site area will increase. This increased access could create a hazard for those surface artifacts that may be present. ' I 97 ' Option 2 - Salvage ' A second option would permit development to take place within the entire site area. A program of this nature constitutes the destruction of an important cultural resource area and should be approached accordingly. Even though the term salvage implies the ' excavation of the whole site, this is not the case, but instead only a predetermined percentage of the site would actually be excavated. In the case of Ora-64 to consider more than a percentage would not only be prohibitive but extremely time consuming as well. ' Much of what is outlined below for the partial salvage of Ora-64 in Option 3 can be applied to this second alternative. The project director must show through past projects that he is capable of handling an excavation the size that would be required for the mitigation of a site with the potential of Ora-64. The research design would have to be one that incorporates both regional and local questions concerning the prehistoric inhabitants of the area and as ' will considers the important data gathered during previous investigations. It is imperative that the crew be comprised of experienced and professional excavators. This is not a venture that could utilize a field class or volunteers who can participate on weekends or only sporadically throughout the duration of the field portion of the project. • The salvage of Ora-64 would require a permit from the Coastal Commission and Native American involvement that goes beyond notification. The latter requirement would be necessary because of the known existence of burials. Option 3 Preservation/Salvage - This alternative would permit a portion of the site to undergo a salvage program. This would permit future construction to take place, while at the same time preserving a portion of the site. That sector which is to be preserved versus that to be salvaged could most accurately be determined during the early planning stages for the intended use of the site area. Elements to be considered here would be those areas where burials are known to exist and the sectors with the greatest amount of cultural material. It is recommended ' that the preservation/salvage ratio be roughly equal in amount. In that area to be preserved it is suggested that the .same procedures and limitations be adhered to that were noted for Option 1. ' The portion to be mitigated would require a research design that is based on the previous knowledge gleaned from the site but that also incorporates those questions that have become pertinent since that last investigation. This program would require a 100% surface collection, a specific number of hand dug excavation units, analysis ' of the recovered material, additional C14 dates, and a report that documents the results of the current investigation and which also incorporates the earlier data. A program of this expected magnitude would require a crew of professional archaeologists who would be under the direction of an archaeologist who has the experience and credentials to conduct a project the size of that anticipated even for the partial salvage of Ora-64. This is meant to include an individual, preferably a PhD., who has considerable large-scale excavation experience, who has illustrated that he can complete a ' major project within the specified time limit that the designated budget, one who has produced scholarly site report, also within the agreed upon time frame. A program of this nature would require a coastal permit and Native American involvement particularly if additional burials were encountered. It is anticipated that the field endeavor could consume several months, depending upon the size of the area to be excavated and the number of crew persons. I 98 3. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of AB 952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social., or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or ,project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. 'the alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Significant EffoU ' The proposed project will incrementally impact the service levels cur- rently provided by the Police Department. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. The project proponent shall work in conjunction with the City of New- port Beach Police Department to ensure that crime prevention features are included in building design and conctruction, The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as sat forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement . ' 99 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The Draft EIR evaluated alternatives for the overall project and for each individual site. The approved project represents a refinement to the orig- ' inal plan applied for by the project proponent and initiated by the City of Newport Beach. The original plan has been modified during the course of the public review through a series of actions including but not limited to those listed below: 1. The City Staff analysis of the project. 2. Refinement of the land uses based upon meetings between the applicant ' and members of the community. 3. The responses to the Notice of Preparation. 4. The responses to the Nonstatutory Advisement. 5. The responses to the comments on the Draft EIR. 6. The testimony at the Seeping Meetings held related to the environ- ' mental documentation. 7. The testimony at the public hearing on the Draft EIR and plan held ' before the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Coun- cil. 8. The recommendations of the Quality of Life Committee. 9. The recommendations of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commis- sion. 10, The data in the Final EIR. ' Findings 1. The above described refinement of the original plan has been accom- plished in manner so as to provide for the greatest public involve- ment in the planning and CEQA process. 2. The planning process has developed a refined land use plan that is in substantial conformance with the plan under which the Notice of Prep- aration was issued and Draft EIR prepared. 3. The Certified Final EIR indicates all refinement to the plan that have been incorporated into the final project. ' 4. The Mitigation Measures and Standard City Policies have been made a part of the refined land use plan. 5. 6. The following provides a brief description of project alternatives. The alternatives were rejected in favor of the current project pro- posal. 7. The rationale for rejection of each alternative is provided below. 8. The rejection rationale is supported by testimony in the public record including but not limited to the Certified Final EIR. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ' The No Project Alternative assumes development of the 11 sites under the ' existing City of Newport Beach General Plan. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the pro- ject's No Project Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: i - 100 1. Additional development would be permitted under the existing General Plan on each of the sites. 2. The No Project Alternative would not provide for the expansion of the library, the Newport Harbor Art Musaum, or other cultural facilities. 3. The No Project Alternative would not provide day care facilities that are boxed upon testimony at the public hearings in need in the commu- nity. 4. The No Project Alternative would not provide the $1.8 million esti- mated in revenues to the community ennually that the project would provide. 5. The No Project Alternative would not provide the estimated $50 mil- lion in roadway improvements to the community. 6. The No Project Alternative would continue piecemeal development of Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. It would not meet an objec. tive of a comprehensive analysis of the overall development. 7. The No Project Alternative would not meat the planning and design objectives of the project proponent as expressed in the Draft EIR Volumes 1 and 5, 8, The Alternative would not be an increase in housing over the existing plan. 9. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of use for the project area, better than the No Project Alternative, all factors considered. 10. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con• siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from this No Project Alternative. NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE The No Development Alternative would retain each of the 11 sites of the 85.10) in their existing condition. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project No Development Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: 1. By not allowing the development of the project, development demands would still exist. The demands would create cumulative impacts Simi- Iar to those described in the Final EIR. 2. The No Development Alternative would not provide for the expansion of the. library, the Newport Harbor Art Museum, or other cultural facili- ties. 3. The No Development Alternative would not provide day care facilities that based upon testimony at the public hearings, are needed in the community. 4. The No Development Alternative would not provide the $1.8 million estimated in revenues to the community annually that the project would provide. 5. The No Development Alternative would not provide the estimated $50 million in roadway improvements to the community. 6. The No Development Alternative would continue piecemeal development of Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. It would not meet an objective of a comprehensive analysis of the overall development. 11 I I I t I 1 I ' 101 7. The No Development Alternative would not meet the planning and design objectives of the project proponent as expressed in the Draft EIR Volumes 1 and 5. ' 8. The No Development Alternative would not be an increase in housing over the existing plan. 9. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of use for the project area, better than the No Development Alternative, all factors considered. 10. The No Development Alternative would not provide additional housing for low income families. 11. The No Development Alternative would not provide additional employ- ment opportunities within the community. It would not provide a Teen Center that will train the community's youth for employment in the restaurant industry. 12. The No Development Alternative would deny the property owner a rea- sonable use of his property. 13. The No Development Alternative would not provide for the removal of development rights from the Westbay parcel and its future utilization as apart of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. 14. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, ' unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from this No Development Alternative. NO DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT AT ANOTHER LOCATION ALTERNATIVE ' NEWPORT CENTER SITES ALTERNATIVE CORPORATE PLAZA EAST ' The Corporate Plaza East site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, commercial, residential, and restau- rant uses. BLOCK 100: GATEWAY PLAZA Block 100: Gateway Plaza has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, commercial, and restaurant uses. DESIGN PLAZA BLOCK 200: Block 200: Design Plaza has been identified as an alternative site that ' could be developed with office, commercial, and restaurant uses. BLOCK 300 Block 300 has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, commercial, and restaurant uses. BLOCK 400: MEDICAL PLAZA Block 400: Medical Plaza has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with offices (medical). BLOCK 500 ' Block 500 has been identified as an alternative site that could be devel- oped with office, commercial, residential, and restaurant uses. ' BLOCK Block 700: PACIFIC MUTUAL 700: Pacific Mutual has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, support commercial, and restaurant uses. 102 I BLOCK $00: PACIPIC PLAZA EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Block 800: Pacific Plaza Existing Development has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, commercial, and res- courant uses. BLOCK 900: MARRIOTT/CRANVILLS Block 900: Marriott/Granville has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, residential, and restaurant uses. PCH FRONTAGE The PCH Frontage site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, commercial, residential, and restaurant uses. FLOATING USES/TRlNSFE0. OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CTDR) This alternative would be to add all development proposed as a part of CPA 85-1(B) as "Floating and/or TDR" entitlements. WESTSAY The Westbay site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with residential uses. EAST BLUFF REMNANT The East Bluff Remnant site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with residential uses. FREEWAY RESERVATION EAST The Freeway Reservation East site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with residential uses. POINT DEL MAR Point del Mar has bean identified as an alternative site that could ba developed with residential uses. SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH San Diego Creek North has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office and commercial uses. JAMBOREE/HACARTHUR The Jamboree/MacArthur site has bean identified As an alternative site that could be developed with office and commercial uses. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH The San 'Diego Creek South site has bun identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office and commercial uses. CASTAWAYS The Castaways site has bun identified as an alternative site that could be developed with residential, commercial, restaurant, and institutional uses. OTHER SITES WITHIN THE SDBREGIONAL AREA VACANT LAND This alternative assumes the development of the project or a portion of the project on Vacant Land within the subregional planning area. The proposed I fl 0 11 I II I I t 1 103 ' be developed project for office, commercial, and residential uses could on vacant land in the Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and/or Huntington Beach and in unincorporated Orange County. improvements only be developed at the loca- The MacArthur Boulevard could tion proposed. major roadway improvements could accompany the development of the project land uses on vacant land within the areas described above. UNDERDEVELOPED AREAS This alternative assumes the development of the project or a portion of the project on underdeveloped land within the subregionE.l planning area. The proposed project's office, commercial, and residential uses could be developed on underdeveloped land in the Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and/or Huntington Beach and in unincorporated Orange County. The MacArthur improvements could only be developed at the location pro- improvements could accompany the development of the posed. Major roadway project land uses on land within the areas described above: The development rights requested by the project proponent and initiated by ' the City could be developed according to the General Plan on any of the following the following sites as described in this Statement and the Final EIR. ALTERNATIVE NEWPORT CENTER SITES Corporate Plaza East Gateway Plaza ' Design Plaza Block 300 Block 400 - Medical Plaza Block 00 Block 00 - Pacific Mutual Plaza 7 Block 800 - Pacific Plaza Existing Development Block 900 - Marriott/Granville PCH Frontage Floating Uses/Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) OTHER SITES IN NEWPORT BEACH stb East Bluff Remnant EaBluff Freeway Reservation East Point del Mar San Diego Creek North Jamboree/MacArthur San Diego Creek South Castaways OTHER SITES IN THE SUBREGIONAL AREA Vacant Land Underdeveloped Land Findin¢s ' Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Development: Development at Another Location (DAL Alternative) identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The cumulative impacts described in the Final EIR would remain the same for the project if it were to be developed elsewhere in the Center. 1 2. The DAL Alternative would not provide for the expansion of the library, the Newport Harbor Art Museum, or other cultural facilities. 3. The DAL Alternative would not provide day care facilities that based upon testimony at the public hearings, are needed in the community. 104 4, The DAL Alternative would not provide the $1.3 million estimated in revenues to the community annually that the project would provide. 5. The DAL Alternative would not provide the estimated $50 million in roadway improvements to the community. 6. The DAL Alternative would continue piecemeal development of Newport Cantor and the Peripheral Sites. It would not meet an objective of a comprehensive analysis of the overall development. 1. The DAL Alternative would not meet the planning and design objectives of the project proponent as expressed in the Draft EIR volumes 1 and 5. 8. The DAL Alternative would not an increase in housing over the exist- ing plan. 9. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of use for the project area, better than the DAL Alternative, all factors con- sidered. 10. The DAL Alternative would not provide additional housing for low income families. 11. The DAL Alternative would not provide additional employment opportu- nities within the community. It would not provide a Teen Center that will train the community's youth for employment in the restaurant industry. 12. The DAL Alternative would deny the property owner a reasonable use of his property. 13. The DAL Alternative would not provide for the removal of development rights from the Westbay parcel and its future utilization as a part of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. 14. The DAL Alternative does not provide for all uses on the sites within the Center that are included in the proposed project. 15. The Corporate Plaza Bite is only a superior location for some and not all of the proposed planned land use. 16. Homes were not determined to be an environmentally superior use to the project are the Corporate Plaza, Gateway Plaza, Design Plaza, Block 300. Block 400: Medical Plaza, Block 500, Block 700• Pacific Mutual, Block 800: Pacific Plaza Existing Development, and Block 900: Marriott/Granville sites. 17. A limited number of homes could be constructed on the PCH Frontage Site. This would increase the impacts of the increase demand for housing created by the project development at one or several of the alternative locations within Newport Center. I8. The major traffic impacts of the project would remain if the project were to develop no matter where its location with the Center. 19. The concept of floating units is not easily understood by the general public and its acceptance so a major planning determinant for the Center is questionable. 20, The development of the Westbay site with significant number of resi- dential units would expose persons to noise from aircraft overflights not present to the mane degree at the project. 21. The development of the Weatbey site would have similar impact on cul. tural and biological resources as the project. 22. The Westbay site is not surrounded by major arterial highways as is the project residential developments. 1 105 23. The East Bluff Remnant site is a significant biological resource area that could not sustain a significant residential population. 24. The Point del Mar project has been approved and committed by the City for the of Newport Beach since the start of the planning process pro- ject. The redevelopment of that site for significantly higher densi- ties is not likely. Higher density use was previously rejected by the City based upon opposition to development densities. 25. The San Diego Creek North site and the Jamboree MacArthur site could not be developed with all of the development and the variety of ' de.velopment planned for the project. 26. The San Diego Creek South site is adjacent to San Diego Creek, across Jamboree Road from the Ecological Reserve, and adjacent to the Free- way and major arterial highways. The site is better planned for the expansion of the North Ford project than the uses contemplated by the project. ' 27. The Castaways site would have the same biological, cultural, and geo- logical impacts as the development of the Newporter North site. No major commercial and/or office development would be acceptable to the community based upon previous submittals for this site. I I 1 I I ,I 1 1 I i 28. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts not forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from this DAL Alternative. CPA 80-3 APPROVED PROJECT On August 31, 1981, the City of Newport Beach certified CPA 80-3 EIR and approved the project to allow for the development: Block 600, Block 900, PCH/Jamboree, PCH Frontage, Corporate Plaza West, Newport Village, and Avocado/MacArthur. CPA 80-3 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission recommended that the follow- ing development be approved: Block 600: PCH/Jamboree: Corporate Plaza West: Newport Village: Avocado/MacArthur: Marriott Hotel CPA 80-3 STAFF 225,000 sq. ft. Office 525,000 sq. ft. Residential (115 units) 80,000 sq. ft. Office , 123,300 sq. ft. Office 20,000 sq. ft. Office 208,750 sq. ft. Commercial/Restaurant. 100,000 sq. ft. Office OCTD Transit Facility 10,000 sq. ft. Office The City of Newport Beach staff recommended that the following development be approved: Block 600: 225,000 sq. ft. Office . 400 rooms Hotel PCH/Jamboree: 225,000 sq. ft. Residential (+225 du's) Corporate Plaza West: 80,000 sq. ft. Office _ Newport Village: 123,400 sq. ft. Office Avocado/MacArthur: Marriott Hotel 20,000 sq. ft. Commercial/Restaurant 208,750 sq. ft. Office 100,000 sq. ft. Office OCTD Transit Facility 10.000 sq. ft. Office 106 ' CPA 80-3 PROPOSED PROJECT ' Block 600: 450,000 sq. ft, Office $00 rooms Hotelrelated facilities ' PCH/Jamboree: 225,600 sq. ft. Residential (+225 du's) ' Corporate Plaza Vest: 80,000 sq. ft. Office • Newport Village: 100,000 sq. ft, Office 20,000 sq. ft. Retail 150,000 sq. ft. Office ' Avocado/MacArthur: 100,000 sq. £t, Office • Marriott Hotel 165 rooms Hotel, related facilities CPA 80-3 ALTERNATIVES ' No Project • Reduction In Scope Of Proposed Project - Development According To The Existing General Plan - Elimination Of The Hotels From The Project - Elimination Of Office Use From The Project ' Other Land Uses ' - Residential - Public Use The several CPA 80.3 Alternatives reviewed in the Final EIR are listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. findints Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Development: Development at Another Location (CPA 80.3 Alternatives) identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The cumulative impacts described in the Final EIR would remain the same for the project if it were to be developed else where in the Center. 2. The CPA 80.3 Alternatives would not provide for the expansion of the library, the Newport Harbor Art Museum, or other cultural facilities. 3. The GPA 80-3 Alternatives would not provide day care facilities that based upon testimony at the public hearings art needed in the commu- nity. 4. The GPA 80-3 Alternatives would not provide the $1.8 million esti- mated in revenues to the community annually that the project would provide. 5. The CPA 80-3 Alternatives would not provide the estimated $50 million in roadway improvements to the community. 6. The CPA 80-3 Alternatives would not meet the planning and design objectives of the project proponent as expressed in the Draft EIR Volumes 1 and S. 7. The CPA 80.3 Alternatives would not an increase in housing over the existing plan. B. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of use for the project area, better than the CPA 80.3 Alternatives, all factors considered. 9. The CPA $0.3 Alternatives would not provide additional housing for low income families. 10. The CPA 80-3 Alternatives would not provide for the removal of devel- opment rights from the Vestbay parcel and its future utilization as a part of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. 11. The CPA 80-3 Alternative does not provide for all uses on the sites within the Center that are included in the proposed project. I 107 12. The concept of floating units is not easily understood by the general public and its acceptance as a major planning determinant for the Center is questionable. 13. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from this GPA 80-3 Alternatives. FASHION ISLAND ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives to the project were evaluated for Fashion Island: 1. No Project (150 units) 2. Office 3. Commercial a. Increased b. Decreased 4. Residential ' 5. Institutional 6. Hotel The several Alternatives for development in Fashion Island are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. ' Findin¢s Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Development: Development at Another Location (GPA 80-3 Alternatives) identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have greater land use, aesthetic, and vehicular impacts than the project. 2. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on bikeways pedestrian activities, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and public services and utilities as the project. 3. The site specific Office Alternative would have the same land use, 1 aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian activity, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources impacts as the project. 1 4. The site specific Office Alternative would have greater onsite noise impacts, air quality, and vehicular impacts than the project. 5. The site specific Hotel Alternative would have the same land use, 1 aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian activity, earth resources, water resources, biological resources and cultural resources impacts as the project. ' 6. The site specific Hotel Alternative would have greater onsite noise impacts, air quality, and vehicular impacts than the project. 7. The site specific decreased commercial alternative would have the same aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, ' biological resources, and cultural resources impacts as the project. 8. The site specific residential alternative would have the same aes- thetic, bikeways, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, bio- logical resources, and cultural resources impacts as the project. 9. The Theater Alternative was incorporated in the project to provide for additional night time activities in the center. i10. It is anticipated that theaters will add patrons to the stores and have a positive affect on the revenues from the center, 1 , 11. The Increased Commercial Alternative was incorporated into the pro. Jett to provide for the expansion of major tenants in the Center. 12. The Increased Commercial Alternative will add to the revenues from the project. 13. The Increase Commercial Alternative is a site superior alternative to the development of commercial on the Bayview Lending site as origi- nally proposed. 14. The additional parking need for the Inersase Commercial Alternative can easily be accommodated in the Canter without impacting other users, 15. The Theater Alternative will provide additional entertainment for the residents of the community and lase travel time and distances to other communities by the City's population. 16. The Theater Alternative creates nighttime activities that presently do not exist at Fashion Island. 17. The Theater Alternative will a use that will have , provide generally hours of operation that will allow for the joint use of parking with the regional shopping center. Is. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts met forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are note, acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. BLACK 600 The following alternatives to the project were evaluatsd for Fashion Island: 1. No Project 2, CPA 80-3 a. Approved Project b. Planning Commission Recommendation C. Staff d. Proposed project 3. Office A. Increased b. Decreased 4. Motel 5. Commercial ` ; a. Office support b. Stand alone 6. Residential a. Mixed use b. Stand alone 7. Theater The several Alternatives for development in Block $00 are reviewed in the , Final SIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the 'Ialternatives identified in the Final SIR and described above in that; _ - 1. The site specific No Project•Altarnative will have greater onsite noise impacts than will the project. - 2. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on aesthetics, bikeways pedestrian activities, earth resources, water , resources, biological resources, and cultural resoutess. I 1 109 3. The site specific Increased office Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and public services and utility impacts than the project. 4. The General Plan Amendment 80-3 Alternatives would have greater land � use, aesthetic, housing, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cul- tural resources, and public services and utility impacts than the project. 5. The Hotel Alternative would have greater land use impacts that the proposed project. 6. The Hotel Alternative would have greater onsite noise impacts than N the proposed project. 7. The Commercial Alternative would have the same or greater impacts ' that the project on housing, vehicular traffic, noise, and air quality. B. The Residential Alternative would have greater land use, bikeways, and pedestrian impacts than the project. 9. The Residential Alternative would have similar impacts to the project on aesthetics, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 10. The Theater Alternative was selected for the Fashion Island area. 600 That area is better suited for the use that the Block area. 11. The Theater Alternative was incorporated in the project to provide for additional nighttime activities in the center. 12. The hotel alternative is rejected because it does not meet the pre- sent planning objectives of the City and/or project proponent. 13. The project proposed for Block 600 will provide significant revenues to the project proponent to allow them to make many of the proposed circulation system and aesthetic improvements that have been indi- cated and conditioned as a part of this project. 14. Free standing commercial development would be in direct competition with uses in the Fashion Island area and should be rejected. 15. Commercial uses that are supportive of the existing office and hotel uses in the block will be allowed and permitted by the proposed pro- ject. 16. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when 1 balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. CIVIC PLAZA EXPANSION ' 1. No Project , 2. Office a. Increased b. Decreased — 3. Commercial 4. Theater 5. Restaurant 6. Institutional The several Alternatives for development in Civic Plaza are reviewed in the ' Final EIR and }fisted above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. 1 110 Pindinee Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Alternatives identified in the Final EIK and described above in that: 1. The Civic Plaza area was not a part of the General Plan Amendment 80-3 analysis. The project is note comprehensive in its scope. 2. The Increased Office Alternative would have &tester land use, aes- thetics, housing, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utility impact* than the proposed project. 3. The No Project Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetic, air quality, and public services and utility impacts than the pro- ject. 4. The No Project Alternative would have the same earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, bikeways and pedestrian impacts as the project. S. The Increased Office and the Decreased Office Alternatives were rejected in favor of the project as the project will provide for the enhancement of civic cultural resources in the community. 6. The project provides for the use of the vacant property in the Civic Plaza area in a manner that is compatible with the existing land use. 7. The alternative land use of office wax rejected in favor of institu- tional uses. $, The increased institutional use of the property beyond the quantity originally stated in the project proponent's request and initiated by the City of Newport Beach is a reasonable amount and will not over- burden support system based upon the information contained in the Final Elk. 9. The Theater Alternative was selected for the Fashion Island area. That area is better suited for the use that the Civic Plaza area. 10. The Theater Alternative was incorporated in the project to provide for additional nighttime activities in the center. 11. The institutional uxa will allow a reasonable investment on the prop- erty when viewed in relation to other uses. 12. Development of the site for cultural uses such as expansion of the library and art museum would provide for opportunities to the citi- zens of Newport Beach and surrounding communities that are not pres- antly available in the City. 13. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts sat forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant affect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. BLOCK 800 1. No Project 2. Office _ a, increased b. Decreased 3. Hotel 4. Commercial S. Residential 6. Theater ill E I U I I �I I I I I I The several Alternatives for development in Block 800 are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findin¢s Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have greater onsite noise iupacts than will the project. 2. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on aesthetics, bikeways pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 3. The site specific Increased Office Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and public services and utility impacts than the project. 4. The Hotel Alternative would have greater land use impacts than the proposed project. 5. The Hotel Alternative would have greater onsite noise impacts than the proposed project. 6. The Commercial Alternative would have the same or greater impacts that the project on housing, vehicular traffic, noise, and air quality. 7. The Residential Alternative would have -greater land use, bikeways, and pedestrian impacts than the project. 8. The Residential Alternative would have the impacts similar to the project on aesthetics, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 9. The Theater Alternative was selected for the Fashion Island area. That area is better suited for the use that the Block 600 area. 10. The Theater Alternative was incorporated in the project to provide for additional night time activities in the center. 11. The hotel alternative is rejected because it does not meet the pre. sent planning objectives of the city and/or project proponent. 12. The project proposed for Block 800 will provide significant revenues to the project proponent to allow them to make many of the proposed circulation system and aesthetic improvements that have been indi- cated and conditioned as a part of this project. 13. Free standing commercial development would be in direct competition with uses in the Fashion Island area and should be rejected. 14. Commercial uses that are supportive of the existing office and hotel uses in the block will be allowed and permitted by the proposed pro. ject. 15. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- — siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. PCH/JAMBOREE 1. No Project 2. CPA 80-3 a. Approved Project 112 b. Planning Commission c. Staff d. Proposed Project 3. Office 4. Hotel S. Commercial 6. Residential a. Increased b. Decreased 7. Restaurant 8. Recreational The saveral Alternatives for development in PCB/Jambotee are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Eindingt Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The No Project Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetics, housing, vehicular transportation circulation, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts that the proposed project. 2. The No Project Alternative would have the same bikeway, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources, 3. The General Plan Amendment 80.3 Alternatives would have greater land use, aesthetics, housing, vehicular transportation circulation, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts that the proposed project. 4. The General Plan 80.3 Alternatives would have the same bikeway, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 5. The Hotel Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetics, hous- ing, vehicular transportation circulation, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts that the proposed project. 6. The Hotel Alternative would have the same bikeway, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 7. The Commercial Alternative would have greater land use; aesthetics, housing, vehicular transportation circulation, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts that the proposed project. S. The Commercial Alternative would have the aame bikeway, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 9. The increased and Decreased Residential Alternatives would have the same land use, aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources impacts. 10. The Increased Residential Alternative would have greater vehicular impacts than the proposed project will have. It. The Restaurant Alternative will have greater of the same impacts as the project will have on land use, aesthetics, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and public services and utilities. 12. The Recreational Alternative would have the same or greater land use, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. ' 113 ' 13, The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- ' siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST 1. No Project 2. CPA 80-3 a. Approved Project b. Planning Commission ' c. Staff d. Proposed Project 3. Office a. Increased b. Decreased 4. Hotel 5. Commercial 6. Residential 7. Restaurant ' 8. Recreational The several Alternatives for development in Corporate Plaza West are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findinzs ' Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have greater vehicular, on site noise, air quality and public services and utility impacts than will the project. 2. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on land use, aesthetics, bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth 1 resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 3. The site specific General Plan Amendment 80-3 Alternatives will have 1 greater land use, aesthetic, housing, vehicular, on site noise, air quality and public services and utility impacts than will the pro- ject. 4. The site specific General Plan Amendment 80-3 Alternatives will have I the same impacts on bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 5. The site specific Increase Office Alternative will have greater land '• use, aesthetic, housing, vehicular, on site noise, air• quality and public services and utility impacts than'will the project. 6. The site specific Increased Office Alternative will have the same impacts on bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources. resources, biological resources, and cultural 7. The site specific Decreased Office Alternative will have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, vehicular, on site noise, air quality and public services and utility impacts than will the project. 8. The site specific Decreased Office Alternative will have the same impacts on bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 9. The site specific Commercial Alternative will have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, vehicular, on site noise, air quality and public services and utility impacts than will the project. - 114 , 10. The site specific Commercial Alternative will have the sane impacts on bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 11. The Residential Alternative would have the same land use, aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological -- resources, and cultural resources as would the project. 12. The Restaurant Alternative would have the same or greater impact as r the project on land use, aesthetics, housing, transportation and cir. culation, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and public services and utilities. 13. The Recreational Alternative would have greater land use impacts than would the project. 14. The Theater Alternative was selected for the Fashion Island area. That is better for is area suited the use than this area. 15. The Theater Alternative was incorporated in the project to provide for additional night time activities in the center. ' 16. The hotel alternative is rejected because it does not meat the pre- sent planning objectives of the city and/or project proponent. 17. The project proposed for Corporate Plata West will provide signifi- cant revenues to the project proponent to allow them to make many of the proposed circulation system and aesthetic improvements that have been indicated and conditioned as a part of this project. I$. Free standing commercial development would be in direct competition with uses in the Fashion Island area and should be rejected. 19. Commercial uses that are supportive of the existing office and hotel uses in the block will be allowed and permitted by the proposed pro- ject. 20. The introduction of residential uses into the Corporate Plata West site would not meet the objective for planning and design for the , center stated by the project proponent in Volumes 1 end 5 of the Draft EIR. 21. The commercial alternative would be in direct competition with in existing uses the Corona Dal Mar area. 22. The introduction of commercial uses into this area would effect the capacity of the highway in a negative manner. 1 23. The Commercial Alternative would make East Coast Highway into strip commercial development along the frontage of Newport Center. This is not desirable from either the planning objectives of the city and/or project proponent. 24. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. NUPORT VILLAGE 1. No Project 2. 6PA 80.3 a. Approved Project b. Planning Commission c. Staff d. Proposed Project 3. Office a. a. Increased b, Decreased 4. Hotel 17 LJ I 115 ' 5. Commercial a. Increased ' b. Decreased 6. Residential 7. Theater The several Alternatives for development in Newport Village are reviewed in the Final SIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have greater onsite noise impacts than will the project. 2. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on aesthetics, bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, ' water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 3. The site specific General Plan Amendment 80-3 Alternatives will have 1 the same impacts on aesthetics, bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 4. The Residential Alternative selected was in substantial compliance with those reviewed in the Draft EIR. . 5. The selection of the residential land use for the Newport Village site allowed for the addition of housing units that will be affordable in some instances to the employees of the project. 6. Increased housing opportunities in the community is consistent with the objectives of the Housing Element. 7. The commercial alternative would be in direct competition with the existing uses in the Corona del Mar area. 8. The introduction of commercial uses into this area would effect the capacity of the highway in a negative manner. 9. The commercial Alternative would make East Coast Highway into strip commercial development along the frontage of Newport Center. This is not desirable from either the planning objectives of th4 City and/or I project proponent. 10. The Alternative of a Lake/Desilting Basin is reject for the reasons stated in the Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings approved in conjunction with the approval and rescindment of CPA 80-3. 11. The Lake/Desilting Basin Alternative would be located in a location ' that would be upstream of a significant amount of the pollutants. 12. The incorporation of a health club/gym into the project on the Corpo- rate Plaza East site was within the range of alternatives presented in the GPA 85-1(B) EIR. 13. That the Corporate Plaza East site proposed for the health club facility was within the geographical boundaries of the Newport Vil= lage site as originally proposed with the conceptual curvalinear I alignment of Avocado Avenue, 14. Health club is not a traditional commercial use and is not viewed as a traffic generator. 'It was provided to provide a desired use within walking distance to employees in Newport Center and the adjacent resi- ' dential uses. 15. Meets the expressed objectives to provide community supported uses in Newport Center. 116 16. The remaining significant affects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of overriding Con• siderstions and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant offset, and ate more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. CORPORATE PLAZA EAST 1. Office 2. Commercial 3. Residential 4. Restaurant The several alternatives for davelupment on the Corporate Plaza East sits ate reviewed in the Final EIR and are listed above. Each of these alterna- tives was previously rejected for the development of the proposed project. Action has been taken in the approval of the CPA 85-1(B) EIR to incorporate the use of a health club/gym facility, a non-traditional commercial use in Corporate Plaza East. 1. The use would not be in direct competition with the existing uses in the Corona del Nar area, 2. The introduction of non-traditional commercial uses into this area would not effect the capacity of the highway in a negative manner. 3. The non-traditional commercial use would not make East Coast Highway a strip commercial development along the frontage of Newport Center. This is not desirable from either the planning objectives of the City and/or project proponent. 4. The incorporation of a health club/gym facility nests the expressed needs and desires of the community as exprassad during public hearings on the proposed project. 5. The remaining significant affects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Over- riding Considerations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from those Alternatives. AVOCADO/NACARTHOA X. No Project 2. CFA 80.3 A. Approved Project b. Planning Commission c. Staff d. Proposed Project 3. Office a. Increased b. Decreased 4. Hotel 5. Commercial 6. Theater The several Alternatives for development in Avoeado/HaeArthur are reviewed in the Final BIR and listed above. Each of those alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified In the Final EIR and described above in that: 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on aesthetics, bikeways pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources', and cultural resources. U r C r r r r r r 7 LJ r 1 r 117 I I FI LJ I I I 1 I LI I 2. The site specific General Plan Amendment 80-3 Alternatives would have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, vehicular, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts than the project. 3. The General Plan Amendment 80-3 Alternatives would have the same impacts on bikeways, earth resources, water resources, biological resources and cultural resources. 4. The site specific Increased Office Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, vehicular, noise, air quality, and pub- lic services and utility impacts that, the project. 5. The Increase'Office Alternative would have the same impacts on bike- ways, earth resources, water resources, biological resources and cul- tural resources. 6. The Hotel Alternative would have greater housing impacts than would the project. 7. The Commercial Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetics, housing, vehicular, noise, air quality, and public services and util- ity impacts than would the proposed project. 8. The Hotel Alternative would have greater onsite noise impacts that the proposed project. 9. The Commercial Alternative would have the same or greater impacts that the project on housing, vehicular traffic, noise, and air quality. 10. The Theater Alternative was selected for the Fashion Island area. That area is better suited for the,use for than is this area. 11. The Theater Alternative was incorporated in the project to provide for additional night time activities in the Newport Center this area is too removed to benefit the majority of Newport Center. 12. Free standing commercial development would be in direct competition with uses in the Fashion Island area and should be rejected. 13. Commercial uses that are supportive of the existing office and hotel uses in the block will be allowed and permitted by the proposed pro- ject. 14. A day care facility was incorporated into the project on the Avo- cado/MacArthur site as a use deficient in the community and greatly supported by its citizens as noted at public hearings oA the project. 15. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable ,when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. BIG CANYON/MACAR THUS. 1. No Project 2. Residential a. Increased b. Decreased 3. Open Space 4. Circulation The several Alternatives for development in Big Canyon/MacArthur are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: J lie ' ' 1. The site specific General Piro Amendment 80.3 Alternatives would have greater impacts an bikeways and pedestrian activities. 2. The site was not a part or General Plan Amendment 80-3. ' 3. The site specific Increased Residential Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetic, vehicular, noise, air quality., and pub- lic services and utility impacts than the project. 4. The Increase Residential Alternative would have the same impacts on housing, bikoways, earth resources, water resources, biological resources and cultural resources. ' S. The Deoreased Residential Alternative would have the some impacts ae would the project on aesthetics, bikeways, pedestrian, earth resoures, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources as would the project. ' 6. The Circulation Alternative is rejected as the need for the land for highway purposes in the Couplet has been removed by the selection of the non couplet alternative. 7. The retention of the area in open space or as a reservation for high- way improvements without the need for the couplet would deprive the property owner of a reasonable use of his property. 9. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts sat forth in the Statement of Overriding Con. siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant affect, and are more acceptable than those ' anticipated from these Alternatives. SAYVIEN LANDING , 1. No Project 2. Hotel 3. Commercial a. Increased t b. Decreased 4. Residential 5. Recreational 6. Institutional the several Alternatives for development in Asyview Landing are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Several of theme alternative art rejected with the findings listed below. ' Findings. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final SIR and described above in that; , 1. The project site specific was not a part of Central Plan Amendment 80-3. 2. The site specific No Project Alternative would have greater aesthetic impacts than the project. 3. The Hotel Alternative would have the greater impacts an land use, aesthetics, and vehicular than would the project. 4. The Increase Commercial Alternative would have greater land use, aes- thetic, housing, vehicular, noise, and air quality impacts than would the proposed project. ' 5. The concept of a teen center is favored by civic leaders. 6. The teen center will provide employment and training for the youth of the community. , 119 ' and 7. The project will preserve views from the site for the motorist pedestrian traveling along East Coast Highway. 8. The project will provide a reasonable use of the property that is or the community. may not be available in another location within 9. The commercial activities will be consistent with the Local Coastal ' Program in that they will provide visitor serving activities with the coastal zone. 10. The tnsticutional use of the property was considered in the Draft EIR and the chosen use is with in the range of development intensity pro- posed and analyzed for the site. 11. The project proponent will dedicate and improve a view park facili- ties providing aesthetic and recreational amenities to the community. 12. The project proponent will dedicate a view park facility of not less than four acres. 13. Site plan review will ensure that views of and across the site are - presented and potentially enhanced. 14. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. NEWPORTER NORTH ' 1. No Project 2. Hotel 3. Residential ' a. Increased b. Decreased 4. Institutional 5. Recreational ' The several Alternatives for development in Newport North are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with ' the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the ' alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above 'in that: 1. The project site specific was not a part of General Plan, Amendment 80-3. ' 2. The site specific No Project Alternative would have the same or less biological aesthetic and the same earth resources, water resources, resources, and cultural resource impacts as would the project. 3. The Hotel Alternative would have the greater impacts on land use, same or less vehicular, the same aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources impacts as would the project. ' 4. The project would not substantially change in appearance is a slight decrease in residential was made from that which was approved, 5. The project incorporates the potential for an institutional use, such ' as an Orange County Natural History Museum on the property in the cultural resources area. 6. The project will provide a reasonable use of the property that is or ,, may not be available in another location within the community. 120 ' 7. The institutional use of the property was considered in the Draft EIR and the chosen use is with in the range of development intensity pro. posed Arid analyzed for the site. S. Any structures to be located in the cultural resource areas would require separate mitigation. 9. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when ' balanced against facts net forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderAtions and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, And are more acceptable than those Anticipated from these Alternatives. SAN DIE00 CREEK NORTH 1. Office 2. Commercial ' The several alternatives for development an the San Diego Creek North site are reviewed in the EIR and are listed above. Each of the alternatives was previously rejected for the development of the proposed project. Action ' ban been taken in the approval of the CPA 85.1(E) EIR to incorporate the retention of a 2.5 acre fire station facility site. 1. The approved use is within the range of uses eonsidersd in the Draft EIR. 2. The project incorporates the potential for an institutional use of the property for a fire station. ' 3. The project will provide a reasonable use of the property that is or may not be available in another location within the community. 4. The remaining significant effects of the project Ara acceptable when , balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater height to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these alternatives. NESTSAY 1. Residential. The alternative for development on the pestbay site is reviewed in the EIR and is listed above. This alternative was previously rejected for the development of the proposed project. Action has been taken in the approval of the CPA 85.1(E) E1R to change the land use designation to allow for only recreational and environmental open space. 1 The project will provide a reasonable use of the property that is or may not be available in another location within the community. , 2. The recreational and open space use of the site provide* a balance of 3. recreational and urban uses within the oommunity. Designation of the site for recreational and environmental open space implements the concept of a park for the Wastbay sit&. 4. The project use of the property is considered an acceptable and appropriate use adjacent to the Upper Newport gay Ecological Reserve. ' 5. The project will preserve the cultural heritage of the site. — 6. The use of the property will create An open space use providing in , visual relief the community. 7. Use of the property for recreation and environmental open space will provide public views of the bay. , S. The project is consistent with the redevelopment plan of the County of Orange. 1 1 121 9. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the unavail- able significant effect and are more acceptable than those antici- pated from the alternative. ' SPECIFIC CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES GENERAL PLAN NO PROJECT -EXISTING This alternative assumes development of the circulation system ets described under the existing General Plan. The existing Circulation Element desig- ' nates MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue as a primary Couplet 3-lanes in each direction. The roads are shown as a one-way couplet.. Avocado Avenue as one-way south bound. MacArthur Boulevard as one-way north bound. ' No Project Alternative Alternative A Alternative B ' Alternative C Alternative D The several Alternatives for development of Specific Circulation changes • are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative ' is rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The specific circulation system alternative was not a part of General • Plan Amendment 80-3. 2. The alternatives are reject for the reason state in the Statement of Finding and Facts in Support of Finds made in conjunction with CPA 79-2. 3. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. JAMBOREE ROAD GRADE SEPARATION ' This alternative assumes the development of a grade separation at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. ALTERNATIVE A: ROADWAY MODIFICATION ' The Alternative for development of a grade separation at East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road was reviewed in the Final EIR. The city choose the alternative a mitigation measure to project specific and cumulative ' impacts. Findinas Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the ' other alternatives identified in the Final EIR; 1. The specific circulation system alternative was not a part of General - Plan Amendment 80-3. ' 2. The grade separation is the only way to reduce traffic level to acceptable levels at the intersection. 3. The remainder of the alternatives were rejected for the reasons stated in the Final EIS and Project Report. 122 4, the remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts met forth in the Statement of Overriding Can. siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and ate mars acceptable than those anticipated from theme Alternatives. ELIMINATION OF THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR The alternative usurer the elimination of the San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor (SJHTC). The Final EIR looked at the potential for the elimination of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). The city did not select this as an alternative for the several reasons stated in the Find EIR and the Facts stated below. The City rejected this alternative with the following finding; 1. The elimination of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is beyond the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. 2. The elimination of the SJHTC would not lessen traffic and circulation problems within the community. 3. The Alternative would not substantially effect the impact of project traffic. FORD ROAD CONNECTION TO THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND SAN MICUEL DRIVE CONNECTION TO THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRI- DOR .The system would be modified to eliminate access provisions for the SJHTC to delete the interchange of Ford Road (extended) and to delete the portion of San Joaquin Hills Road between Pelican Hill Road and the SJHTC (the segment between Pelican Hill Road and San Canyon Road). The Final EIR looked at the potential for the elimination of the Ford Road Connection to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) and San Miguel Drive Connection to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) and the San Miguel Drive connection to the SJHTC. The city did not select this as an alternative for the several reasons stated in the Final EIR and the Facts stated below. The City rejected this alternative with the following finding; 1. The elimination of the roadways would make traffic conditions in the city worse than if the roadways were to be implamentod. 2. The roadways are outside of the City of Newport Beach snd as such are beyond the direct control of the community. 3. The city has adopted policy on the San Joaquin Hills that would be in direct conflict with the deletion of the major on ramps. PELICAN HILL ROAD CONNECTION TO THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRI- DOR The system would be modified to eliminate the portion of Pelican Hill Road between the SJHTC and Bonita Canyon Road, The Final EIR looked at the potential for the elimination of the Pelican Hill Road connection to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). The city did not select this a an alternative for the several reasons stated in the Final EIR and the Facts stated below. The City rejected this alternative with the following finding; 1. The connection is outside of the city and is the responsibility of another jurisdiction. 2. The impacts of the delation of the roadway are those described in the Final EIR. 3. The deletion of the roadway will not affect projatt traffic impacts to a significant extent. 11 I I I [1 I I I 123 1 1 4. The deletion of the roadway will not better traffic and circulation in the City of Newport Beach. ELIMINATION OF PARKING ON EAST COAST HIGHWAY IN CORONA DEL MAR This alternative would be to provide peak hour parking restrictions or total parking restrictions on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. The Final EIR looked at the elimination of parking on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. The City did not select this alternative for several reasons stated in the Final EIR and the Facts stated below. The City rejected this alternative with the following finding; 1. Merchants in Corona del Mar are opposed to the elimination of parking on East Coast Highway. 2. Residents in Corona del Mar are opposed to the elimination of parking on East Coast Highway. 3. The deletion of parking.would hurt business in the Corona del Mar area. UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXTENSION The alternative would be the extension of University Drive from Jamboree Road to Irvine Avenue. The Final EIR looked at the potential for the Extension of University Drive. The city did not select this as an alternative for the several rea- sons stated in the Final EIR and the Facts stated below. The City rejected this alternative with the following finding; 1. The extension of University Drive is acceptable at this time to the community and is not a part of the City' adopted LCP. 2. The roadway would create significant biological impacts that cannot be deemed accepted at this time to the community. 3. The roadway would not eliminate the specific area of major concern in the Corona Del Mar area. 124 Exhibit 2 1 r The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency to bal- ance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environ- mental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the unavoidable risks of this project are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of this project, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental risks.' In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits ware considered or decisional ands: 1. The proposed project and its Individual components art consistent and compatible with other existing and ptoposed uses in the vicinity of the project and community in general. 2. The proposed project represents infill development located in an urban area where adequate facilities'and services are available. 3. The density and intensity of the project is appropriate. 4. The density and intensity of the project is similar to the existing adjacent development. 5. The proposed project will implement established policies of the Gen- eral Plan Housing Element to increase the production of housing. 6. The proposed project supports the City's responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards• to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Sec- tion 65913 of the Goverment code. 7. The proposed project will contribute to a fair share of roadway improvements, specifically the City's Fair Share Traffic contribution Ordinance No. 8416, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Program. 8. Revenues generated by the proposed project will exceed costs associ- ated with serving the proposed project veaulting in a financial gain to the City. 9. The proposed project includes the development of a transit terminal in Newport Center, thereby encouraging use of mass transit and a reduction in traffic. 10. Increased number of residences will be developed in Newport Center and Peripheral Sites, in close proximity to shopping and a major employment center. 11. In view of all factors the project represents a reasonable balance and mix of uses for the project area. 12. The majority of impacts associated with this project are regional in nature, and the project's cumulative and incremental contribution to those impacts is considered minimal and acceptable from a regional perspective. 13. The proposed project is needed to maintain quality in Fashion Island and the Center's competitiveness with other regional shopping and office centers. This benefits the City fiscally and the residents of the City, 14. Roadway improvements to which the proposed project will be required to contribute an equitable share will add roadway capacity in excess of that required to accommodate the increase in project -related traf- fic, and will thereby side in alleviating existing traffic congestion in the City. r r r r r i LJ `1 L 125 2 15. The proposed project supports the City's policy to eliminate con- straints to housing production, increase allowed density, and to pro- vide incentives to the building industry to facilitate the provision of housing for low and moderate income housing. 16. The proposed project provides a regional circulation improvements, ' such as the construction of Pelican HL11 Road that will improve the quality of life in the community by directing ,travel around rather than through the community. 17. The project provides for child ware in close proximity to employment. ' This has been identified as a major need within the community. 18. The project provides $50 million in circulation system improvements. ' 19. The project provides $1 million in landscape improvements that are not required to mitigate environmental impacts of the project or meed existing city requirements. ' 20. The project will provide additional office space within the commu- firms to remain in Newport Center, rather nity. This will allow many than moving to other employment areas when they need to expand. 21. The project will provide for the expansion of major retail tenants ' within the Center. This will allow them to continue to be competi- tive with other regional commercial centers. 22. The project will help to implement the County of Orange Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. This will benefit citizens wall beyond the City. and County boundaries. 23. The project will improve coastal access by providing view opportuni- ' ties across the Bayview Landing site. 24. 1he project will improve coastal access and preserve coastal resources by providing important setbacks from biological and archae- ological resources on the Newporter North site. 25. The project will provide job training and employment to the communi- ties youth through the opportunity afforded by the teen center con- cept. 26. The size and scale of the project will allow for the retention of small employers within the community. 27. The retention of cost effective offices in a garden park setting will be as high rise office development. This provides a provided as well needed mix of opportunities for employers. 28. The project will reduce the loss of sales tax to other communities by the provision of new commercial opportunities. ' 29. The project will provide appropriate controls on drainage areas. This will improve to a limited extent, water quality in Newport Bay. 30. The project will provide visitor serving commercial activities in the Coastal Zone at the Bayview Landing site. This is consistent with ' 31. and supported by the Coastal Act. The for alternative transportation opportunities by project provides implementation of bicycle facilities. These include individual — bicycle trails, bicycle racks and staging on the Bayview Landing site, opportunities on the Newporter North site, and regional trails ' on Pelican Hill Road. 32. The project provides leisure time activities in Fashion Island such as movies, restaurants, and other activity generators. These will achieve community desires of improving nighttime activities in the Center. 126 3 33. The project will add recreational opportunities to the Canter in the form of a majot health club. This will improve the quality and pos- sibility quantity of life of the communities residents and employees in the center. 34. Funds and/or land will be provided for parks in the community through the City Park Dedication Ordinance. 35. Funds will be provided for noise walls in the community to less cumu- lative project noise impacts through tht City's Fair Share Traffic contribution Ordinance No. 3416. 36. The project will establish planning limits on the intensity and den- sity of land use for the Newport Canter and Peripheral Situ. ' COMMISSIONERS x c O m z c m y m z m n z r O o s m p 0 0 Iv m; z a z p z m m Present Ix kotion x ,Ayes x x x x xx x I 127 Rr TEAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING P'L—E: City Council ChamberL TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: April 24, 1986 of Newport Beach All Planning Commissioners were present. EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of April 10, 1986: Commissioner Turner requested that page 5, paragraph 3 be amended to state "that the installation of the public improvements should be delayed until the plans of the site have been finalized". Commissioner Winburn requested that page 28, paragraph 3, be amended to state ........ and that she would like to give Mr. Blake more time to come up with additional information...". Motion was made to approve the amended April 10, 1986, Planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -1- MINUTES Minutes of April 10, 1986 128 MMISSIONERS ( April 24, 1986 MINUTES c b x i C b S m a a m > T ° City of Newport Beach Use Permit No. 689 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted a 74 bed convalescent center in the M-1-A District. The proposed amendment includes a request to construct a new building containing a laundry facility and storage area. The proposal also includes a modifi- cation to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed building to encroach 9 feet into a required 10 foot zone separation setback along the southerly side property line. The proposed amendment also includes a request to amend a previously imposed condition of approval which requires one parking space for each two beds. It should be noted that the proposed construc- tion is part of a previously approved use permit which has expired. LOCATION: A portion of Lot No. 614, First Addi- tion, Newport Mesa Tract, located at 1555 Superior Avenue, on the north- westerly side of Superior Avenue between Fifteenth Street and Sixteenth Street, adjacent to the West Newport 'triangle. ZONE: M-1-A Item No. APPLICANT: Newport Convalescent Center, Newport I ' Beach OWNER: American Health Centers, Newport Beach I ' The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Paul Edgren, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Edgren stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", with the exception of Condition No. 12 which states that "mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property lines", and Condition No. 13 which states that "the applicant shall obtain the services of a professional engineer practicing in acoustics who shall provide evidence of existing ambient outside noise levels and proposed interior noise levels". Mr. Edgren pointed out that Condition No. 13 appears to state that there would not be any noise from the laundry facilityi however, Condition No. 12 states that there would be noise from an exhaust fan. Mr. Edgren asked that both Conditions No. 12 and No. 13 state that the sound from the laundry facility not exceed 55 d8A at the property lines. -2- F d Ir i L� 11 129 April 24, 1986 MINUTES F - a C O = f v m z c m> m z m A A z r 0 x C z N p C 0 0 S M O T> T T 2 W z y z T M ' ROLL CALL 1 Motion Ayes x x x x 1 1 City of Newport Beach Discussion followed between the Planning Commission and staff regarding Conditions No. 12 and No. 13, and the previously approved Conditions No. 14 and No. 15 from the Planning Commission Meeting dated August 4, 1983. Mr. Hewicker suggested that Condition No. 12 could be modified and Condition No. 13 could be deleted. Commissioner Goff suggested that Condition No. 12 could be modified to state "any roof -top fans, vents and other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property lines and that they be screened from view". The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 689 (Amended), subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including modified Condition No. 12 stating, "any roof -top fans, vents and other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property lines and that they be screened from view", and to delete Condition No. 13. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the existing and proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The Police Department has indicated that it does not contemplate any problems. 3. That the proposed additions will not increase the parking demandof the facility inasmuch as no new employees will be required and no additional patients are proposed in conjunction with the proposed alterations. 4. That adequate on -site parking is being provided for the existing and proposed use of the property. 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 the establishment, maintenance of operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort -3- INDEX 130 April 24, 1986 x 0 i y v r' m Cz F ,yam. rm O S z o 9 o O x m O m Y m M z 9 z y 2 w mI ROLL of Newport Beach MINUTES r r and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be r detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further, that the proposed modification to allow encroachments into a requi- red setback area is consistent with the legisla- tive intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code, inasmuch as a 151 wide drive provides a substan- r tial separation between the proposed building and adjoining mobile homes. CONDITIONS: r 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and sections except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment, trash areas, and outdoor storage areas shall be screened from r Superior Avenue and adjoining properties. 3. That a minimum of one parking space for each 2.47 r beds (30 parking spaces) shall be provided in conjunction with the subject convalescent hospi- tal, r 4. That continuous curb stops be installed in the northerly parking lot, at least four feet from the railing adjacent to Superior Avenue. , 5. That a new concrete drive approach and paving be installed at the southerly drive entrance. The design of said drive approach shall be subject to ' the approval of the Public Works Department and shall be constructed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. , 6. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the public right-of-way be approved by the Public Works Department. 7. Handicap parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. ' r i -4- r 131 April 24, 1986 MINUTES H II� of Newport Beach 8. 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. 9. That the existing concrete block storage shed, located in the southerly parking area, shall be removed and the existing trash bins shall be relocated so as to provide adequate space for five parking spaces. 10. That the . employees shall be required to park on site. 11. That the proposed laundry facility shall be for the exclusive use of the Newport Convalescent Center only. 12. Any roof -top fans, vents and other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property lines and that they be screened from view. 13. Deleted. 14. That the applicant shall construct a continuous six-foot high masonry wall along the southerly side property line of the subject property, except that said wall shall maintain a clear 10 foot setback from the front property line and that the last 10 feet of the wall closest to Superior Avenue shall not exceed a height of 3 feet. 15. That all landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 16. That the parking area shall be resurfaced or repaved and restriped in a manner acceptable to the Traffic Engineer. The vehicular and pedestri- an circulation plan shall also be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 17. That all improvements shall be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Depart- ment. -5- INDEX 132 April 24, 1986 x x x f a 0 v ' m z e m o m z a S ` = p N z r a ° 9 � ° 2 ° 9 m O m T 0 City of z' z X = T m t Beach MINUTES 1 r 18. 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. 19, 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. Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) , I Item Not Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP315BA permitted various alterations to the Balboa Inn and related restaurant uses. The proposed amendment Continued includes a request to establish an alternate outdoor to dining area on an existing second floor deck and on a 5-22-86 pedestrian bridge over the public East Ocean Front sidewalk. said dining area will not increase the existing "net public area" of the restaurant inasmuch ' as it will not be used simultaneously with the existing outdoor dining area on the ground floor. The proposal also includes a request to allow non -amplified live entertainment in the two outdoor dining areas. The , proposal also includes the termination of a portion of the approved Use Permit No. 3158 that permitted the Caffe Nunzio Restaurant on the property. Said area is proposed to be used for retail sales and a hotel service area. LOCATIONS Lots 12-16, Block 10, Balboa Tract, located at 105 Main Street, on the northwesterly corner of East Ocean Front and Main Street, in Central Balboa. , ZONE: C-1-Z APPLICANT: Balboa Improvements, Ltd., Costa Mesa ' OWNER: same as applicant Chairman Person stepped down from the dais because of a r possible conflict of interest. ' -6- COMMISSIONE xx E 9 9 ' zc 'm >m I N O r. O ' Z F z 9 2 T ' ROLL 11 I i� 133 April 24, 1986 of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to a letter dated April 22, 1986, signed by the Board of Directors of the Rendezvous Condominium Association addressed to the Planning Commission and received by staff. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. Dennis O'Neil, 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. O'Neil briefly referred to the alleged violations of the existing conditions relating to the subject use permit, and advised that the matters will be corrected. He commented that the cocktail lounge area that was previously open before the permitted hour of 3:00 p.m. can be monitored and corrected, although the applicant will be requesting that the two additional parking spaces resulting from the closure of the Caffe Nunzio, reducing the approved 19 parking spaces to 17 parking spaces, be applied towards the ability to open the cocktail lounge before 3:00 p.m. Mr. O'Neil stated that serving patrons outside of the areas that are permitted for outdoor dining will be monitored. Mr. O'Neil commented that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the use permit in order to provide outside dining on the second floor deck area, and on a pedestrian bridge over the public East Ocean Front sidewalk. He said that the in -lieu parking fees for the 66 parking spaces were paid in a timely manner, and the check for the additional required 19 parking spaces has been submitted to the City. Mr. O'Neil stated that there has not been any music in the foyer or patio of the subject hotel since opening night at which time a special events permit was issued. He commented that the applicant intends to abide by the condition that no live entertainment shall be permitted. Mr. O'Neil stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A", and he asked for the Planning Commission or staff to comment on Condition No. 3 relating to the time of operation and whether or not the additional 2 parking spaces could be utilized to allow for the opening of the cocktail lounge before 3:00 p.m. -7- MINUTES INDEX 134 COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES' Pt G O z c m> m z101, ' A = * m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I INDEX The public hearing was closed in connection with this item. Mr. Hewicker commented that the reason for requiring the cocktail lounge to be closed prior to 3:00 p.m. was that during the summer months when the Municipal Parking Lot is full there is no parking available for the public in that area until after 3:00 p.m. Mr. Hewicker explained that the procedure to change the operating hours of the cocktail lounge is to advertise and hold a public hearing. Commissioner Goff asked what the hours of the Cafe Nunzio were, and he pointed out that the hours of operation of the cocktail lounge were limited to after 3:00 p.m. based on the 1,365 square feet of "net public area" of the restaurant that could be utilized before 3:00 p.m. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, replied that the applicant previously ` requested that the front portion of the interior of the restaurant and ground floor patio area be utilized until 3:00 p.m. instead of the cocktail lounge. Mr. Laycock commented that the Caffe Nunzio's operating hours were from 12:00 noon to 2:00 a.m. and that the restaurant purchased the required 6 in -lieu parking spaces for said use. Discussion followed regarding the cocktail lounge's operating hours and the restaurant's "net public Motion x area". Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 1986, to allow staff and the applicant additional time to clarify the operating hours of the cocktail lounge, how the "net public area" could be utilized, and the impact of transferring the in -lieu parking spaces from Caffe Nunzio to the primary restaurant use. Commissioner Koppelman suggested that the use permit be renoticed if the applicant is interested in changing the cocktail lounge's operating hours to an earlier opening, Discussion followed regarding the length of time that the applicant and staff would need to evaluate the proposed and renotice the use permit. Mr. O'Neil stated that the applicant would agree to a continuation of the use permit until the Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 1986. Motion x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3158 Ayes x x x x x x (Amended) to the May 22, 1986, Planning Commission Absent x Meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. lll k A # _8.. [1 1 I 1 J I 135 April 24, 1986 MINUTES ROLL CI I 1 I xx c o 9 S = r 9 m Z c m y m z C 2 a= 0 O s A O O T m l Cityof Newport p Beach z A. Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) (Discussion) Request to review a previously approved use permit which permitted the expansion of an existing delica- tessen -restaurant known as "Rothschild Cheese and Wine." Said review is for the purpose of ensuring conformance with the Conditions of Approval previously established by the Planning Commission. AND B. Resubdivision No. 751 (Discussion) (Extension) Request for an extension of time in conjunction with the approved Resubdivision No. 751 that permitted the establishment of a single parcel of land for the expansion of the Rothschild Wine and Cheese Restaurant where one lot, a portion of a second lot, and a portion of an abandoned alley presently exist. LOCATION: Lot No. 1, Block B, Tract No. 740, a portion of Lot 10, Block 730, Corona del Mar Tract and a portion of an abandoned alley located at 2407 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of Begonia Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: Helmut Reiss, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Raab Engineering, inc., Orange Mr. Helmut Reiss, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission in connection with this item. Mr. Reiss advised that he was unaware that the parcel map had been recorded, and that the trash area has been screened. In response to a question posed by Mr. Reiss regarding the closing hour of the restaurant, Chairman Person referred to Condition No. 11, from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 21, 1983, whereby the condition states "that the restaurant facility shall remain closed after 10:00 p.m. and before 10:00 a.m.". INDEX Item No. 3 UP1851A Approved and R751 3 month extension Approved 136 MMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES ao z e m' r m o s a= r x 0 m I City of Newport Beach ROLL Mr. Reiss asked for a clarification of Condition No. 19. Chairman Person replied that the condition has ' been imposed on restaurants since the applicant originally applied for his use permit, and that the condition states that the Planning Commission has the authority to review and modify the subject use permit should the restaurant become a detriment to the neighborhood or the community in the future. Mr. Reiss stated that he had no objections that Condition No. 19 ' be added to the subject use permit. Motion x Motion was made that Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) All Ayes include added Condition No, 15, and that Resubdivision No. 751 be extended until October 15, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. , CONDITION: 19. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify ' conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury,- or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. Use Permit No. 3196 (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to permit the installation of outdoor tennis UP3196 court lighting on property located in the custom lot residential area of the Aeronutronics Ford Planned proved Community. Said lighting will be installed on eight poles with a fixture height of 22 feet. , LOCATIONS Lot 28, Tract No, 11450, located at 5 Weymouth Court, on the southerly side of Weymouth Court, easterly of Belcourt Drive North, in the custom lot area of the Aeronutrohic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P-C ' APPLICANT: John S. O'Meara, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ' -10- 137 April 24, 1986 MINUTES I of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this ' item, and Mr. John O'Meara, 1215 Nottingham Road, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. O'Meara stated that he concurs with the findings ' and conditions in Exhibit "A". The public hearing was closed in connection with this 'Motion x item. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3196, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Ayes x x x x x x x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ' FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible ' with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impacts. 3. That the proposed illumination will be installed in such a manner as to conceal the light source ' and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjoining residential properties and streets. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3196 will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, 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. CONDITIONS: ' 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plans and elevation. 2. That the lighting system shall be designed and ' maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to t the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engi- neer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 3. That the tennis court lighting shall be turned off by 11:00 p.m. daily. -il- 138 MMISSIUNERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES X x f a V i C * r v m a = = r ° City of Newport Beach Motion I xl I Ayes x x x INDEX I I Use Permit No. 3197 (Public Nearing) Item No. Request to permit the installation of outdoor tennis uP3197 court lighting on property located in the custom lot residential area of the Aeronutronics Ford Planned Approved' Community. Said lighting will be installed on eight poles with a fixture height of 22 feet, LOCATION: Lot 31, Tract No. 11450, located at 6 t Weymouth Court, on the northerly side of Weymouth Court, easterly of Belcourt Drive North, in the custom lot area of the Aeronutronics Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P-C , APPLICANTS: Mr. and Mrs. William McFarland, Palos Verdes Estates OWNERS: Same as applicants The public hearing was opened in connection with this ' item. Because no one appeared to represent the applicant or testify before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. t Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3197, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ' FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impacts. t 3. That the proposed illumination will be installed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjoining residential properties and streets. t , -12- COMMISSIONERS I I A X n v m z c m> M z m a a z r m= 0 0 m mp m; Ia Z a Z a= M M 139 April 24, 1986 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I_FF I INDEX 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3197 will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plans and elevation. 2. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineers with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 3. That the tennis court lighting shall be turned off by 11:00 p.m. daily. • r 1 t P, 140 MMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES A f 9 1 = i e m y m z a= N 6 3 O o M I City of Newport Beach INDEX H A. General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circu- GPA 85-1B lation, and Recreation and open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, so as to allow construction of an additional 1,275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, Amendme 9 to No. No.LCP9 248,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 P residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to Continue delete the Avocado -MacArthur one -way -couplet and to establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major 5-22-66 arterial roadway, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. AND , B. Amendment No. 9 to the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan (Public Hearing) ' Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, ' and PCH/Jamboree sites. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach ' Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc., 3151 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission, representing The Irvine Company. Mr. Neish reviewed The Irvine Company's proposed project that was ' formally presented during the Planning Commission public hearing on March 20, 1986. ' Mr. Neish complimented the staff and the City's environmental and traffic consultants for the work and preparation of the documents that have been prepared , for the proposed project. Ms. Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, presented the staff's analysis and recommendation. ' Ms. Temple stated that in analyzing the proposed General Plan Amendment staff has four primary objectives from a land use standpoint: land use ' compatibilityt intensity of land use and compatibility to the adjacent areas) that no residential reductions were desirables and that the City did not want to leave , floating or transfer residential units within Newport Center. -14- 141 April 24, 1986 MINUTES I L n 1 1 t C o n v > v z c m Z m Z W 9 Z r S C Z 0 p; 0 O o m, T T Z Z 2 y Z T IT of Newport Beach Ms. Temple stated that The Irvine Company's proposal is in keeping with the land use patterns established in the original concept of Newport Center, and in the development that has occurred over the years. she said that the proposal in terms of intensity and style of use is compatible with the existing development and the existing land use pattern. She cited that the proposal is not consistent with the long standing effort on the part of the City to maintain an increased planned housing stock in the City, both in Newport Center and the City in general. Ms. Temple stated that the concern over the housing stock stems from two areas: compliance with the State Planning Law and the programs in the City's Housing Element, and the circulation system balancing effects of a mixed use development. In terms of intensity, Ms. Temple said that the project fits within intensity limits within the City and the prior actions of the Planning Commission. She stated that when calculated for commercial sites and for the combination of the commercial and residential sites in Newport Center, the Floor Area Ratio under the existing General Plan is 0.41 and if the proposed project is included the Floor Area Ratio is 0.47. When the land taken for recreational uses is included, the country club and the tennis club, the Floor Area Ratios are .30 and .35 respectively. In comparison to the other Planned Communities in the City, Newport Place has a 0.3.7 Floor Area Ratio .permitted, and Koll Center Newport has a 0.525 Floor Area Ratio permitted. She said that the older commercial areas within the City allow significantly higher intensity ranges: Campus Drive at 0.50 Floor Area Ratio; Mariner's Mile and Cannery Village at 1.0 Floor Area Ratio; and other older commercial areas such as Corona del Mar are at 2.0 or 3.0 Floor Area Ratio. Ms. Temple analyzed the individual sites as follows: Fashion Island: Generally consistent with the established land uses. The high-rise tower proposed in Block 600 is similar in size to the three existing office towers in Block 600 and is considered compatible with both these and the hotel use which is currently under construction. -15- 1 142 N\MISSIONERS April 24, 1986 xX n T e re z c m r 2 T z 2 m o a; r zx x ss*M M City of Newport Beach Civic Plaza area is developed with office and also the existing C ty library and art museum. The proposal to add 50,000 square feet of office use is compatible and it is also compatible if the use is institutional. Block 800 proposal would allow additional 440,000 square feet of office use. Block 800 currently has two eight -story office buildings and a restaurant. From a land use standpoint the proposal is considered compatible, but the existing Floor Area Ratio in Block 800 is .55. The proposal, if approved as requested, would result in a Floor Area Ratio of 1.55 on the vacant portion of the site or would increase the overall intensity of Block 800 to .52. in this respect intensity proposed is significantly higher than that which exists in the area. Bast Coast Highway/Jamboree Boulevard: there are currently two residential areas which are immediately adjacent, Sea Island to the north and the approved Villa Point apartment project to the east. The addition of 130 apartments in this area would be a continuation of the Villa Point apartment project and can be considered compatible, particularly since the development is a multi -family residential use which can be accommodated in the arterial highway location proposed. Corporate Plaza West is an office development of 100,000 square feet which is similar in nature to the Corporate Plaza existing to the east. This use is considered compatible from a land use standpoint. office and retail commercial requested on Newport Village is proposed to be an extension of the existing Corporate Plaza development, but is a slightly higher Floor Area Ratio. The only incompatibility that staff would foresee of approval of this proposal is some possibility of aesthetic impact on the residents across MacArthur Boulevard which may result from signage or parking lot lighting. These types of impacts are mitigable. Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard is proposed for garden offices and is very similar to the Newport Village proposal. It is generally compatible with the land uses in the area although at a far less Floor Area Ratio than the Block 400 development across Avocado Avenue. -16- MINUTES ' t t 1 11 I L7 I 1 143 April 24, 1986 MINUTES I I I r I I I co iI F a v c m> z z m ma am a o zr c� m> T z ��City of z a z a z M m Beach Big Canyn/M oacArthur Boulevard is proposed for an additional 80 apartment units which would be an extension of an existing apartment development in Big Canyon. This use is considered compatible. Bayview Landing is proposed for a restaurant complex totaling 60,000 square feet. The location is immediately adjacent to the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park and the Newporter Resort, and it is considered appropriate for visitor related commercial uses. There are some constraints on the site including dedication for roadway improvements, the stability of coastal bluffs and public view opportunities which may limit the intensity which is appropriate on the site. The proposed residential project on Newporter North is similar in nature and density to other bluff -top developments surrounding Upper Newport Bay such as Eastbluff and Westcliff. Most of the Upper Newport Bay is developed with residential uses in the medium or multi -family density ranges. Park Newport north of the site is 24.5 dwelling units per acres. Depending upon the amount of site approved for development, the units proposed could result in density ranging from 7.5 to 25 dwelling units per acre. The primary land use issue associated with the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard couplet is one of site planning. The one-way couplet would isolate the land in between roadways requiring additional ingress/egress points, and in more land used for roadway facilities. The reversion to MacArthur Boulevard as a two way street will allow for more favorable site planning and broaden the uses to' which the land in between can be used. Amending the Master Plan of Streets and Highways is therefore, considered compatible with the existing land uses and would allow for greater flexibility and site planning in the area. Ms. Temple stated that one of the primary concerns of staff, the community, the Planning Commission, and the applicant is the ability of the circulation system to sustain both planned development and the additional development proposed in the Newport Center plan. She said that the City did extensive traffic work including an analysis of the circulation system as a whole, and as a result, certain findings were made as follows: -17- INDEX I 144 April 24, 1986 MINUTES I of Newport Beach in the existing circulation system the traffic volumes exceed capacity in certain areas: East Coast Highway between Poppy Avenue and Newport Boulevard, MacArthur Boulevard between San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Roadt Jamboree Road between East Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive. If the existing General Plan were built out along with the planned circulation system, the projected traffic volumes would exceed capacity in these areas: East Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Marguerite Avenuet the Coast Highway Bay Bridget West Coast Highway in Mariners' Miles MacArthur Boulevard northerly of the couplet to Jamboree Road, Jamboree Road east of MacArthur Boulevard; Marguerite Avenue south of Fifth Avenues Bristol Street North west of Birch Streets Bristol Street west of Birch Street. If the project is added, traffic volumes exceed capacity on East Coast Highway between Marguerite Avenue and Poppy Avenue in addition to the segments previously noted. In terms of overall capacity Ms. Temple stated that the circulation system is estimated to be in balance with planned and proposed uses. Areas which remain deficient are East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar which has been considered by the City as a "planned deficiency"; Pacific Coast Highway bridget West Coast Highway in Mariner's Mile, MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Roads Jamboree Road east of MacArthur Boulevard which is in the airport area. She cited that the deficiencies in the plan are not caused by the project, the project adds traffic volumes in the range of 2 percent to 3 percent, and in the immediate vicinity of the project 7 percent to 11 percent. Ms. Temple stated that one of the key issues in considering the General Plan Amendment is the possible deletion of the Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet. She pointed out that detailed studies in terms of intersection capacity and total traffic volume were done in order to analyze this proposed change. in 1989 and 1993, which is the build out parameter of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the one-way couplet and the two-way MacArthur Boulevard function appears equivalent. Me. Temple pointed out that if the couplet is not installed, the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road is the intersection that experiences the most capacity -18- INDEX I I I I 11 I I I I 11 I I COMMISSIONERS x A 111 c o = z c m > m' z =p C z m r p p v m o m> T T 145 April 24, 1986 City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALLT I I I I I I I I INDEX problems, with the couplet the intersection of East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard experiences some capacity problems. She stated that one advantage with two-way MacArthur Boulevard is that there would be no access granted on MacArthur Boulevard, all access to sites westerly of MacArthur Boulevard would be from Avocado Avenue, thereby limiting the ingress/egress or conflict traffic on MacArthur Boulevard, and would also reduce some out -of -direction travel necessitated by the couplet. Ms. Temple stated that there has been a suggestion that MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San Miguel Road be limited to four lanes. She cited that based on a six lane MacArthur Boulevard, the volume to capacity ratio at build out is estimated to be .87; however, if MacArthur Boulevard remains at 4 lanes, the volume to capacity ratio goes up to 1.3, which is in excess of the roadway capacity. Ms. Temple said that in staff's estimation the circulation element designation for MacArthur Boulevard should be a six lane arterial. Ms. Temple stated that San Joaquin Hills Road is currently designated as a major arterial which is a six lane divided roadway. She said that based on all of the information in the traffic study and traffic studies done by the County of Orange, the volumes do not warrant this magnitude designation. She said that staff is recommending that the Master Plan in the City be changed to indicate the road as a primary arterial which would be a four lane divided designation easterly of Spyglass Hills Road, requiring the City to request the County to amend the County's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Ms. Temple stated that regional roadways play a significant role to sustain the traffic proposed to come onto the circulation system. She pointed out that of particular importance in the short term is construction of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road bypass between Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. She said that based on the information in the traffic studies in the origin and destination survey, the Pelican Hill Road would divert approximately 23 percent of the traffic on East Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and the easterly City Boundary and 22 percent of the traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. Ms. Temple stated that in addition -19- I ROLL 146 MMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 f v a 0 i r 7 m T ° City of Newport Beach MINUTES ' I to providing additional capacity, the road serves to improve Intersection Capacity Utilization ratios at the , intersections along these two routes as well. She commented that the construction of Pelican Hill Road will be a primary component of the improvement program ; for this project if it is approved. Ms. Temple stated that the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road could also divert some traffic during peak hours although it is not estimated to divert nearly as much as Pelican Hill Road. In terms of the proposed project, Ms. Temple commented that the San Joaquin Hills Road extension would serve traffic directly going into Newport Center. The Pelican Hill Road connection primarially will serve development which occurs north of Newport Center and in the airport area. Ms. Temple stated that in the long term, the most ' important roadway in the City is the installation of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. She pointed out that the Corridor provides substantial relief to East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and MacArthur Boulevard. Additionally, the traffic study indicates that all of the connections currently anticipated by the County's planning for the Corridor ' are needed for the Newport Beach circulation system to function equitably on a system wide basis. She pointed out that if San Joaquin Hills Road is not constructed between Pelican Hill Road and the Corridor, the traffic volumes increase on Ford Road and through the Harbor View Homes area, particularly along San Miguel Road, and if the Ford Road interchange is eliminated, ; the traffic volumes along MacArthur Boulevard increase significantly. Ms. Temple stated that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1 was amended in December, 1985. A supplemental Traffic Phasing ordinance will be prepared and must be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council prior to final action of this project. She said that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the Planned Community Text along with the Development Agreement processed for this project would follow the Planning Commission's consideration of the General Plan Amendment and the Local Coastal Program Amendment. ' -2p_ t 147 COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES I x x c o f A 9 zc 'm W A A Z r 0 v m O m i 0 Z A Z A Z T of Newport Beach ■ ROLLCALLI III Jill I INDEX I I I 11 u I I 0 I I In response to the noise impact in the change in the roadway configuration from the one-way couplet to a two-way MacArthur Boulevard, The Irvine Company proposed a mitigation measure which involves the lowering of MacArthur Boulevard. Ms. Temple pointed out that MacArthur Boulevard would be lowered from zero to 13 feet and in order to do this, the centerline of the roadway would also move westerly approximately 50 feet, thereby providing a significant noise mitigation. Ms. Temple stated that the Fire Department has indicated that the proposed project will significantly affect the demand for emergency services from the Santa Barbara Drive station. She said that the Fire Department has indicated that a desirable location for an additional fire station in the north part of the City would be the San Diego Creek North site. She pointed out that the site is designated as "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities", allowing a "park and ride" facility, and could also be used for a fire station. Ms. Temple stated that a fiscal impact analysis was done as part of the work for the General Plan Amendment and indicated that if the proposed project is approved, and constructed, the project would result in revenue in excess of expenditures of approximately $1 million annually. She pointed out that the City's consultants feel that the City's fiscal model used in generating this estimate is conservative and that the project could generate an additional annual surplus of $160,000.00 to $320.000.00. Ms. Temple stated that denial of the project could have some revenue impacts on the City. The City would not gain the revenue that could be accrued by approval of the project, but also the circulation system master plan improvements may have to be partially paid for by the City. Ms. Temple cited that the primary consideration regarding staff's recommendations of land uses was housing and employment balance. She pointed out that this is important both from a housing standpoint and also peripheral benefits in terms of the circulation system since residential and commercial uses generally produce traffic in opposite directions. Ms. Temple presented staff's recommendations as follows: cp4S 148 April 24, 1986 of Newport Beach Bayview Landing: A site that has some access and slope stability problems. The request is for 60,000 square feet of commercial use for restaurants. Staff's recommends that the request be reduced to 20,000 square feet, and that the development be limited to the lower portion of the site which would gain access directly from Back Bay Drive. Ms. Temple recommended that the upper portion be held as an open space to allow for improvements at the Jamboree Road/East Coast Highway intersection, a view park, and a bicycle and pedestrian path and staging area. Newporter North: Ms. Temple commented that there are significant archeological sources which exist on the site. Staff recommends the site for residential development and has suggested that the area of the site which is taken up by archeological resources be held as a cultural resource reserve and that the 490 units requested be developed outside those areas. This would result in a project approximately the density of the Park Newport Apartments, Big Canyon/MacArthur Boulevard: Staff has suggested no land use changes, and has recommended that the project be approved as requested with 80 as residential units. Civic Plaza: The Irvine Company requested to delete 1,350 theater seats and to increase the office/ institutional use by 50,000 square feet. The uses proposed are compatible with existing development and staff therefore recommends approval. Fashion Islands Staff suggests that seats deleted from Civic Plaza be placed in the Fashion Island Retail Center. Further, the 40,000 square feet which staff suggested not be built on Bayview Landing also be allowed in the Fashion island Retail Center. This will result in an overall increase of 168,000 sq.ft. of retail uses and 1,350 theater seats. Block 600: A 300,000 square foot office tower is proposed. The three other office towers in the area are generally in the range of 300,000 square feet as is the Four Seasons Hotel. Staff recommends that this project be approved as requested. -22- MINUTES ' I O lu I I u I 0 F I I 149 April 24, 1986 MINUTES x x c o � i a x v 9 m z c s m m z A Z r 0 x a v m O O O m� z a z z z r m I I I I I I ,I I I u 1 FJ I of Newport Beach Block 800: The intensity is proposed somewhat higher than in the rest of the block, and staff suggests that the office project be allowed to go forward, but at a reduced intensity at a maximum of 300,000 square feet. Corporate Plaza West: The garden offices are similar to the existing uses in Corporate Plaza and staff has recommended that the project be approved as requested. Newport Village: The site has recently been designated as predominently multi -family residential. Ms. Temple stated that staff feels very strongly that the site remain residential and rather than allow any commercial development which is allowed by the existing General Plan, staff is recommending that the entire 33 acres be designated multi -family residential at a maximum of 530 residential units, a similar density to that which is in the existing General Plan. Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard: 44,000 square feet of garden offices is requested. Staff feels that the request is appropriate and has recommended that the project be approved. Ms. Temple stated that other land use element changes that are a result of the overall analysis are: San Diego Creek North: Staff has recommended that a 2.5 acre fire station reservation be added to the site in addition to the "park and ride" facility. Westbay: Currently has 161 units designated, 75 percent of those units are transferred to Newport Center under the existing General Plan. in the overall land use recommendation, the floating transfer units disappear, leaving 40 residential units on the Westbay site. As part of the General Plan Amendment, staff is recommending that the 40 units be deleted and Westbay be designated for recreation and environmental open space. Ms. Temple stated that the modified project will result in 1,414 new residential units constructed in Newport Center, and on the adjacent sites. Staff has recommended that the affordable housing required of this project be consistent with the City's Housing Element providing a total of 453 low and moderate income units, and that this would include total accounting for the remaining Baywood expansion, no -23- INDEX 150 MMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES c o f v m = °pA Z* I City of Newport Beach floating units, no transfer units, and no pool affordable units. Also recommended is that these residential units be made available for twenty years. Ms. Temple stated that there has been a desire by staff to insure completion of residential units early in the , Newport Center Development Program, and staff usually keys commercial development programs to the construction of residential units. The following land use phasing is proposed by staff: 1) No Newport Center residential units required for Fashion Island expansions Civic Plaza expansion, or any residential on the periphery of Newport Center. 2) 400 residential units in Newport Center must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction before building permits are issued for Block 600; Bayview Landing and Avocado/MacArthur. 3) 400 additional residential units in Newport Center must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction before issuance of occupancy permits for Block 600. 4) Completion and Certificate of Occupancy for 800 residential units, which are the two previous 400 residential unit phases, must be issued before building permits are issued for Block 800 and Corporate Plaza West. ' Ms. Temple stated that the completion of the proposed project should also be phased with roadway constructiono She pointed out that there are five components of the circulation system which will be required to be constructed by The Irvine Company as part of the project approval. The five components are: 1) Dedication of Right-of-way for East Coast Highway improvements. 2) Completion of Jamboree Road to six -lane major arterial standards from East Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. , 3) Completion of MacArthur Boulevard to six -lane major arterial standards from East Coast Highway to Route 73. ; -24- F� I I I U I I I I1 I I ♦I I I COMMISSIONERS 111 x x c o F a y a v m z c m> m z m 9 9 2 r 0 2 o 0 'n m o m i z z = y= r m 151 April 24, 1986 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL] I I I I I I I IINDEX 4) Construction of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road between Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. 5) Construction of San Joaquin Hills Road between Spyglass Hill Road and Pelican Hill Road. Ms. Temple stated that these improvements shall be required in the following phases: 1) Prior to issuance of any building permits for any component of GPA 85-1(B) all dedications from The Irvine Company necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. 2) The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway dedications but before installation of Pelican Hill Road: one-half of Fashion Island; Civic Plaza; and any residential sites. 3) The balance of Fashion Island may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and the completion of Jamboree Road, but before installation of Pelican Hill Road. 4) Building or grading permits may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements for Block 600; Bayview Landing; Avocado/MacArthur. 5) Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued for Block 600 until the completion of Pelican Hill Road. 6) Building or grading permits for Block 800 and Corporate Plaza West may be issued upon commencement of construction of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road. Mr. Mike Erickson, Director of Transportation, The Irvine Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Erickson stated that Pelican Hill Road is a roadway that The Irvine Company is pursuing as quickly as possible because of the roadway's important relationship to the Newport Center General Plan Amendment. Mr. Erickson reviewed The Irvine Company's proposal of Pelican Hill Road. Mr. Erickson stated that Pelican Hill Road begins at Pacific Coast Highway, where the horse stables used to be and where the main entrance to the State beach is on the southside of Pacific Coast Highway. He described -25- I 152 April 24, 1986 xx co r e m i m aeA 9 Z r 0 z7 = az of Newport Beach how the roadway climbs up the hill to Pelican Hill Ridge, how the roadway intersects with Bonita Canyon Road near the Coyote Canyon access road, and how the four lanes will intersect with MacArthur Boulevard. He said that the project is approximately six miles long, at a cost of $15 million to $20 million. Mr. Erickson stated that the road provides an alternate to the current traffic problems in Corona del Mar and MacArthur Boulevard, that the roadway is shorter with fewer intersections, thereby less time would occur to drive the route, and would become very attractive to drivers that want to come from South County up into the airport business complex area. He said that 10,000 to 12,000 trips per day have been projected, a 33 percent diversion at the point where Pelican Hill Road takes off from Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Erickson stated that The Irvine Company has completed staff reviews with the State, the City of Irvine, the City of Newport Beach, and the County under whose direction The Irvine Company is processing, as well as discussions with the Coastal Commission. In reference to the Environmental Documentation, Mr. Erickson commented that the notice of preparation should be circulated within a week. He said that The Irvine Company is anticipating the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report around July with the certification in September or October of this year, and the start of construction about a year from today. He commented that the project should take approximately 18 months to complete, an expectation of opening day in October, 1988. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:08 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Koppelman referred to the height of the noise barriers on MacArthur Boulevard as documented in the Environmental Impact Report, and she asked how many lanes are assumed to be in for that noise barrier, and assuming implementation of the depression, would the barrier height exceed what is presently existing, Me, Temple replied that staff would address these questions in the following General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) staff report. Commissioner Koppelman asked how many completed lanes the Pelican Hill Road will have in October, 1988. Mr. Webb replied that the roadway would immediately have -26- MINUTES M I I I I I Ls I 11 I '1 I r �I 153 April 24, 1986 MINUTES I P ROLL I I I J I I I I I I I ' o C O i z y T r T m z c m y m z D D Z O S C 2 N pM 0 0 D m O m> T T 2 D 2 y z T m City of Newport Beach one lane in each direction with climbing lanes at the steep hill areas; however, the grading would be done for the entire six lane roadway. Commissioner Koppelman asked who owns the Ford Road/Bonita Canyon area. Mr. Webb replied that the City of Newport Beach owns all of the existing Ford Road, and any further extensions of Ford Road would be in the City of Irvine. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Webb replied that approximately 25 percent of Pelican Hill Road will be in the County of Orange, and 75 percent will be in the City of Irvine. Chairman Person asked if Pelican Hill Road involves discretionary approval? Mr. Erickson reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that there is a need for discretionary approval. He said that The Irvine Company has a General Plan conformance from the City of Irvine on Pelican Hill Road, and that they are presently going through the process with the City of Irvine. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that letters have been distributed by staff to the Planning Commission from Jacques Furriers, Russo's, "Resolution of Support" from the Newport Center Association, SPON, and The Balalis Corporation. Mrs. Deborah Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Allen stated that she strongly supports staff's recommendation of the Newport Village residential site and the mixed use of residential/office/commercial in Newport Center. Mrs. Allen referred to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway to San Miguel/San Joaquin Hills Road and stated "don't fix it if it is not broken". She said that the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association does not have any objection to what is done to MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road. She commented that she strongly supports deleting the one-way couplet, she supports an Avocado Avenue that is two lanes and a straight road. she presented statistics indicating that MacArthur Boulevard is not "broken" now. Mrs. Allen commented that Pelican Hill Road is expected to reduce traffic on MacArthur Boulevard by 20 percent, and if the San Joaquin Hills Traffic Corridor is built that will make the road utilization even lower. She suggested that the widening.of MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes should -27- INDEX 154 April 24, 1956 MINUTES I of Newport Beach not be considered at this time and that the issue come back in another General Plan amendment when MacArthur Boulevard is "broken", and she recommended that the time to come back would be when the City had more information on the Transportation Corridor. She commented that according to the Newport Center Environmental Impact Report the Newport Center expansion project will not add significantly to MacArthur Boulevard. Mrs. Allen referred to the couplet which was a roadway considered to be six lanes - three lanes on MacArthur Boulevard and three lanes on Avocado Avenue, and she cited that if MacArthur Boulevard is left at four lanes and there would be four lanes on Avocado Avenue there would be eight lanes. Chairman Person asked Mrs. Allen for her opinion of the proposed land use and density as it relates to the proposed project and staff's recommendations. Mrs. Allen replied that she had not had time to compare the General Plan Amendment 80-3 as approved by City Council with the proposed project. She emphasized that she strongly supports the residential land use in Newport Center. Ms. Luvena Clayton, Transportation Chairman, Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Hayton stated that the Chamber of Commerce does not accept staff's recommendation that one-half of Fashion Island+ Civic Plaza, and the proposed residential sites proceed after East Coast Highway dedications but before installation of Pelican Hill Road. She stated that 21,949 automobile trips are projected to be added, and that there will not be any traffic ease for Corona del Mar. Ms. Hayton referred to the proposed traffic improvements and pointed out that not one of the improvements addresses Corona del Mar. She asked that San Joaquin Hills Road be left a major arterial, six lanes divided, instead of decreasing to four lanes divided, because San Joaquin Hills Road is the only planned outlet for the traffic that is now congested on East Coast Highway. Ms. Hayton cited that the taxpayers have built and maintained San Joaquin Hills Road including landscaping. Ms. Hayton requested a contingency deadline earlier than stated by staff for construction of the San Joaquin Hills Road or the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road, which is the last -25- I I I J L I it I I I I I I 11 COMMISSIONERS 111 x X C O f P = y v 9 T z C m m z P P z r O 2 C C z o S 0 0 P m m> T T 0 I 2 P z 2 P 2 '" m 155 April 24, 1986 Citv of Newport Beach MINUTES ■ ROLL CALL 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 (INDEX I I I I ,' I 1 I I I I I 7 J I phase of construction. She commented that this phasing is totally unacceptable to Corona del Mar. Ms. Hayton stated that the Chamber of Commerce agrees with staff that Newport Village be changed to residential, because even with the proposed circulation improvements the area cannot bear the extra traffic and congestion that commercial site of stores and restaurants would add. She opined that there is more of a need for housing than a need for more retail, offices, and restaurants. Ms. Hayton complimented The Irvine Company for the many courtesies that they have shown to the community in the presentation of the proposed project, and the listening attitude to the concerns of the residents. She said that the Chamber of Commerce has never opposed the build -out of Newport Center, only the increase in traffic. She said that the build -out will affect the quality of life in Corona del Mar by adding traffic that cannot be absorbed without circulation improvements. Ms. Hayton stated that the Chamber of Commerce does not care for "planned deficiency". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Ms. Hayton replied that the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce is recommending immediate construction of the Pelican Hill Road - San Joaquin Hills Road connection. Mr. Gary Pomeroy, President of the Harbor View Hills Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pomeroy stated that the Harbor View Hills Community Association is requesting that Pelican Hill Road be built in order to relief traffic on MacArthur Boulevard, and they are also opposing the widening of MacArthur Boulevard until they find out the impact of Pelican Hill Road. He said that if traffic is still serious on MacArthur Boulevard after Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road have been built, then he asked that the widening of MacArthur Boulevard be examined. Mr. Bill Hamilton, President of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce and President of Western Canners, owners of the Cannery Restaurant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hamilton read a letter from the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce in support of the proposed General Plan Amendment for Newport Center. He said that the local businessmen and businesswomen of the Chamber of Commerce approve of the balance of office, retail, residential and residential -29- I 156 April 24, 1986 MINUTES r of Newport Beach development which will revitalize and enhance the business environment, and the compatibility of the project with the surrounding residential communities. He opined that Newport Center and Newport Beach have lost some of their former prestige as a place to do business because of the lack of expansion space, and due to government regulations, there is not a reasonable amount of commercial growth, consequently, many local firms needing space to expand have relocated in surrounding communities. He pointed out that many Newport Beach residents have had to spend their dollars outside Newport Beach due to inadequate retail shops, activities, and services at Fashion island. Mr. Hamilton explained how Newport Center could become a focal point to the residents of the community, and that Newport Center is an important source of City tax revenues. He cited that the General Plan Amendment provides an opportunity to the City to secure a commitment to complete the Master Plan of roads and highways plus the construction of Pelican Hill Road to provide the bypass for Corona del Mar. Mr. Hamilton expressed his desire that this generation carry the Newport Beach area forward so that future generations can enjoy the area as. much as the residents have enjoyed the past work by those who have previously changed Newport Beach. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the Chamber of Commerce's position regarding the phasing of the roads and construction, Mr. Hamilton replied that the Chamber of Commerce saw nothing in the General Plan that they oppose as far as the mixed use or the plan of phasing the various traffic mitigating activities in the build -out. Mr. Hamilton stated that the Chamber of Commerce took this position before the Environmental impact Report or the Traffic Study was distributed. Chairman Person asked what the Chamber of Commerce's position is regarding the recommended housing units and the housing that would be available for the employees of Newport Center. Mr. Hamilton replied that in general, the Chamber of Commerce feels that the commercial use of Newport Center is more important in providing revenue for the amenities that the City would like to have and that these would be better funded by commercial activities than they are by residences. The Chamber of Commerce feels that The Irvine Company is on the right track to provide more commercial space than housing space in Newport Center to help pay for the expensive traffic circulation requirements. -30- I I 1_ f I r I I I 1 I I I t_ I I I ROLL I I I I 11 U I I I I I u I COMMISSIONERS x x c o a v y = 9 r v c m m z m z a s a= r S z N p> 0 O z 1 2 x O m> z a z r m 157 April 24, 1986 of Newport Beach Ms. Dorothy Hardcastle, 507 Jade Street, Balboa Island, President of Speak Up Newport (SUN) appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Hardcastle stated that the Board of Directors feel strongly about the implementation of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B), and are breaking their policy of only discussing plans and issues without taking a position. She said that in so doing, the Board of Directors are in complete accord on the necessity of completing Newport Center and asked for approval of the project. She further stated how the proposed project will enhance the needs of the employees and residents of the community. She also suggested that 25 percent of the residential units be made available to those of lower and moderate incomes. She cited the need for the road improvements and the need and conveniences of Pelican Hill Road. Ms. Hardcastle stated that Fashion Island is the largest single source of revenue in Newport Beach and that the proposed project would increase the City's revenue. She cited that the Board of Directors of SUN are urging approval of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Jack Ryan, 48 Fashion Island, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ryan pointed out that The Irvine Company is proposing to bring in additional medium priced stores that will be catering to the career woman comparable to his store. He stated that 60 percent of his customers are Newport Center employees, and that the success of many of the Fashion Island businesses depend upon the approval of the General Plan Amendment. He pointed out that The Irvine Company will be implementing an express bus line from communities outside of Newport Beach to bring in employees and customers to Newport Center. Mr. Bruce Lambert, 215 Atrium Court, President of the Fashion Island Merchant Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that the 100 retailers' in Fashion Island support the General Plan Amendment in order that Fashion Island may be expanded and improved to the benefit of the entire community. He pointed out that residents will benefit by the broader mix of retail opportunities, and that they will not have to drive long distances to outlying shopping malls. Mr. Lambert pointed out the proposed amenities that Fashion Island will offer. He cited that residents in the community have stated that they would like to see Fashion Island become a "people place". -31- MINUTES I ROLL 158 r MMISSIUNERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES xX - C O O O c 9 f V A=& 0 S = =A AMmm City of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Lambert replied that the Fashion Island Merchants Association has not addressed the issue of housing within Newport Center, and that they would come back with an answer at a later date. Chairman Person agreed with Commissioner Turner that the opinion of the Fashion Island Merchants Association would be helpful, and he also asked for their opinion regarding affordable housing within the area, Ms. Gail D'Vorak, Vice President and General Manager of Neiman Marcus, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. D'Vorak recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment, and the vital affect that the employees of the surrounding office buildings have on the success of Neiman Marcus. She commented that the growth of Newport Center will serve the needs of future generations. Mr. Barry Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Allen referred to the staff's recommendation that MacArthur Boulevard be widened to six lanes, and he stated that the traffic study does not support the staff's recommendation. He cited that MacArthur Boulevard is not operating at full capacity. He stated that including the build -out of Newport Center and future development, the future usage of MacArthur Boulevard will drop to sixty percent capacity with the building of Pelican Hill Road, the which does not take into consideration the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, which he cited will remove even more traffic from the area. Mr. Allen stated that the following traffic figures do not appear in the Environmental Impact Report: 15,000 automobiles a day reduced through Corona del Mar on East Coast Highwayf 14,000 automobiles a day reduced on MacArthur Boulevardt 10,000 automobiles reduced on Jamboree Road; in addition to the reduction that will take place in the building of the Pelican Hill Road. Mr. Allen stated that the aforementioned traffic figures came from Mr. Ben Nolan, Director of Public Works, told to the City Council in November, 1985, when the City decided to join the San Joaquin Hills Freeway Agency. He said that the traffic studies that are now in existence and that have been done show no reason to widen MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Mr. Allen submitted -32- INDEX 159 April 24, 1986 MINUTES r ROLL I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I LJ x 0 C O A 2 — 9 9 m z C m y m z m A z r O S C z to p; O O 9 m O m y r r 2 9 = p Z T m of Newport Beach traffic figures pertaining to the current travel and capacity of MacArthur Boulevard, and Pelican Hill Road completion. He further commented that there is no reason to widen MacArthur Boulevard, leave it at four lanes. Mr. Allen commented that there are three lanes proposed going down to East Coast Highway, which is going to remain at two lanes in each direction, unless the parking is taken away. He opined that roads are proposed to be built and are being designed for six lanes, which means that there are attempts to build a six lane road on East Coast Highway. He further commented that parking will be taken off of East Coast Highway, and that' there will be six lanes through Corona del Mar, creating the Coastal Freeway. He advised that the Coastal Freeway must be stopped by not allowing the widening of roads when the roads do not need to be widened. He opined that allowing MacArthur Boulevard to be widened is building another freeway on -ramp to the Coastal Freeway. Mr. Allen stated that Corona del Mar would be destroyed because no one wants to shop next to a freeway. Mr. Allen concluded his presentation by stating that there is nothing wrong with MacArthur Boulevard, that the road is not broken, so don't fix it. Ms. Karen Harrington, 441 Santa Ana Avenue, President of the Newport Heights Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Harrington commented that The Irvine Company presented the proposed project to the Newport Heights Community Association, and that the Association approves of the build -out of Fashion Island, including the cultural improvements. She stated that the Association agrees with staff's recommendations regarding Bayview Landing, however, they would recommend one restaurant, leaving the remaining area as open space, and to develop Newport Village as residential including a park. Ms. Harrington stated that the 1,200,000 square feet of proposed office space in Newport Center is more than adequate to meet the needs of the clients and the clients that The Irvine Company may want to attract, which would create more open space. Ms. Harrington stated that the Newport Heights Community Association, Cliffhaven Community Association, and Mariner's Mile Business Association are on record opposing the widening of West Coast Highway to six lanes, and the -33- I 160 April 24, 1986 MINUTES r of Newport Beach traffic intersection improvements, specifically Tustin Avenue and Riverside Avenue, which would encourage the traffic flow into the residential neighborhood. Ms. Harrington expressed a concern regarding the protection of the bluffs in the Back Bay area, and keeping development away from the bluffs. Mr. Richard H. Marowitz, President of Newport Center Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Marowitz read the "Resolution of Support for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B)" which stated that the completion of Newport Center is necessary to the vitality of Newport center and the City of Newport Beach; that the Newport Center Association has reviewed and considered all aspects of the proposed General Plan Amendment; and that the Board of Directors unanimously recommend and endorse the approval by the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Marowitz stated that the Association recognizes the need for The Irvine Company to build out Newport Center and the need of the 11,000 work contingencies. He said that the completion of Newport Center will balance and enhance the existing and proposed business, retail, and professional locations and will provide the residents and guests a wider variety of services and merchandise and price points. Mr. Marowitz stated that successful businesses should have the opportunity to expand, and that opportunity is virtually non-existent because the office buildings are approximately 96 percent leased, and that many businesses have never been able to reach their potential. He pointed out that the adoption of the General Plan Amendment will be a major factor in allowing the retail and professional businesses to bring their greater potential to fulfillment. He pointed out that the opening of Irvine Ranch Farmer's Market and Atrium Court has been incredible, that the posture of the retail community has changed significantly. Mr. Marowitz opined that what is needed now is the balance of the plan. He reflected back to the time that Fashion Island was opened in 1967 when the goal was that Fashion Island was not only to be a place to shop, to work, but also a place to come to and to be. He opined that the new Irvine Company has the same goals and he urged the approval of the General Plan Amendment. -34- r r r r r L] r r r r L r I 1 ROLL I L_I r I I I r I COMMISSIONERS 11, xx c o E v y 9 z c m> m m z Oo a A I r 0 2 r Iv m O m i 2 9 z y= M M 161 April 24, 1986 of Newport Beach in response to questions posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Marowitz replied that the Newport Center Association opposes staff's recommendation of residential development in Newport Village, that the garden offices would be more useful to Newport Center. Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Corona del Mar Community Association. Mr. Nichols stated that The Irvine Company has presented the project to the Association, however, he has not read the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Nichols stated that they oppose the high density of proposed Block 600, Block 800 and Newport Village. He stated that the traffic in Corona del Mar has come to a standstill and that there is a need for mitigation. He commented that the Downcoast Development does not appear to be in the Environmental Impact Report/Traffic Study. Mr. Nichols opined that the Association approves of staff's recommendation for residential at Newport Village, because there would be less traffic, and there would also be off -hour traffic. Mr. Nichols stated that the Association agrees with the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce as previously stated by Ms. Hayton, that Pelican Hill Road should be constructed much sooner; however, two lanes may not be adequate. Mr. Nichols stated that the Association opposes staff's recommendation that MacArthur Boulevard be widened to six lanes, and he described how lanes could merge into MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Mr. Nichols stated that the fact that tenants proposing to move out of Newport Center because of inadequate office space should not be a factor. Mr. Nichols opined that The Irvine Company should have built additional east -west roadways during the period when The Irvine Company was developing Corona del Mar. Ms. Pat Frey, 708 Avocado Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Frey stated that she approves of the General Plan Amendment as a young businesswoman who would like to remain in the Newport Beach area, and she stated her approval of the affordable housing element of the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Grace Secketa, Planner from the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency Parks and Recreation, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Secketa requested that the County of Orange Harbor, Beaches, -35- MINUTES INDEX I 162 April 24, 1986 MINUTES I 2, zc'm ym pm o M) = a=* of Newport Beach and Parks District be designated the recipient of the 82 acres on Westbay. she pointed out that the County of Orange started the District and would like to continue to do so. Mr. Chuck Hirsch, businessman and a member of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hirsch pointed out that business and residential growth generate traffic, and that traffic is also generated from communities adjacent to Newport Beach. He said that the growth of traffic cannot be stopped but development agreements can be provided to improve the circulation of traffic. He said that Pelican Hill Road can divert an increase of traffic off of East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. He suggested that traffic noise could be also diverted by the lowering of MacArthur Boulevard and the construction of sound walls. Mr. Hirsch recommended the approval of General Plan Amendment 86-1(B). Mr. John McKerren, 2520 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission stating that he opposes the reduction of San Joaquin Hills Road from six lanes to four lanes, and that he agrees with Deborah Allen's previous remarks regarding MacArthur Boulevard "don't fix it until it is broken". He stated that he is very impressed with the amount of work that has been generated by staff and The Irvine Company regarding the proposed project and he stated his approval of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). Ms. Irving Garn, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Garn stated that she shops in Fashion Island, however she supports a wider range of prices to enable more shoppers to leave their dollars in Fashion Island. Mr. Tim Paone, 1470 Jamboree Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Paone stated that he has not been able to find adequate office space within Newport Center to accommodate the growth of his law office, however, he pointed out that everyone in the law office has requested to remain in Newport Center because of the vitality and identity that Newport Center brings to a business. Mr. Paone commented that businesses feel a part of the community, and that there are not many commercial areas in the surrounding communities that businesses can feel that way. -36- I I I I I I I 1 I 17 163 April 24, 1986 MINUTES A x C O n s �� , a o m z C m m z 9 a Z r S a C 2 D> 0 o D 1 0 m z T ' T Z S 2 S 2 T T of Newport Beach M ROLL CALL I III Jill -J-1NDEx I I I I [J I I I I I I I I I Ms. Edith Goodwin, 4810 Park Newport, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Goodwin stated her approval of the General Plan Amendment and commented that she walks to Newport Center. She opined that Atrium Court/Fashion Island is a sophisticated way of going downtown. Ms. Goodwin stated that as a businesswoman she sees the necessity of the "Renaissance of Newport Center", so that businesses can survive and expand. Mr. Bob Duke, 27 Bodega Bay, representing Spyglass Hill Homeowners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Duke stated that the Association supports the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and the Association does not oppose the proposed project providing that the increase in traffic is properly addressed. He stated that the Association has a concern that the Environmental Impact Report and the Traffic Study have addressed the present traffic problems in addition to the increase in traffic from projects which are now under construction, as well as those that are included in the proposed project. Mr. Duke stated that the Association opposes the widening of San Joaquin Hills Road from four lanes to six lanes. He cited Resolution 85-11, approved by the City Council on February 25, 1985, stating that San Joaquin Hills Road would not exceed four lanes. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:43 p.m. and reconvened at 10:50 p.m. Mr. Taylor Grant, 1985 Port Edward Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Grant asked for a clarification regarding traffic, "that if there would be a "do nothing" approach and Newport Center only builds out on existing approval, and Pelican Hill Road is not constructed, the traffic goes to a state of "badness"; however, if Pelican Hill Road is constructed, would actually improve upon the situation even with the buildout of Newport Center". Ms. Temple replied that the total buildout of the General Plan in 2010 is included in all of the traffic projections. Mr. Grant asked for a traffic model that goes out to 2010. Mr. Grant referred to the removal of East Coast Highway parking in Corona del Mar during peak traffic hours. Mr. Webb replied that the removal of parking would not substantially improve the traffic flow through Corona -37- I 164 MMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES _ eo 0 f v rr V m z C a m> = m z _ * City of Newport Beach del Mar, that there are narrow curb lanes and parking lanes, and that there would not be sufficient room for two full lanes of traffic in the amount of space that there is currently. He explained that normally there would be 20 foot lanes and the lanes are currently ' striped at 19 feet, which would be two 9 1/2 foot lanes which is too narrow to carry a substantial amount of traffic. Mr. Grant questioned the revenue potential for Newport Center, and he asked if it were possible to rerun the analysis based on staff recommendation, and also to run the same analysis based on the past recommendations because he stated that he is concerned that there would be considerable financial impact by the removal of some of the square footage that staff is suggesting. He also , asked for an analysis of fiscal benefit, if there would be an additional 200,000 square feet of office space. He opined that this is a consideration that has to be , made, since after transportation improvements are made, if additional revenue is generated the City could spend the dollars elsewhere such as on the park problem in West Newport or to improve an intersection in upper Newport Heights. Mr. Grant referred to the schools, and the number of school children generated by the proposed plan. He opined that the school system operates better if there are more children. 2n reference to Bayview Landing, Mr. Grant approved of staff's recommendation, that the , additional square footage be transferred to Newport Center. He opined that Newport Village is a poor site for housing because of the noise factor. Mr. Grant , concluded his presentation by stating that the General Plan Amendment is an opportunity to get some of the dollars back that have been going to adjacent communities. Commissioner Turner stated that the proposed project includes a substantial amount of area for restaurants, and he asked staff to come back with a report regarding same. Commissioner Eichenhofer stated that she has a concern ' regarding the noise factor at the intersection of East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. She asked if it would be possible to develop commercial at the point of land at the intersection as a sound buffer, and the remaining area be developed as residential. ..38_ 165 April 24, 198E MINUTES a x a T y m m 9 9 > S 0 C 2 0 O S O O 9 m O M> T T Z 9 2 9 Z T m I I I r of Newport Beach Chairman Person expressed his concern regarding the MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway intersection. He asked if there could be a green belt affect and some commercial, rather than purely a residential development. He commented that he has previously stated concerns regarding the Bayview Landing and Newporter North sites. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he does not recall the reference to the Downcoast traffic generated in the Environmental Impact Report, and how the Downcoast area would affect the proposed development, Pelican Hill Road, or Corona del Mar. He opined that the Downcoast area could have affect on the proposed project, and that maybe it could be the "straw that breaks the camel's back" to some of the proposed project. Mr. Webb replied that the traffic modelling and projections comprised in the General Plans for the surrounding areas including the Downcoast areas, and those traffic projections are currently in the documents. Chairman Person stated that it may be appropriate for staff to show more detail of those traffic projections. He pointed out that the public perceives that there will be some development Downcoast, and he requested that the the County of Orange, The Irvine Company, and the State plans be included. Commissioner Goff stated that he will be asking staff questions after he has thoroughly studied the Environmental Impact Report of the proposed project, and that he would like those questions addressed. He asked for a parking impact regarding the additional 40,000 square feet in Fashion Island and the additional theater seats as recommended by staff. Commissioner Koppelman referred to the MacArthur Boulevard widening to six lanes, and the question of the removal of parking on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. She asked staff to obtain an answer from Cal -Trans regarding exactly what the situation is in Corona del Mar. Commissioner Goff stated that Commissioner Koppelman's question also pertains to West Coast Highway and the Mariner's Mile area, and he asked staff to address the issue in the staff report. -39- INDEX R 66 April 24, 1986 MINUTES v y m 17C C Axa° =rl I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL-7777M INDEX Motion Ayes Ix1xlx Ix Abstain x Chairman Person referred to the possible phasing of lanes on MacArthur Boulavard, and if an Environmental , Document would be necessary at such time. Commissioner Turner stated that because of the voluminous documents to be studied, he made a motion to continue the General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Public Hearing and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 9 Public Hearing to the Planning Commission Meeting of ' May 22, 1986, Commissioner Goff stated that he would support the motion to allow him enough time to study and absorb the documents as much as possible. Motion voted on to continue General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Public Hearing and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 9 Public Hearing to the Planning , Commission Meeting of May 22, 1986. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENTS 11:10 P.M. Adjournment ♦ � ,t PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION , 1 -40- 167 COMMISSIONERS R] GAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chambers PLACE: City x x C o = TIME: 7:30 p.m. ' f v '� z C m a m m z DATE: May 22, 1986 C z 0 o i 0 I z 9 z a= T 0 m I City of Newport Beach a ROLL CALLI I I I I I I IINDEX Present ,Absent x Motion x Ayes x 1 Absent x Commissioner Winburn was absent. EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of May 8, 1986: Commissioner Koppelman requested a clarification of the subject Minutes, page 16, paragraph 2, as follows: "She said that the sole issue is whether or not Section 20.87.090(B) of the Zoning Code allows the Planning Commission to approve a Waiver of a Parcel Map under the existing facts, and evidence has been presented to allow the Planning Commission to make each and every finding as required by law, and under those circum- stances any other set of facts or problems hetween the two parties are not pertinent to this public hearing. She further stated that these facts are consistent with the requirements of the Section as it existed prior to the approval of Amendment No..633". Motion was made to approve the amended May 22, 1986, Planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Request for Continuance: James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No. 10, Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended), Tiffany's Astrological Club, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 5, 1986, and Item No. 11, Minutes of lRequest for 168 MINUTES Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Abstain Absent Fq x x May 22, 1986 of Nemort Beach Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended), Bubbles Balboa Club, Ltd. be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 19, 1986. Motion was made to continue Item No. 10, Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 5, 1986, and Item No. 11, Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 19, 1986, Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Final Map of Tract No. 11949 (Discussion) Request to approve a Final Map of Tract No. 11949 subdividing 16,085 acres of land into 5 numbered lots for residential condominium purposes, 5 lettered lots for private open space purposes, 2 lettered lots for public recreational purposes and one lettered lot for private recreational purposes. LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 95 and 96, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3400 Fifth Avenue, on the northeasterly side of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and the Newport Beach City Limits, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Bren Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Adams Streeter, Irvine Ms. Ann Greco, representing The Bren Company, appeared before the Planning Commission, Ms. Greco stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Motion was made to approve the Final Map of Tract No. 11949 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDING: 1. That the proposed Final Map substantially conforms with the Tentative Map and with all changes -2- INDEX I I Item No.l1 Final Map of Tract , No.11949 -- Approved , 1 I I I LJ I COMM May 169ISSIONERS MINUTES 22, 1986 C 0 n c o 9 v m IMM a z c m> m z z W z? m City of Newport Beach a Dni i rni i INDEX I I I LJ h permitted and all requirements imposed as con- ditions to its acceptance. CONDITION: 1. That all remaining conditions imposed by the City Council on January 13, 1986 in conjunction with the approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11949 shall be fulfilled. A. General Plan Amendment No. 85-1(B)(Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circu- lation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, so as to allow construction of an additional 1,275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, 248,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to delete the Avocado -MacArthur one -way -couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major arterial roadway, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. AND B. Amendment No. 9 to the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan (Continued Public Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, and PCH/Jamboree sites. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that Ms. Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, would review the material distributed by the staff to the Planning Commission. Ms. Temple advised that The Irvine Company is in agreement with the recommendations previously submitted -3- Item No.2 [General Plan Amendment No.85-1(B) Resolution No.1139 (Approved Amendment No. 9 ILCP/LUP Resolution No.1140 Approved I MINUTES f a�v I w v y m �9 9 C Z m O L 0 0 =K O =City x m O m> w of = S 2 a z * m 170 May 22, 1986 Beach by staff on the following sites: Block 600; PCH/ Jamboree Road; Corporate Plaza West; Big Canyon/ MacArthur Boulevard; Newporter North; and the deletion of the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet. Ms. Temple stated that The Irvine Company is in basic agreement with some suggested modifications on the sites as follows: ' Fashion Island: The Irvine Company requested a slight- ly greater increase in the retail and theater develop- ment than what was originally recommended by staff. The Irvine Company has requested an additional 60,000 square feet of retail and commercial development and a total of 2,500 theater seats. Ms. Temple stated that the staff reviewed the request and feels that the expansion of Fashion Island is a community benefit, and that staff is recommending approval of The Irvine Company's additional request. Civic Plaza Expansion: The Irvine Company has indicat- ed that in order to accommodate the expansion of the Art Museum and the City Library, that an additional , 15,000 square feet be added to their original 50,000 square feet. Ms. Temple stated that the staff is in agreement if the total additional 65,000 square feet is ' used for the Art Museum and the City Library expansion. Newport Village: The Irvine Company is in general agreement with the change in land use from commercial, , office, and retail to residential, and is recommended by the staff. The Irvine Company has requested that Corporate Plaza be increased to 84,800 square feet, ' totalling 450,000 square feet which was the original planned development of Corporate Plaza. The Irvine Company has indicated 80,000 square feet will be utilized for an athletic or health club. Ms. Temple , stated that if a limitation to this use is agreed to by The Irvine Company, the staff is in agreement with this request. Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard: The Irvine Company agrees with staff's recommendation and has made an additional request to accommodate a 10,000 square foot day care facility. Ms. Temple stated that staff is in agreement that an establishment of a use of this nature is appropriate within Newport Center, and that the location is acceptable. -4- r� COMMISSIONERS x c o n= F2c c m y m z 2 0 O i o 0 A m m ' 2 A z 2 A z T T 2 m m L CALL I I I 171 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Ms. Temple stated that The Irvine Company disagrees with the staff recommendations on three sites: Block 800: The Irvine Company has indicated opposition to the proposed deletion of 140,000 square feet. Ms. Temple stated that staff maintains that the intensity of use is out of scale with adjacent areas, and that staff continues to recommend the maximum 300,000 square feet. MINUTES Bayview Landing: The Irvine Company disagrees with the reduction to 20,000 square feet of restaurant use with the limitation to the lower site level only, and is requesting instead of the original 60,000 square feet, a development of 35,000 square feet which would allow approximately four facilities with construction to be allowed on the upper site level as well as the lower site level. The Irvine Company would agree to develop a view park in conjunction with the project. Ms. Temple stated that the staff has reviewed the proposal and feels that the site's development potential is limited, and maintains that public viewing is a significant benefit to the community. Ms. Temple further stated that staff's request has been revised from 20,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet to allow approximately three restaurant facilities, and that the site could accommodate the proposed teen center. Affordable Housing: Ms. Temple stated that staff has received some indication of tentative agreement; however, staff has not received a firm indication as to what would be an acceptable affordable housing program from The Irvine Company. Ms. Temple stated that since there is nothing to respond to that staff will continue to maintain the original recommendation. Land use Phasing: The Irvine Company believes that staff's requirement of 800 dwelling units under con- struction by the time of occupancy of the Block 600 project was filled is too stringent; however, The Irvine Company did not indicate what would be an acceptable program. Ms. Temple stated that staff will continue to maintain the former recommendation with the exception that any of the residential projects would fulfill the requirement. Circulation System Phasing: The Irvine Company is in agreement with the phasing program, but has requested some minor modifications in terms of the Jamboree Road -5- INDEX MINUTES r zx c o s f y a r e m i s m r m z C 2 0 O r 0 0 sm o mr M n z 9 = p = w In ROLL 172 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Phasing. Ms. Temple stated that The Irvine Company requests that the Jamboree Road dedications occur early with construction completed as an adjacent improvement of Newporter North. Ms. Temple stated that staff has reviewed the request and is in agreement. in refer- ence to San Joaquin Hills Road, Ms. Temple stated that The Irvine Company has requested that this segment not be incorporated into the circulation system phasing program, but they have indicated that they will pursue construction of the road as soon as possible. Ms. Temple stated that staff would agree to the change so long as all dedication and bonding for construction be accomplished in the previously suggested phase. Ms. Temple pointrd out that the supplemental staff report addresses questions previously asked by the Planning Commission, and that the revised Resolution incorporates the changes in the staff recommendations and additional language requested by some members of the Planning Commission. Those recommendations include recommending initiation of Amendments to the Circulation Element for MacArthur Boulevard northerly of Ford Road, and San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hills Road, instead of acting on these amendments at this time. Ms. Temple stated that in response to community concerns, staff developed additional language regarding the phasing of MacArthur Boulevard improvements. She stated that staff maintains its position that the six lane major arterial roadway designation and the requirement for the con- struction very early in the phasing program is the most appropriate and desirable from a technical standpoints however, staff has provided some language which would allow the specific segment between Harbor View Drive and the extended centerline of Crown Drive to be deferred to some point in the future subject to specific criteria. Mr. Roger Seitz, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission regarding the proposed land- scaping of MacArthur Boulevard from East Coast Highway to the intersection of the Corona del Mar Freeway and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company wants to convey that MacArthur Boulevard is an important entry to the City and should be treated in a way that introduces visitors and residents in an organized and environ- mentally pleasing manner. He further stated that The Irvine Company has developed a concept that envisions MacArthur Boulevard as a completed and totally land- scaped and inviting entry into the City. Mr. Seitz -6- I [1 I 1 I L 7 L Ili I MMISSIONERS 173 May 22, 1986 MINUTES F 11 I I x x c o 0 i 9 = v v m z C m a m Z W D M Z r 0 2 C 2 W O r O O v m o m D T T 2 9 z, z T m of Newport Beach explained that Zone 1 includes the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor interchange and would require low maintenance, drought -tolerant plant material; Zone 2, Bison Avenue to Ford Road would reflect the same type of landscaping currently at Belcourt; Zone 3, Ford Road to San Joaquin Hills Road, would have a broad open space area such as meadows and drought -tolerant landscaping; Zone 4, San Joaquin Hills Road to East Coast Highway. He said that the landscaping would include eucalyptus trees in the inland region to the pine trees in the coastal region. Mr. Seitz described how the intersections at MacArthur Boulevard will have palm trees and tropical planting that is occurring at Belcourt and at Newport Center. He said that consistent median planting would unify MacArthur Boulevard. Mr. Seitz explained that The Irvine Company is interested in pursuing the landscape plan with the Planning Commission and staff, develop the landscape concept and then dedicate the landscaped land to the City. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding the annual cost of maintaining the landscap- ing, Mr. Seitz replied that the estimated maintenance cost would be from $70,000.00 to $90,000.00. Chairman Person stated that assuming the land would be developed and dedicated, the City would maintain the property. Mr. Seitz replied that the major investment would be to install and establish the landscaping, and that the idea is to have a drought tolerant, low maintenance environment. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the square footage of the 245 dwelling units proposed for General Plan Amendment 80-3, in Block 800, Ms. Temple replied that based on 2,000 square feet for each dwelling unit, the size of the project would have been approximately 500,000 square feet. Commissioner Koppelman asked if the recommended teen center at Bayview Landing is a different land use designation than the restaurant/commercial use. Ms. Temple replied that the teen center is a restaurant/night club operation, and would be considered a retail commercial land use similar in nature to the restaurants proposed for the site. Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc., appeared before the Planning Commission representing The Irvine Compa- ny. Mr. Neish explained that the areas of differences -7- INDEX COMMISSIONERS1 174 MINUTES ' z x111 1 May 22, 1986 eo i y 9 z 9 m m m 0 m> m City of Newport Beach z s z a z r m x ROLL CALL INDEX of opinion are limited in number between the staff and The Irvine Company, and that The Irvine Company has , tried to be flexible in working with staff and the community in trying to achieve the goals of these bodies, and that some significant changes have been made to the proposed Plan that The Irvine Company has agreed to. He commented that the desire of The Irvine Company is to end up with a Plan which they feel is feasible from a land use standpoint as well as from a ' financial standpoint. Mr. Neish commented that Newport Center has been developed during the past twenty years and that the Master Plan for Newport Center is nearly completed. He explained that the mixed land use concept has been preserved, and that the intensity of Newport Center has ' been reduced. Mr. Neish stated that the office compo- nent of the Plan was established and has been imple- mented as a key component of the Plan. Mr. Neish explained that because the property is under one ownership, The Irvine Company was able to provide a relatively completed circulation and utility infra -structure for Newport Center from the outset. Mr. Neish commented that these reasons are important to consider as part of the proposal. Mr. Neish addressed the areas of disagreement as follows: Block 800: The office space requested is critical to the proposal and Mr. Neish opined that everyone agrees with the land use for the site, that the addition of , the high quality mid -rise office space is important in order to support the retail vitality of Fashion Island as well as the retention of the existing tenants needing expanded space, and the attraction of new tenants to broaden the range of services available in the Newport Center complex. He pointed out that the site is a key financial component to The Irvine Company ' that enables commitment to transportation improvements and the affordable housing that are being requested. Mr. Neish commented that the site is physically suited for the amount and type of office space proposed. He pointed out that the only question 1s the intensity, and that staff is proposing a reduction of 140,000 square feet. He said that when considering the entire ' General Plan Proposal, Newport Center is less dense than any comparable development within Orangp County. He said that staff is not requesting a change in a ' footprint to the two buildings proposed, but the elimination of approximately three stories per tower. , -8- r1 Lj 175 COMMISSIO`ERS A C O = ' F m > m z m a Z O O S IC z m m C O O m M O m> T T 2 m 2 9 2 T m I I n, J IJ May 22, 1986 Of He said that in an negligible and the identifies no impacts, mitigated. Beach area where view environmental that cannot be impacts are documentation automatically Mr. Roger Seitz reappeared before the Planning Commis- sion. Mr. Seitz pointed out the characteristics of the site at the model and advised that there would be two 20,000 square foot office building footprints and a parking structure. He said that 20 percent of the site would be occupied by the buildings, 35 percent would be occupied by the parking structure, and the remaining 45 percent would be open space. He said that the buildings are approximately eleven stories. Mr. Seitz explained that the upper end of Newport Center contains the tall buildings and the base of the circle contains the one and two story buildings. Mr. Seitz referred to the impact of the buildings and pointed out the adjacent golf course and the views. Newport village: Mr. Neish stated that 345,000 square feet of office space and 60,000 square feet of retail space were proposed for Newport Village before The Irvine Company agreed to change to residential use. Mr. Neish pointed out that the elimination of the square footage has had significant financial implica- tions to The Irvine Company. He said that they intend to attempt to provide 560 residential units; however, some of the constraints associated with the project such as setbacks, access provisions and the noise mitigations may not make it feasible to provide 560 units. Bayview Landing: The plan originally proposed 60,000 square feet of retail on the site, the request was modified to 35,000 square feet, and staff is recommend- ing 25,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet less than The Irvine Company desires. Mr. Neish pointed out that staff's main concern is the construction of any devel- opment on the upper level of the pad, adjacent to East Coast Highway, in order to maintain public views of Upper Newport Bay from the upper level. Mr. Roger Seitz reappeared before the Planning Commis- sion. Mr. Seitz commented that 60,000 square feet represented six restaurant sites on the Bayview Landing property; however, when the concerns were raised because of the requirements of the bluff maintenance MINUTES INDEX I Y�MISSIONERS 176 MINUTES ' May 22, 1986 x 0 co v b m ' x P z _ ° City of Newport Beach INDEX and the right-of-way requirements, The Irvine Company realized that it was not realistic to think of six ' sites but rather four sites. He said that The Irvine Company was also very cognizant of the view potential. Mr. Seitz pointed out the model photos and described the view of the Upper Bay, the view from the restau- rants, the parking area, view park, and bike trails. He said that the proposed plan includes approximately 34,000 square feet, and that the non -utilized portion of the site is roughly thirty percent of the entire site. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding what the thirty percent represents, Mr. Seitz explained that the view park represents six percent; ' the bluff represents ten percent; and the bike path represents fifteen percent. Mr. Seitz confirmed Chairman Person's comment that the parking and building site would cover seventy percent of the site. Commissioner Goff commented that the model photos show access from East Coast Highway and from Jamboree Road. ' Mr. Seitz stated that the access would be across from Promontory Point on East Coast Highway, and ingress/egress from Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. , Donald Webb, City Engineer, explained the possible ingress and egress from East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road and the problems that could occur, and he con- firmed Chairman Person's remark that it is difficult to determine the ingress/egress of the site at this time. Commissioner Koppelman asked Mr. Webb that if the in- , gress/egress from East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road accesses are not possible, is the entrance at Back gay Drive sufficient to carry the traffic generated. Mr. ' Webb replied that the intersection of Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road will be signalized and that there would be sufficient capacity on Back Bay Drive to accommodate the Dunes and the proposed project. ' In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding the status of the development of the Dunes, ' Mr. Hewicker replied that plans are going forward to develop the Dunes. Commissioner Turner stated his concern regarding the , impact of traffic on Back Bay Drive going through the ecological reserve. Mr. Webb pointed out that Back Bay Drive is a one-way road and that there is an assumption that there will not be an impact of traffic. -10- COMMISSIONERS 177 MINUTES May 22, 1986 �o ' z y 9 v m z c m> m z m 0 2 r 0 S 9 A= m City of Newport Beach a INDEX ROLL CALL westba : The Irvine Company believes that the elimina- tion of residential development is not related to the planning issues pertinent to Newport Center and would suggest that future discussions with the City and with ' the County over the feasibility of establishing an Upper Bay Regional Park would be the appropriate time to address the site. ' Mr. James Parker, attorney, 5000 Campus Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed Plan and Block 800 expansion requested by The ' Irvine Company. Mr. Parker explained the economic relationship of the developer/consumer costs of infrastructure. He said that the office space pays for the infra -structure improvements which benefit ' residential uses that are adjacent to Newport Center and would keep homebuyer costs down. ' Ms. Audrey Moe, Corona del Mar, appeared before the History Planning Commission representing the Natural Foundation of Orange County. Ms. Moe explained why the Newporter North site should be considered'a future site ' for a Natural History Museum, specifically because of the close proximity to the Art Museum and to the City Library, that the Museum will be moving to an area ' within Orange County, and that the Newporter North site is an archeologically sensitive region. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the requested square footage of the Natural History Museum, Ms. Moe replied that the first phase would be 6,000 square feet, similar in size to ' the facility that contains the Natural History Museum currently in the Eastbluff area, and adequate room to accommodate triple expansion. ' In response to questions posed by Chairman Person regarding other museum sites within the proposed development of Newport Center, Ms. Moe advised that the ' ideal would be a Museum complex that would be conve- nient for the public to visit. She stated that the Natural History Museum could be located at either the Newporter North site or the Civic Plaza site. Mr. Hewicker commented that the Planning Department recently received a letter from Mr. Ron Yeo, Natural History Foundation, asking the City to take a look at -11- COMMISSIONERS1 178 MINUTES May 22, 1986 co vrM T°a Z m City of Newport Beach R011 CALL INDEX the City owned land in Westbay. Ms. Moe commented that the Westbay site has been considered for an interpreta- ' tive center, not for a major Museum, and that the Museum is currently involved in a number of interpreta- tive centers. Mr. Mark Deven, Recreation Superintendent for the City and staff liaison for the Youth Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. beven referred to the report that was previously , submitted to the Planning Commission from the Ad Hoc Committee recommending consideration of the youth restaurant/community facility previously referred to as ' the "teen center" be accommodated at the proposed Bayview Landing site either by the maximum square feet indicated by staff, or the expansion or revision of the maximum square feet which would allow the facility to ' be included in addition to what has been already proposed at the site. Mr. Devon stated that the background of this particular issue is that on January , 13, 1986, the Ad Hoc Committee that was previously formed, was charged with the responsibility to determine the feasibility of a teen youth facility to provide activities for the City's teenage high school ' students, and for the possibility of other community uses. He said that the Committee established and looked at a number of alternatives to establishing a ' facility, including the use of existing sites and the development of a new site. He advised that it was the consensus of the Committee that a new site would be preferred, the operational concept was that a facility , could be made available to teenage students, mostly from Newport Harbor High School and Corona del Mar High School, and that the facility would need to be ' accessible to both student bodies. He said that the teen center would be utilized on weekend evenings, for special events, and activities for youth, and that daytime and week night uses would be for other ' community organizations. Mr. Deven stated that in addition to the operation concept they entered into discussions with The Irvine Company in terms of how such a facility could be established and could be built. The Irvine Company responded by including the facility in the proposed Bayview Landing site, which was a site that was accessible to both high schools. ' On April 21, 1986, The Irvine Company gave the Ad Hoc Committee a proposal and following a study of the proposal by the Committee with the assistance of the t Newport Beach Restaurant Association, the Committee , -12- ' COMMISSIONERS 179 MINUTES Ln May 22, 1986 x " o c o = z c m> m z m a n= r m 2 z a o = r m City of Newport Beach 40LL CALL m INDEX ICJ n I responded with a counter -proposal which was submitted to The Irvine Company on May 12., 1986. He stated that the actions by the Planning Commission and The Irvine Company are very critical in order for the Ad Hoc Committee to make a determination of whether this facility would be supplied by the City Council. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Deven replied that the Youth Ad Hoc Committee is requesting a 7,500 square foot to 10,000 square foot site. Ms. Luvena Hayton, Transportation Chairman of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Hayton read a letter dated March 10, 1986, from the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce to the Newport Beach City Council stating that the Chamber of Commerce approves of the buildout of Newport Center but only if Pelican Hill Road is con- nected to San Joaquin Hills Road and in place before the buildout. Ms. Hayton commented that the Chamber of Commerce supports Newport Village as a residential community. She cited the number of automobiles parked at the State Beach south of Corona del Mar on a Sunday afternoon, and how automobiles affect the "quality of life" of the local residents. Ms. Hayton emphatically stated that a time limit must be set to connect San Joaquin Hills Road and Pelican Hill Road. Mr. Tom Bay, 324 Marguerite Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Bay stated that he serves on the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and has heard several presentations given by The Irvine Company concerning the traffic generated by the buildout of Newport Center. Mr. Bay reasoned how the construction of Pelican Hill Road will divert traffic around Corona del Mar. Ms. Deedee Masters, 140 Fernleaf Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Masters commented that she approves that San Joaquin Hills Road is recommended as a separate project from Pelican Hill Road because there could be a delay in construction, or litigation of the roadways. Ms. Masters pointed out how the traffic congestion has affected the maintenance of the commercial property on East Coast Highway. She -13- 180 May 22, 1986 MINUTES ' e o = ' s rA a m m o ° > ° ° City of Newport Beach zz z XIx M ROLL CALL INDEX stated that she approves of the subject General Plan Amendments however, she urged that San Joaquin Hills , Road be connected to Pelican Hill Road so that the traffic will not go through Corona del Mar's residen- tial streets. ' Ms. Bonnie Rohrer, Balboa Island, employer in Newport Center, President of Newport Center Association, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of ' the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Rohrer stated that the Newport Center Association enlisted a child care consulting group who took a survey and found there is a need for a child care facility on -site with a minimum capacity for 75 children. The survey concluded that 3,960 employees in Newport Center would have a future need for child care. Ms. Rohrer said that the Newport ' Center Association office has a copy of the findings on file. Ms. Rohrer stated that The Irvine Company has been very receptive to the need for a child care center ' and has two sites presently under consideration, that within the next few months The Irvine Company will begin a request for proposals from child care operations interested in the Newport Center project, ' and that a list of ten private enterprises have shown an interest in making a proposal. Ms. Rohrer commented that Senator Marian Bergeson has sponsored a bill which is presently in Committee that would add child care ' centers to the list of approved projects for funding using industrial development bonds. Ms. Rohrer stated that as an employer of Newport Center she has lost a ' competent staff due to the lack of affordable child care. to by Commissioner in response questions posed Koppelman, Ms. Rohrer replied that the recommended 10,000 square feet recommended for a child care center at the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard site would be adequate, and that she is only aware that another site within Newport Center has been considered. Mrs. Mary Westbrook, 2531 Blackthorne, appeared before ' the Planning Commission in support of the day care center. Mrs. Westbrook commented that she has been investigating day care centers in Newport Beach because ' she will be needing one soon, and she has found there are long waiting lists. Mrs. Westbrook explained that many of her fellow workers in Newport Center take their ' children to day care centers throughout Orange County. -14- I �J MINUTES x x = C o = `{ 9 r m T z C T> T Z W A A Z r f S C Z T O r O O A T O T> T Z A Z A Z T T n I I 181 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach she said that the alternatives to day care centers would be to have family members take care of the children or to pay a high cost each week to have someone come into the home. Mrs. Westbrook commented that she would like to have a day care center near where she is employed to enable her to be near her child during the working hours. Mr. Bill Hamilton, owner of the Cannery Restaurant, President of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, member of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, and a member of the Youth Ad Hoc Committee appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the teen center at the Bayview Landing site. Mr. Hamilton stated that staff's recommendation of 25,000 square feet at the Bayview Landing site equates to three restaurant sites; however, Mr. Hamilton asked that 34,000 square feet be considered to allow three restaurants for The Irvine Company plus the teen center. He said that The Irvine Company would help provide a more viable community and teen center if there would be four sites instead of three sites. In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Hamilton replied that if three restaurants plus the teen center would be approved then the teen center would be twenty-five percent of the total site instead of thirty-three percent of the total site as recommended by staff, and then the teen center would be in a better position to deal with The Irvine Company. He said that the Bayview Landing site is what is needed for the youth center to work. Mr. Hamilton further replied that The Cannery Restaurant is approximately 9,000 square feet and that the teen center would be about the same size. Mr. Ted Fuller, 2522 Vista Drive, member of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the amended General Plan Amendment, including the child care center and the teen center. He pointed out that the Master Plan did not include either facility twenty years ago and he commended The Irvine Company and staff for planning into the future. Mr. Michael Shea, Vice President of Beacon Bay Enter- prises, appeared before the Planning Commission in favor of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Shea stated that his facilities within Newport Center are the -15- INDEX MMISSIONERS 182 MINUTES x x May 22, 1986 co 0 LE y v A a S z c m> M z m a x z r n x z ° ; ° ° City of Newport Beach s m o m> w r z s s z w m INDEX automobile wash that was constructed in 1968, and the Beacon Bay Building that was constructed in 1972. He pointed out that he built the facilities not only for economic reasons but because of the discreet signing, landscaping, and construction program The Irvine Company was putting into Newport Center at that time. Ile said that through the years the program has been followed well and he would like to see the project completed. Mr. Shea commended the staff and The Irvine company for the concessions made on both sides, and the wide flexibility of facilities proposed for Newport Center. The Planning Commission recessed at 9,05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:18 p.m. Mr. Taylor Grant, 1985 Port Edward Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of The Irvine Company's original plan. Mr. Grant opined that the traffic coming through Newport Beach on East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard is to avoid the con- gestion of the San Diego Freeway, and that while the adjacent cities have chosen to grow we have been left with some of the traffic that should be generated on the San Diego Freeway. Mr. Grant stated that Pelican Hill Road would reduce the traffic on MacArthur Boulevard from South Orange County. He commented that the Environmental Impact Report states that there will be congestion in 2010 no matter what is developed in Newport Center unless Pelican Hill Road is constructed as an alternative, and, furthermore, the traffic impact will be influenced more by the growth beyond the City's control. Mr. Grant stated his approval of the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, and the long term objective for the City. He asked that recreation potentials adjacent to Harbor View Homes be examined. Mr. Grant cited that Newport Center contributes 10.2 percent of the City's revenue, while only using 5.8 percent of that as costs, meaning that Newport Center provides many dollars for the City. He pointed out that if the original proposed Plan would be approved, an excess of $1.2 Million would be generated, and he said that the plan as recommended by the staff, would reduce the total revenue by the City by approximately $400,000.00. Mrs. Jean Watt, representing SPON, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Watt commented that she was of the opinion that the comment period was over on May 29, 1986, and that the Planning Commission could not 1 1 1 I r r LJ IfI�� L MINUTES ROLL P �I. x x 11 c o S = p v m z c m> m Z W D `Z D N Z r °; ° 2 °1City a m 0 m > ' of z D z a z T m 183 May 22, 1986 t Beach vote on the subject General Plan Amendment until May 29, 1986. Ms. Temple replied that the certification of an Environmental Impact Report and the approval of a project cannot occur prior to the closing of the Environmental Impact Report period. Ms. Temple cited that the City Council will take final action on the subject General Plan Amendment; therefore, the City Council cannot take final action before May 29, 1986. Ms. Watt stated that one thing that seems to be of concern is that there is a "cart before the horse" concept, that is, there are numerous parts of the circulation element that stands right now that are controversial and they are controversial by various homeowners associations as well as by SPON which has been working toward getting some sort of a standard of acceptable level of service. She commented that what is presently needed is a drawing or a model of some of the mitigation measures that are planned for the future such as flyovers or possibly a diamond shaped overpass. Mrs. Watt opined that there is nothing wrong with the project, but to look at a model of mitigation measures or to have a model of the traffic on the sections where mitigation has been deemed to be not feasible, then there would be a model of what SPON is trying to say. She said that SPON feels that the circulation system needs to be looked at with attention to the fact that many segments of the circulation system may not materialize or cannot materialize the kind of mitigation that would be needed. Mrs. Watt recommended a public review and hearing before a vote on such a large expansion. Mrs. Watt pointed out that she has a 1964 City map of the original Plan that shows all of the freeways as well as many other roads, and she opined that the roadways are not there. Mrs. watt stated that SPON's comments will be in by May 29, 1986. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Eichenhofer regarding the detailed illustrations of major intersections, Mrs. Watt replied that she has not read Volume 3 and Volume 4 of the Environmental Impact Report but that she plans to do so. In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mrs. Watt replied that members of the City Council have given several homeowner's associations the impression that they will not promote the expansion of certain roads and inter- sections. She emphasized that the circulation element -17- INDEX n 0 T T ROLL 184 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach has not been reviewed with that in mind, and those issues serve a constraint on what could happen and that is not being considered. She concluded her statement that the development is what is being looked at, and not the residents. Mr. Dick Nichol, 519 iris Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichol stated that The Irvine Company proposes that they will stay two lanes ahead on Pelican Hill Road, and based on 2,150 hotel rooms in the downcoast area, 10 automobile trips per day, that the two lanes on Pelican Hill Road will be needed just for the hotels. Mr. Nichol opined that the roadways through Corona del Mar have stopped operating, that the traffic is earlier in the morning and later at night, that the 500 p.m. peak hour traffic is a disaster, and that the residents are traveling on residential streets in order to get through town. Mr. Nichol opined that the residents and businesses along East Coast Highway are being exposed to sound and pollution. Mr. Nichol stated his support of Newport Village as a residential site because it gives more off -hour traffic and more reverse flow. He said that the lowering of the density of the high rise would be a mitigation measure, and that all of the traffic going in to Newport Center is rush hour traffic when there is peak load everywhere. Mr. Nichol concluded by commenting that Corona del Mar is beyond that point, that all of the intersections are "bottle -necked" and showing capacity problems, and he opined that traffic figures do not indicate this. Chairman Person asked Mr. Nichol if he supported the Pelican Hill Road and the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road. Mr, Nichol replied that he supports the development of the two roadways, and he further sup- ports an alternate route to the downcoast area. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regard- ing the project as it has been mitigated by the staff, Mr. Nichol replied that the mitigation is good but not sufficient, that the high rise needs to be looked at, that the theory of the project is nice but he opined that there may be consequences. Mr. Nichol further commented that the the proposed plan is the same build -out as it was when the Coastal Freeway, San Joaquin Hills Freeway, and Corona del Mar Freeway, were planned to drain off traffic and he opined that none of the roadways are existing, that the proposed project is the same size without the mitigation. MINUTES ' r I 1 11 r 1 J I MINUTES ROLL I I I I LI 7 x 10 f 'v m z C m> m z C z 0 p r 0 0 A m o m> m m z z z :0 Z M m 185 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Mr. J. R. Blakemore, Harbor View Hills, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Blakemore stated that he supports the extension of Corporate Plaza into the Newport Village site. He stated his concern that a post office has been recommended. Mr. Blakemore commented that The Irvine Company has promised to build out Pelican Hill Road by October, 1988, and that he recommends that The Irvine Company should be held to that deadline, and that San Joaquin Hills Road should be no more than six months behind October, 1988. Mr. Blakemore commented that the Avocado Avenue couplet should be given further consideration, and he favors Avocado Avenue straightened out. Ms. Barbara Aune, realtor, appeared before the Planning Commission, in support of the proposed project, and she said that she is delighted at the number of residential rentals that are being proposed. Mrs. Deborah Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way, appeared before the Planning Commission representing the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association. Mrs. Allen stated that there is no demonstrated need to widen MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes. She commented that Volume 4 of the Traffic Study and the origin and destination study, indicate that sixty-eight percent to seventy-two percent of the traffic on East Coast Highway through Corona del Mar come from out of town, and most of that traffic from South Orange County. Mrs. Allen pointed out that staff has indicated that they assume Pelican Hill Road, for the purpose of the traffic study, to be six lanes, and that a six lane roadway has the capacity of 54,000 automobiles a day; however, staff assumes that 19,000 or 20,000 automobiles a day are actually going to use Pelican Hill Road. Mrs. Allen explained why more than 20,000 automobiles per day would need to use Pelican Hill Road to connect to San Joaquin Hills Road to get into Newport Center, and to connect with Bonita Canyon Road. She said that 20,000 automobiles a day means one-third of capacity in 2010, that East Coast Highway would be jammed up, and that MacArthur Boulevard would be jammed up. Mrs. Allen recommended the following: that there is not a demonstrated need to widen MacArthur Boulevard; to condition any approval on Pelican Hill Road to Bonita Canyon, complete San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road, and have those improvements in place before considering widening MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes. -19- INDEX a x m 70 =r 40 S 9m w o ei> zazaz*m ROLL 186 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Commissioner Koppelman asked Mrs. Allen her opinion regarding the recommendation that certain traffic generation figures would have to be reached on a segment of MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road prior to the actual two extra lanes being implemented. Mrs. Allen respond- ed that 154 Harbor view Hills homes replied to a poll and answered not to approve the General Plan Amendment, to take out the Avocado couplet and replace it by widening MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes. Mrs. Allen said that she personally feels that it is a step in the right direction, that her concern is that there is not enough criteria in it, that Sand Canyon be in place, some language regarding San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, that there would be public hearings by the Planning Commission and the City Council, that there would not be restrictions if they did not want to widen the roadway. Mr. Paul Franklin, 633 Rockford Road, realtor, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed plan including the infrastructure. Dr. Paul Johnson, 1425 Santanella Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed project. He stated that Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road should be completed before occupancy, In response to a question posed by Dr. Johnson, Mr. Hewicker replied that it is possible to designate a land use for senior housing. Dr. Johnson commented that the Newport Beach senior population is exploding and he stated that Newporter North could be a senior housing site, and that The Irvine Company and the staff have been receptive to the concept. He asked that Newporter North be designated for senior housing. Mr. Hewicker replied that the City has one senior citizen development, the Planning Commission has approved a final map for another senior housing proj- ect, last week the Coastal Commission approved a Coastal permit for a senior project. He commented that if Newporter North is approved for residential that senior housing would be allowed on site, and that there does not have to be a special site designation for senior citizens to allow senior citizen development. Mrs. Pam Howard, 1827 Tahuna Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the teen center. Mrs. Howard complimented The Irvine Company for -20- MINUTES t I I I 1 I 1 t F MINUTES ROLL I u 1 x x c o = z ti v > v m C 2 *M y O i >M= 0 0 City A 0 m> T of 2 M 9 = y = T 1�1 ' Red Green ' Absent x I 187 May 22, 1986 Beach supporting the teen center, the child care center, and the Natural History Foundation Museum. At this time there appeared to be no additional persons wishing to testify, and discussion was taken up by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Turner stated that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Development Agreement for the General Plan Amendment will be on the agenda at a subsequent public hearing and that intersection issues will be raised at that time. Commissioner Turner recommended that the Planning Commission vote following the Resolution as a format and as prepared by staff, vote per item, and then take action on the General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) and Amendment No. 9 to the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. Commissioner Goff suggested that the item be continued for two weeks because there was new testimony, and that SPON will be submitting written comments. Commissioner Koppelman concurred that the item should be continued. She stated that the Teen Center, the day care center, and the Natural History Museum are issues that she had not previously considered. Chairman Person recommended a vote on whether to continue the item for two weeks (green) or to take action as indicated by Commissioner Turner (red). The Planning Commission voted to take immediate action. The public hearing was closed at this time. Discussion followed between the Planning Commission and Ms. Temple regarding the "WHEREAS" on page 2 of the Resolution, and Ms. Temple explained that the "WHEREAS" are the "findings" as opposed to the "conditions", and that after the Planning Commission goes through the actual components of the General Plan Amendment and when the final revised resolution is prepared, staff will revise all of the "WHEREAS" sections or the "findings" to be consistent with the final action. -21- INDEX 1 COMMISSIONERS f� b s v m r 0 zi C z M p r O O ; 188 MINUTES ' May 22, 1986 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Land Use Element: Motion x Motion was made to approve (1) Fashion Island: Add ' Ayes x x N x x x 188,000 square feet for general and regional retail Absent x commercial uses and 2,500 theater seats. Total allowed development in Fashion Island is 1,429,250 square feet and 2,500 theater seats. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion to (2) Block 600: Add 300,000 , Motion x was made approve Ayes x x N Y x x square feet for general office development. Total Absent x allowed development in Block 600 is 1,100,000 square feet and 325 hotel rooms. ' Commissioner Koppelman referred to the institutional use on the Civic Plaza expansion that covers the City ' Library and the Art Museum, and she asked if there is any indication as to what square footage the Art Museum has requested. Ms. Temple replied that the Art Museum does not know, and discussion followed between the Planning Commission and staff regarding the expanded use. Ms. Temple commented that the City Library and the Art Museum are not committed to any specific ' development scenario, that the square footage is to accommodate their future planning program and that the Planning Department cannot be specific as to the breakdown of the exact uses. Commissioner Koppelman , asked about the square footage allotment if the Natural History Museum would be included on that site. Chair- man Person opined that by adding 15,000 square feet to , the 50,000 square feet that the Planning Commission is precluding the Natural History Museum from being included in the site. ' Motion x Motion was made to approve (3) Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 50,000 square feet for office or institutional use, or a total of 284,706 square feet of office and 48,000 ' square feet of institution, An additional 15,000 square feet of institutional may be allowed subject to use of all of the above described 50,000 square feet for institutional uses. In this scenario, total development is 234,706 square feet of office and 113,000 square feet of institutional uses, and that the additional 15,000 square feet might be available for ' use by the Natural History Museum. Ayes x x N N x Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support Absent x the motion. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. t -22- ' 189 MINUTES ' COMMISSIONERS I May 22, 1986 �0 �o s = a p z Oro oi City of Newport Beach = ROLL CALL a INDEX 1 1 Motion 1 Substitute Motion Motion Ayes Absent In reference to Block 800, Commissioner Koppelman stated that she will be requesting to amend and to approve The Irvine Company's requested amount of 440,000 square feet of office development in Block 800. She reasoned that the footprints of the building are not going to be any larger in either development scenario, and the buildings are not going to be any taller than the surrounding buildings. She pointed out that Newport Center is an urban center, and that future tenants expect to rent offices, and they expect to have retail. She pointed out that Bayview Landing, Westbay, and Newporter North are valuable environmental resources, and that once the sites are developed they cannot be taken away or be replaced; however, square footage can be added to buildings. Commissioner Koppelman said that some environmental integrity must be maintained of the areas surrounding Newport Center. Motion was made to add 440,000 square feet for office development in Block 800. Commissioner Turner stated that he is sensitive to the financial situation involved with Block 800, and sensitive to the cost of Pelican Hill Road. He stated that he is also sensitive to the density in the area. Commissioner Turner concluded that the recommended 300,000 square feet is too low, and that 440,000 square feet is too high. Substitute motion was made to add 340,000 square feet for office development in Block 800. Commissioner Goff made a suggestion as an alternative to either of the two motions to postpone the voting on Block 800 until the Planning Commission voted on the Circulation Phasing, specifically San Joaquin Hills Road. He pointed out that the Circulation Phasing vote would influence his vote on Block 800. Commissioner Turner and Commissioner Koppelman stated that they would agree to postponing the Block 800 vote. Chairman Person deferred action on Block 800 until after the Planning Commission has discussed the Circu- lation Phasing. Motion was made to adopt (5) PCH/Jamboree: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change the land use designation -23- Motion Ayes Absent Motion Substitute Motion Ayes Absent xx eo a b v m z e m y m z Gz sm N o °; ° °City of z a x m>�0 a Y w m x x 190 May 22, 1986 Beach for villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x Motion was made to adopt (6) Corporate Plaza West: x x x x x Change the land use designation from "Retail and service Commercial with Alternate Land Use" to "Admin- istrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 100,000 square feet for office development for a total of 123,400 square feet. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x Motion was made to adopt (7) Newport Village: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 560 dwelling units. Add 84,800 square feet to Corporate Plaza, or a total of 450,000 square feet. 80,000 square feet can be constructed only for an athletic/health club. Chairman Person made a substitute motion to change x 84,800 square feet to 80,000 square feet, all of which can be constructed only for an athletic/health club, and further, "any construction shall be subject to the Newport Center Sight Plane". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Chairman Person stated that the intent to change the 84,800 square feet to 80,000 square feet is that Avocado Avenue will be moved, and that The Irvine Company has requested 80,000 square feet for an athlet- ic/health club. Commissioner Turner commented that under those circumstances that he would withdraw his motion. Mr. Hewicker commented that the Planned Community Zoning for Newport Village requires that any develop- ment in that area be subject to the height limitation of the view plane coming from Harbor View Hills and that the added statement would not be necessary. Chairman Person commented that he would withdraw that language. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Chairman Person replied that the aforementioned is based on the assumption that Avocado Avenue will be a straight street. x x x x x x Motion voted on to amend Newport Village. MOTION CARRIED. -24- MINUTES ' I I 1 I 1 C ' COMMISSIONERS , 191 MINUTES x x May 22, 1986 c o � x z c v> v m z A= x z T° I City of Newport Beach ■ ROLL CALL 9 INDEX ,motion x 'Substitute Motion 1 Ayes x x Absent x 'Ayes Motion x x x Absent x Motion was made to adopt (8) Avocado/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities." 44,000 square feet of office uses are permitted with a transit facility, and 10,000 square feet for a day care facility. Commissioner Turner commented that the day care center is long overdue for this area, and that there is a social obligation to meet to provide these facilities. Commissioner Kurlander commented that he would like to support the motion; however, he would like to see the day care center expanded to 15,000 square feet because there appears from the testimony that there is a big need for the facility in Newport Center. He made a substitute motion to increase the day care center to 15,000 square feet. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the substitute motion if it is found that 10,000 square feet is not ample. She further stated that there is a social need for the day care center and she would like to see some flexibility to expand the facility. Commissioner Turner commented that the substitute motion has been made with the understanding that the day care center could be developed up to a maximum of 15,000 square feet. Commissioner Turner withdrew his motion and stated that he would support the substitute motion. Chairman Person commented that there has been a waiting list at the day care facility that his son has been attending on the Balboa Peninsula and that he is aware of the need. He said that he would support the motion. Motion voted on to amend Avocado/MacArthur. MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (9) Big Canyon/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open space" to "Multi -Family Residen- tial," at a maximum of 80 dwelling units. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -25- 192 May 22, 1986 co � s � �m = 0 tl L O b m o m s T ZW 2 a2'M Motion of Newport Beach Commissioner Koppelman commented that (10) Bayview Landing falls into the category of one of the tradeoffs that Block 800 be increased to 440,000 square feet. She said that the sensitive site is an important site because it is at a major intersection in the City, Commissioner Koppelman reasoned that the site has the potential of views; it is in an area that has heavy traffic; The Irvine Company has requested seventy percent of the site be covered with buildings and parking lots; the increase in traffic generated by this particular site; the access of the traffic coming out from Back Bay Drive and perhaps through the natural habitat of Back Bay and the possible detriment to those who use Back Bay Drive as an environmental sanctuary; she concluded that a significant decrease in this site is warranted because once it is gone it will never come back. Commissioner Koppelman referred to previous testimony that The Cannery Restaurant is between 8,000 to 9,000 square feet, and she suggested two restaurants or a restaurant and a Teen Center. She said that the site could accommodate two buildings and also accommodate environmental and recreational use. Motion was made to adopt Bayview Landing, to allow a total of 16,000 square feet for restaurants of visitor serving commercial use and two facilities, one of which may be used as a Teen Center. She commented that the Teen Center is a commercial use, and if the Teen Center was not located on that site it could be sited in any commercial area within Newport Center. She opined that there is some flexibility if the Bayview Landing site is not the location that the Teen Center wishes to be in. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Ms. Temple replied that the Bayview Landing site is approx- imately 20 acres. Commissioner Kurlander commented that the grade sepa- ration that is being proposed is one of the alterna- tives to widening of East Coast Highway, and will take a substantial amount of this particular property. He said that if the dedication is going to be made for the widening of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Boulevard, that the dedication should include the right-of-way sufficient to provide for the grade separation even though it may not be constructed at this time, which would reduce the useable area. -26- MINUTES ' 1 l__I n [1 F 1 1 F t LJ MINUTES I ROLL 1 ' substitute Motion 1 I 1 I n n 1 1 x x co A v z C m Z n A A Z C M 0 0 M r Z p; 0 A m> 2 A 2 A 2 193 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Chairman Person stated that the motion is to reduce the site to two structures, 16,000 square feet, for restaurant or visitor serving commercial uses on the lower pad. Commissioner Goff made a substitute motion to approve Bayview Landing as recommended by staff. He reasoned that a person could enjoy a view from the bay in a restaurant just as well as outdoors which is an amenity that some people enjoy. He further reasoned that to reduce the site to two buildings, one of which may not be available to the public to enjoy the view from an enclosed area, is reducing the site too far. Chairman Person referred to.staff's recommendation "the structure shall not be any higher than the upper pad level", and asked if there is any suggestion regarding parking on the upper terrace of the site? Ms. Temple replied that staff's recommendation would not involve parking on the upper pad. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Webb described the grading design for East Coast Highway in the vicinity of the subject site. Mr. Hewicker commented that The Irvine Company site plan takes into consideration the right-of-way that would be necessary for the grading operation; however, he said that he did not know what design criteria they used. Chairman Person commented that he is not in favor of parking on the bluff and that as long as staff contem- plates not parking on the bluff that he could support the substitute motion. Commissioner Turner commented that.he would support the substitute motion. He reasoned that the site is difficult; that it is going to take a fair amount of money to develop; and that there is a substantial reduction from the original 60,000 square feet. Commissioner Turner asked for a change in the language "that all access for commercial use is to be provided via Back Bay Drive" to be changed to "all access for commercial use is to be provided to the satisfaction of the City staff", which enables City staff to review the ingress/egress layouts as time goes on, and if there is a possibility to provide some additional forms of ingress/egress use without jeopardizing the public safety that this should be taken advantage of. He -27- F 194 May 22, 1986 MINUTES ROLL Ayes Noes Absent Motion c m z z m `A °; °' City A m O � > 91 of zAZAz�m M x Beach opined that this is a commercial site and he is very sensitive to the access to the site in order to make it economically viable as time goes on, and also that there is further protection to prevent patrons from going up the Back Bay along the ecological reserve. Commissioner Goff replied that he would be willing to defer that to the City Engineer. He reasoned that if there is no parking on the upper level then East Coast Highway would be ruled out and to gain access to the site at the lower level off of Jamboree Boulevard would be as close to Back Bay Drive as to be unfeasible, which leaves Back Bay Drive as the only access to the site. Chairman Person stated that the substitute motion is 25,000 square feet for three restaurant facilities, all structures shall not be higher than the upper pad level, access for commercial uses shall be determined by the City Engineer, one of the facilities may be used as a Teen Center, Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (11) Newporter North: Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential" at a maximum of 490 dwelling units, significant cultural resources which exist on the site shall be preserved in a manner acceptable to the City, with development clustered in other areas. Commissioner Goff noted that the site had been previ- ously suggested for the Natural History Museum. Commissioner Turner commented that a sizeable area has been met aside for archeological and it would not be precluding at some future date to establish a Natural History Museum although it would seem illogical to establish it in a residential area. in response to Commissioner Turner, Me. Temple replied that the Recreational and Open Space Element as proposed by staff includes a four acre City Park and that within that designation the land use discusses resource values. she said that staff's opinion is that if the city or another agency decided to accommodate a museum at that location it could be accommodated very easily within that Recreational and Environmental Open Space Designation, and that the museum would not require a separate category. Chairman Person commented that it would not be precluded. in response to Commissioner -48- I I 11 I r L I I 11 I fJ 195 MINUTES May 22, 1986 1 A x C o i f 9 r T m. z c m> m z m s z z H z r n ; ° x ° City 9 m O m > of ZA Z 92 T to Ayes Absent x Motion Ayes Absent ' Motion Ayes ' Absent ' Motion I Ayes Absent I x K. Beach Goff's inquiry, if it would be necessary or helpful to include the museum in the paragraph for consistency or clarification, Mr. Hewicker replied that a museum is included in the Recreational and Open Space Element. x x x x x x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (12) Westba : Change the land x use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental open space" in partial consideration for increased development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites. Commissioner Turner reasoned that this site is impacted by airplane noise and that it would be a reasonable change. x x x x x x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (13) San Diego Creek North: x Add a 2.5 acre Fire Station reservation to the site. x x x x x x The reservation shall be in effect for a period of 5 years. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Recreation and Open Space Element: x Motion was made to adopt: 1. Bayview Landing: Maintain the existing "Recre- ational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but preclude development from the upper level. 2. Newporter North: Maintain existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but add unmapped environmentally sensitive area desig- nation for preservation of significant on -site cultural resources. 3. Westbay: Designate the site for regional park facilities with unmapped environmentally sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history facility may be allowed on the site subject to approval of the City. x x x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -29- INDEX ROLL Motion Ayes Absent Motion MMISSIONERS 196 May 22, 1986 x x f a v x i e m r V m 9 A z ~ ? c= 0 0 s 0 0 iz M i i r m City of Newport Beach Ix MINUTES , ■ Circulation Element: Motion was made to adopt: (1) Delete Avocado Ave- ' nue/MacArthur Boulevard Primary couplet designation; designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six lanes, divided); designate Avocado Avenue as a Secon- ' dary Arterial (4 lanes) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. This circulation element revision is subject to ap- proval of the County of Orange. In response to a clarification posed by Commissioner r Koppelman, Commissioner Turner commented that Avocado Avenue will be straightened. Motion voted MOTION CARRIED. ' on, In response to a clarification posed by Commissioner Goff, Chairman Person commented that San Joaquin Hills ' Road is currently designated as six lanes, divided. Commissioner Goff reasoned that the designation of San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hill should remain six lanes, divided; however, he commented that when the Planning Commission arrives at the Circulation Phasing he will propose an initial installation of San ' Joaquin Hills Road of four lanes with dedication of the additional two lanes available at some future time as needed. Motion was made to adopt (2) Recommend to the City Council initiation of amendments to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to: designate MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial (8 lanes, divided), with the deletion of (a) designate San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hill Road as a Primary Arterial 4 lanes, divided). Further, recommend to the City Council that final action on this amendment be taken concurrent with the action on CPA 85-1(B). ' Commissioner Goff clarified his motion by stating that San Joaquin Hills Road is currently six lanes; there- fore, it need not be amended. In response to clarifications posed by commissioner Koppelman, Ms. Temple replied that San Joaquin Hills ' Road easterly of Spyglass Hill is in unincorporated County territory and that the portion of San Joaquin -30- ' ' Ayes Absent Motion 1 I L 1 II II I II V\/V \IJJIVI �LI\✓ 1 x x c o 9 c m 2 z j m n s z r `Z N o; o x ° m ° ,�> m m °City of Z s z s z m m Ix 197 May 22, 1986 t Beach Hills Road that is in Newport Beach which is currently six lanes, will not change. In response to Commissioner Turner, Commissioner Goff explained that San Joaquin Hills Road will remain a six lane designated road. IxI Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:50 p.m. and reconvened at 10:55 p.m. Affordable Housing: Motion was made to adopt: Based upon the granting of additional commercial development, increased density for residential develop- ment, and governmental financial assistance such as Mortgage Revenue Bonds, the following program is required: 1. Thirty percent (30%) of the total dwelling units constructed on all sites shall be affordable to low and moderate income families. 2. The affordability mix shall be as follows: 66.7% County Low Income* 33.3% City Very Low Income* (with rents not to exceed HUD Section 8 "Fair Market Rents") *per Housing Element 3. Preference shall be given to Section 8 Certificate holders for the "City Very -Low Income" units. 4. The term of affordability shall be 20 years from the date of initial occupancy. 5. The affordable units may be located on any site, however they shall be phased proportional to the market rate residential units. 6. Additionally, the 29 remaining "pool" affordable units in the Baywood expansion shall be committed for a period of 20 years, with 80% at County median and 20% at County low income. -31- MINUTES 1 198 s i S C 2 ,roil > M 2 01 9 cz A W y r a o;ooICity S i3 of z 2x�ro May 22, 1986 Beach MINUTES ' I ■ 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for any development permitted by GPA 85-1(3), the appli- cant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City guaranteeing the provision of the affordable units. This agreement may be included within the development agreement. t Ayes Absent x xx x x x x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Land Use Phasing: Motion x Motion was made to adopt: Phase Ie No residential (PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village, Newporter North, Big Canyon) units required for: A. Fashion Island Expansion B. Civic Plaza Expansion Center ' Ayes xx xxxx Absent x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made to adopt: Phase IIa.- 400 units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction (foundations plus some framing) before building permit issuance for: ' A. Block 600 B. Bayview Landing ' C. Avocado/MacArthur D. Corporate Plaza Person motion stating that Substitute Chairman made a substitute Motion x in the best interest of the community that the develop- ment which is to take place at the site commonly known as Newport Village occur first. He moved to strike 400 units and the following be inserted: The Newport Village residential units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction, foundation and some framing before building permit issuance for Block 600, Bayview Landing, Avoca- do/MacArthur, and Corporate Plaza. ' Chairman Person affirmatively confirmed Commissioner Turner's inquiry that included up to 560 units. Commissioner Goff asked Chairman Person why he felt that the units in Newport Village are more important than other locations, and did he intend that all 560 units must have substantial progress in construction ' prior to building permits being issued for the four locations. -32- ' MINUTES I I I I I I I I I A z --1 c O O Z x y v> v m Z c m y m 2 W A Z 0 2 c z N o i 0 0 9 m O m> m z s z z z r m 199 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach ROLLCALL] III Jill IINDEX Chairman Person replied that 560 units have been designated for Newport Village, and that he believes that the site is essential to the overall development of Newport Center. He commented that the Planning Commission looked at the site in GPA 83-1, as a site to meet the City's needs in terms of housing and that it is in the best interest, to insure that residential buildout does occur in Newport Center prior to the peripheral sites. He opined that it is important for the City that those units be the first to be constructed. Commissioner Turner asked Chairman Person if he would consider addressing IIb and change the 400 additional units to 800 units. Chairman Person replied that would be a part of his motion. In response to Commissioner Turner, Chairman Person replied that a total of 800 residential units must have building permits issued before occupancy permits for Block 600, and those 800 units aside from those units indicated in Newport Center could be developed anywhere. Commissioner Turner stated that he would withdraw his motion. Commissioner Goff asked if there was a minimum number of units in Newport Village that would be required. Chairman Person replied "no". Chairman Person agreed with Commissioner Goff that whatever was initially built prior to getting building permits for the four sites listed would be all of the units that would ever be permitted on the Newport Village site. Chairman Person reasoned that by requiring that substantial progress in construction then the tentative tract portion would have been passed, and further discretionary approval might be necessary for the Planning Commission to approve development of that site. Commissioner Turner commented that it would have the affect of requiring the alignment of Avocado Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, and East Coast Highway. Commissioner Koppelman commented that as a result the site must be started and developed first. Chairman Person replied there would have to be substantial construction. Commissioner Koppelman opined that there would be no flexibility for The Irvine Company at all in terms of whatever their financing is or whatever residential projects are in line. She stated that she could not support the motion. -33- MINUTES xx C O % y v P by z c m > m 0 'L M Z r n ZX Z yZ T9 Substitute Motion Ayes Noes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent IxINIX1Xlxixix 200 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Chairman person advised that Phase I allows The Irvine Company to develop Fashion Island expansion and Civic Plaza Center. In regard to the residential goals, he pointed out that staff has been firm that the. site remain residential and that it is important for that particular site in view of the possibilities for the realigning and lowering of MacArthur Boulevard. Chairman Person opined that it is the choice of this Planning Commission to have all the development in that strip in place. Commissioner Goff opined that he is not in a position to know the economics of the situation, and what the restrictions of The Irvine Company may be. Chairman Person pointed out that The Planning Commission has designated the site for residential before and that The Irvine Company has come back and asked for commercial at that site. Commissioner Goff replied that there is nothing to preclude them from doing that again. Commissioner Goff made a substitute motion to adopt Phase I14 as recommended by staff. Substitute motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED, Motion was made to adopt Phase Itb: 400 additional units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction before issuance of occupancy, permits for: Block 600, Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt Phase III: Completion and Certificate of Occupancy for 800 dwelling units before building permits issued fors A. Block $00; B, Corporate Plaza West. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Circulation Phasing: Motion was made to adopt (1) Prior to issuance of any building permits for any component of GPA 85-1(8), all dedications from The Irvine Company necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Rurlander, Mr. Webb replied that the item was primarily to cover dedications between Jamboree Boulevard and Bayside Drive. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -34- Co/\AMISSIONERSI ' 0 _ x c o F = v m [ Z c M > z m z � z T ° a 201 MINUTES May 22, 1986 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion x Motion was made to adopt (2) The following projects may proceed after Coast 'Highway, Jamboree Boulevard, MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue dedication and/or bonding before installation of Pelican Hill ' Road: A. All of Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza ' C. Newport Village To delete (3): The following project may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and completion bonding and dedications for Jamboree Road, but before installation of Pelican Hill Road: I I I I I 1 I - Balance of Fashion Island (4) would become (3): building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements (as described below): A. Block 600 B. Big Canyon/MacArthur Boulevard C. Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard D. Corporate Plaza E. Newporter North F. PCH/Jamboree Boulevard (5) would become (4): Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the com- pletion of Pelican Hill Road: and the commencement of construction of the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: A. Block 600 B. Block 800 Commissioner Kurlander asked Chairman Person if that means the beginning of construction for San Joaquin Hills Road and not the completion, and he opined if San Joaquin Hills Road should not be completed also. Chairman Person replied that there has been discussion regarding possible litigation which may make the actual construction difficult, although he opined that he would like to have it in place, but that he did not want to hold the entire project up. Commissioner Goff opined that the point is that if commencement of -35- ROLL 202 MMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 x x co 0 f y 9 � v m a = > T m City of Newport Beach MINUTES I I ■ construction of San Joaquin Hills Road can be accomplished, completion can be accomplished, that it is the commencement that is in question as a function of litigation. Chairman Person commented that he would be willing to amend to have completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road. Commissioner Goff ' stated that commencement of San Joaquin Hills Road should be accomplished as soon as possible but to tie it in with the same phasing of Pelican Hill Road may be putting it in jeopardy. Chairman Person stated that he ' is not tying it in with the building of Pelican Hill Road, but that his motion assures that Pelican Hill Road is built and in place before they can step foot ' inside one of the buildings with a tenant. He opined that they are going to want to have San Joaquin Hills Road built and completed, and if there is litigation they will want to settle the issue in a hurry. Discussion followed how San Joaquin Hills Road can be in and operating with Pelican Hill Road without putting the applicant into a bind because of possible litigation. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that litigation could happen before, during, or after construction. ' Commissioner Turner commented that because the appli- cant is relying upon the construction of Block 800 to pay for Pelican Hill Road, he asked Chairman Person if ' it would be acceptable to leave Block 800 in (6) that would become (5) contingent upon the construction of San Joaquin Hills Road. Chairman Person stated that would be acceptable. Chairman Person modified his ' motion to state: (4) Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of Pelican Hill Road: - Block 600 (5) Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon the commencement of con- , struction of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: A. Block 800 ' B. Corporate Plaza West C. Bayview Landing -36- , 203 May 22, 1986 MINUTES I I ROLL I I li I J I I x c o E x C v a v m z c m y m = m D T= r O S O O 9 m 0 0 m D T T 2 A 2 F 2 '" m of Newport Beach Commissioner Goff requested that the motion be amended to clarify the point that four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road would be initially installed. Commissioner Kurlander opined that recommendation would be under "Other Requirements". Commissioner Koppelman commented that the motion may be at odds with the land use phasing just adopted, by explaining that the net result is that Newport village would be developed first. Chairman Person responded that it would not have to be developed first. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator., pointed out that the Newporter North and the existing Villa Point projects have commitments through cooperation with the County of Orange for mortgage revenue bond financing. He suggested that the Planning Commission may want to consider keeping those projects, which will probably end up being expansions of that bond issue, in one of the earlier stages. He explained that one of the reasons to have suggested early phasing was so that they could take benefit of mortgage bond financing. Mr. Lenard stated that if the projects are held off for one or two years there may be a chance The Irvine Company would lose the mortgage revenue bond financing which is valuable to the City's affordable housing goals. He opined that if the two items were moved down to the next phase it does have the affect of making Newport Village the first residential project. Commissioner Koppelman opined that staff recommended the phasing was to indicate the City's desire to encourage residential development and she suggested that (d) Corporate Plaza, (e) Newporter North, and (c) Avocado/MacArther Boulevard be moved back up to Phase 2. Chairman Person replied that to balance the housing needs of the City and the Circulation system, and that after hearing testimony from Corona del Mar residents concerning Pelican Hill Road and the circulation system improvements in place, that the purpose of his motion is to try to achieve balance at the earliest possible date. Chairman Person explained the primary reason for the changes suggested are if considerations are going to create more traffic on East Coast Highway without insuring that those two projects are in place early on in this development scheme. Commissioner Koppelman asked what is accomplished by all of Fashion Island in Phase I, and the deletion of residental and moving that down into another Phase? -37- INDEX I COMMISSIONERS X F f C i zc 'm ym 0 9 9 x r 0 z m z s Substitute Motion Amendment to Motion Ayes Absent x Ayes Absent x 204 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Chairman Person replied that Fashion Island is the "hub" of the development and that the Fashion island portion of the development would probably be tied together in terms of development, and that it made more sense rather than cut one development into two to do it, because as indicated by staff and testimony it was desirable to have the Fashion Island project completed. Mr. Hewicker commented that the motion does not mean that all of Fashion Island be built, it is saying that if The Irvine Company wanted to go ahead and build all of it they could, or they could build half of it now and half of it later. Ms. Temple commented upon the residential moving down in the phasing program, and opined that it would preclude development of the residential that is needed in the phasing program in order to get building permits for some of the other projects. She said that it is important that residential projects be phased early so that the land use phasing requirements can be met. Chairman Person stated that he would support moving Pacific Coast Highway/Jamboree Boulevard and Big Canyon/MacArthur Boulevard to Phase 2. He opined that Newporter North is too dense a project to have built before construction of Pelican Hill Road. Commissioner Koppelman cited that Newporter North is one area that had bond financing. She made a substi- tute motion that Phase 2 would remain the same with the exception that Newporter North, Pacific Coast Highway/Jamboree Boulevard, gig Canyon/MacArthur Boulevard and all of Fashion Island be added to Phase 2. Commissioner Goff stated that he would support the substitute motion, because there has been plenty of inducement for The Irvine Company to start Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. Chairman Person advised that he would accept Commis- sioner Koppelman's suggestion as an amendment to his motion. Commissioner Koppelman concurred. Motion voted on to adopt Phase 2: MOTION CARRIED. Motion voted on to adopt Phase 3: MOTION CARRIED, _g8_ MINUTES ' PJ I Ll I I I I MMISSIONERS May 205 22, 1986 MINUTES x 0 111 c o n= F y 9 9 v m z c z m z n z r z m City of Newport Beach INDEX =Ayes x Absent x Ayes x 'Absent x 'Motion Ayes Absent rl 4 ,MotionAyes I x (x Ix I xI x Absent Motion Ayes Absent Ix Motion x Ayes x ,Absent x Motion voted on to adopt Phase 4: MOTION CARRIED. Motion voted on to adopt Phase 5: MOTION CARRIED. Other Requirements: Motion was made to adopt (1): A landscape program for MacArthur Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by.. the City Council prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA 85-l(B). The landscaping shall be installed concurrent with MacArthur Boulevard improvements. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (2): That the full dedica- tions for 6-lane MacArthur be required. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (3): That MacArthur. Boulevard be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in the Environmental Impact Report. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Webb referred to (4) and commented that there was no explanation of the limits for the construction of only two outside through lanes on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction, and that the area referred to is the area between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive in that, at San Miguel Drive and East Coast Highway, intersection configuration would require six lanes. He recommended that (4) state: "that the two outside through lanes on MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the center line of Crown Drive be constructed so that any additional lanes would occur towards the centerline of the roadway. Motion made to adopt (4), Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Webb suggested that staff's intent for (5) as follows: That prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four on MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor view Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive the following criteria be met: -39- ROLL Motion COMMISSIONERS 206 MINUTES , n* May 22, 1986 c o _ 2 y v r 9 m X _ Y ° City of Newport Beach a. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided) between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. ' b. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Primary Arterial configuration 4-lanes, divided) easterly ' of Spyglass Hill Road and connection to Pelican Hill Road. C. An average weekday volume -to -capacity ratio of f 1.15 is reached in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive on MacArthur Boulevard. A public hearing shall be conducted by the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria. Commissioner Goff made a motion to adopt (5) as recom- mended by Mr. Webb with the following modifications: "the following criteria as a minimum be met": (b) "completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Arterial , configuration (6-lanes, divided); "a public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council". ' Commissioner Turner asked that the motion be amended to include the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as follows (5 d) "that all discretionary decisions be , made regarding the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor including ultimate number of lanes, provided, however, that the responsible entity making such decisions or determination shall have done so by July 1, 19950. He said that his intent is that at the time of the review that there will be consideration regarding the impact of the San Joaquin , Hills Transportation Corridor and what it will do to the expanding of MacArthur Boulevard. Commissioner Goff stated that he concurs with everything but the date. Commissioner Turner replied that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor may not happen and that it would not be fair to anyone to say that this cannot happen until the Corridor is planned because it may not ' be planned. Chairman Person suggested that Sand Canyon Road be included, and Mr. Webb stated that The Irvine Company Local Coastal Plan Development shows Sand Canyon as a two lane arterial going from Pacific Coast Highway inland and connecting into Sand Canyon and would be a part of the Local Coastal Plan. Commissioner Koppelman x x c o i 2 C a 9 M 9= j m r 2 2 0 vM ( o M>, io _ M 2 9 2 T m E I LJ I n Ayes Noes ' Absent Motion Ix 207 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach stated that should could not support Sand Canyon Road. Commissioner Turner clarified his previous suggestion that the future Planning Commission and the future City Council verify the desirability of expanding MacArthur Boulevard. Commissioner Goff reviewed the motion, and added (d) as suggested by Commissioner Turner as follows: "the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor be installed for all discretionary approvals either going ahead or deleting it be done up through 1995. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria". Commissioner Turner clarified his suggestion that it was not his intent to say that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor be started or constructed but that it would be taken into consideration so that they will know what the impact of the Corridor might be upon the City. Discussion followed if the motion included "and the desirability of adding two additional lanes to MacArthur Boulevard", and "public hearing/public hearings". Commissioner Goff concurred that the motion would include "A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria, and the desirability of adding the two additional lanes to MacArthur Boule- vard", to insure that the Planning. Commission had a chance to review the change in the Circulation Element. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (6) All mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR shall be required. Commissioner Kurlander opined that he wanted to indi- cate that Pelican Hill Road should be developed as a minimum four lane road initially. Chairman Person said that he would indicate that at the end of the dis- cussion. Commissioner Kurlander said that would be in conflict with what the mitigation measures are in the EIR. Chairman Person said that the language in the motion will state "except for the lane configuration of Pelican Hill Road for the first phase". In response to questions posed by Commissioner Goff regarding mitigation measures in the EIR, discussion -41- MINUTES J M NU ES xF eo i c m Z M m a S a x 0 c z goo 2 9 = y = T 208 May 22, 1986 of Newaort Beach followed between staff and the Planning commission. Ms. Temple commented that the EIR does incorporate a list of intersection improvements as mitigation measures and those do include the intersection improvements along Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile. She said that the intersection improvements can be required as part of the TPO study. Commissioner Turner recommended that the motion be amended to state "that all mitigation measures outlined in the EIR which are consistent with the action taken shall be required". Ayes x x x x x x Absent x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (7): The Irvine Company shall Motion x aggressively pursue all necessary approvals and con- struction of San Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road. Commissioner Kurlander inquired if "constructed as a four lane road" should be included. Mr. Hewicker replied that the four lane road has already been Ayes x x x x x x designated. Absent x Motion voted on: MOTION CARRIED, Motion x Motion made to adopt (8): A Development Agreement and overall Planned Community Development Plan for Newport center shall be prepared and approved concurrent with or prior to any further discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the development allowed by this General Plan Amendment. Ayes x x x x x x Absent x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion made to adopt (9): The initial construction of Motion x Pelican Hill Road shall be a minimum of four lanes. Ayes xx x x x x Absent x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Person referred to Land Use Element: Block 800: He reviewed the motions that remained on the floor: motion to allow the increase of office develop- ment of block 800 to 440,000 square feet, and a substi- tute motion to add 340,000 square feet. commissioner Kurlander stated that he would not support the substitute motion because the footprint of the buildings would not change. -42- I 1 I 1 I J I COMMISSIONERS1 209 MINUTES ' May 22, 1986 c o = F C v a m z c m o m z A z A z T) City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX I I Ayes Noes Absent Les Noes Absent x x Motion Ayes Absent x 9] Commissioner Turner commented that originally a two lane Pelican Hill Road was contemplated and since has been increased to four lanes which would increase the construction costs. He said that he would like to withdraw his substitute motion and make the substitute motion to add 380,000 square feet. Commissioner Goff said that because of the current status of. the circulation element that the original 440,000 square feet as asked for by The Irvine Company can be accommodated from a traffic standpoint and he pointed out that the traffic study showed that the 440,000 square feet could be accommodated, and that it is a reasonable tradeoff to add the 440,000 square feet. He said that he would support the original motion. Substitute motion was voted on to increase the office development to 380,000 square feet. MOTION FAILED. Motion was voted on to increase the office development to 440,000 square feet. MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1139 recommend- ing approval of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) and accepting the environmental document, and Resolution No. 1140 recommending approval of Amendment No. 9 to the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 12:08 a.m. and reconvened at 12:15 a.m. -43- MINUTES ROLL 210 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach A. Amendment No. 634 (Public Hearing) Request to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for the development of the Point Del Mar Planned Community, and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with 43 lots for single family development on the subject site. AND C. Resubdivision No. 825 (Public Hearing) Request to consider a resubdivision of the subject property so as to create one parcel of land for convey- ance purposes. AND D. Tentative Map of Tract No. 12209 (Revised) (Public Hearing) Request to subdivide 6.63 acres of land into 43 num- bered lots for detached single family development, one lot for private street purposes, and one lot for private open space and landscaping purposes. The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow creation of lots which are less than 50 feet in width and less than 5,000 sq,ft, in area. LOCATION: Portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 6000 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway at Fifth Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: P-C -44- Item No.3 A634 Ts R825 TTM12209 Approved COMMISSIONERS A x c o { 9 P m z M z A= T° a MINUTES May 22, 1986 May City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANT: Real Estate Development Corporation, ' Tustin OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Santa ENGINEER: Fuscoe Williams Lindgren & Short, Ana ' The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. ' Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc. appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Neish stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Mr. John P. Kelly, 717 Goldenrod Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly commented ' that The Irvine Company met with the nearby residents regarding the proposed development and the residents are very pleased with the project. ' Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris, representing the Corona del Mar Homeowners Association, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission, in support of the project. this time. The public hearing was closed at Motion was made to approve Environmental Impact Report, Motion x Amendment No. 634, Traffic Study, Resubdivision No. Ayes x x x x x 825, Tentative Map of Tract No. 12209, subject to the Absent x findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Chairman Person commented that he would support the motion. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ' A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines and ' City Policy. 2. That the contents of this environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on the project. ' -45- 212 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. B. AMENDMENT NO. 634 1. Add to Section V.A.I. and as Section V.B.3., as follows: "Signs shall not be placed in locations that block a driver's line -of -sight as defined by the City's 'Intersection Line-bf-Sight Requirements' draw- ing." C. TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS: 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 Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect -generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of one critical intersection. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect -generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary -modified,' or 'primary' street. D. RESUBDIVISION NO. 825 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. -46- MINUTES, , J I I I I 1 ' l..V/V\IV\IJJIVIVLf�J x " o c O C C FtF a a v m y A I r = m 2 o 0 0 9 M O m> 2 9 2 A Z m m I r .1 J 213 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach 3. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. CONDITIONS. 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That a 15-foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of Goldenrod Avenue and 5th Avenue be dedicated to the public. That 10 feet of additional right of way be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposed along the 5th Avenue frontage; and that 30 feet of right of way for street and highway purposed be dedicated to the City along the Goldenrod Avenue frontage for a total width of 60 feet. 5. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 6. That curb, gutter, 12-foot sidewalk, street lights and pavement be constructed along the MacArthur Boulevard frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department and the California Department of Transportation. 7. That street, drainage, and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. -47- MINUTES INDEX � }1 9 Z I e m i z i m mri c z 9 N =r 0 c; o t O (�' City 2 QI/r� P = y= r OT 214 May 22, 1986 t Beach MINUTES ' E. Tentative Man of Tract No. 12209 (Revised) FINDINOS: , 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances ' of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, with the exception that the subdivision creates lots which are less than 50 feet wide and less than 5000 sq.ft. in area. 2. That the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. ' 3. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. ' 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed , improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. , 6. That the design of the subdivision or 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 subdivision. 7. That the discharge of waste from the proposed ' subdivision into an existing community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional , Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code. 8. That the subdivision is consistent with the , Newport Beach General Plan and the policies contained therein. CONDITIONS: 1. That all the conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 825 be fulfilled. , 2. That a final map be recorded. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee ' -48- COMMISSIONERS 215 MINUTES ' 111 0 May 22, 1986 F 0 c o = f C v 9 v m z m y m z z n= 9= T m City of Newport Beach a ROLL CALL INDEX satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a tract map or obtain a ' building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- ' vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless ' otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to ' further review by the Traffic Engineer. 6. That the design of the private streets and drives ' conforms with the city's Private Street Policy (L-4), except as approved by the Public Works Department. The basic roadway width shall be a minimum of 32 feet. The location, width, config- uration, and concept of the private street and drive system shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. ' 7. That the intersection of the private streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered ' in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be a approximately modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. ' S. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the ' delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. 9. That easements for public emergency and security ingress, egress and public utilities purposes on all private streets be dedicated to the City and ' that all easements be shown on the tract maps. be 10. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall provided to all public utilities, vaults, man- holes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Depart- ment. ' -49- COMMISSIONERS s x 0 C y y x M x A = * ° 216 MINUTES ' May 22, 1986 City of Newport Beach ROLL CA LI INDEX 11. A Traffic Control Plan prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer shall be submitted and approved by the Traffic Engineer. , 12. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a , licensed civil engineers and that the street signing and striping plan and street light plan be included with the improvement plans. ' 13. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain ' facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the final map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing atom drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study ' shall be the responsibility of the developer. 14. That the Water Capital Improvement fee be paid. ' 15. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demon- strate to the satisfaction of the Public Works , Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include ' verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 16. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior ' to issuance of any building permits. 17. That Goldenrod Avenue frontage be improved with curb, gutter, 8-foot wide sidewalk, and street lights. Roadway width, curb to curb, shall be 40 feet. That concrete sidewalk be constructed along the Sea Lane frontage, and that curb access ramps ' be constructed at the intersection of Sea Lane and Goldenrod and the intersection of 5th Avenue and Goldenrod. 18. That 5th Avenue be widened to a minimum 40 feet, curb to curb width; that street lights and con- Crete sidewalk be constructed along the 5th Avenue ' frontage$ and that the existing power lines along the 5th Avenue frontage be undergrounded. ' -50r ' MINUTES xx c o i 9r y 9 v m z c m> m z m x a z r x C 2 M p; 0 0 0 m o> T T z a z a z r m U CI 217 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach 19. That a median be constructed in East Coast Highway at Dahlia Avenue to prevent left turns onto East Coast Highway from Dahlia Avenue. 20. That a minimum ten -foot wide sewer easement be dedicated to the City for sewer mains crossing the property with paved access provided to all man- holes; and that no structure encroach into the easement unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 21. That a letter of approval be provided to the Public Works Department from the Metropolitan Water District for the proposed development over their easement prior to issuance of any building or grading permits. 22. That the location of the proposed entrances to the development along 5th Avenue be subject to further review and approval of the Traffic Engineer. 23.- That the existing storm drain system that picks up drainage on Sea Lane and in the subject tract be extended to the existing drain in East Coast Highway in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Department; that a storm drain system be con- structed on the north side of 5th Avenue to pick up the drainage coming down Goldenrod Avenue and the drainage crossing 5th Avenue westerly of Goldenrod; and that the existing cross gutter in 5th Avenue be removed. 24. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 25. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 26. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 27. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. -51- INDEX ROLL 218 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach 28. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan 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. 29. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 30. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering 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 Depart- ment. 31. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 32, That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 33. That any mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the property line. 34. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structured the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan.) -52- MINUTES , �II L Ll I' L L I ' COMMISSIONERS x F c o i c m> m z FsC z r m )))))) Z 0 p r o O m M o T> T T 2 A = M, M T FII U U 219 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach 35. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. 36. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 37. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. 38. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department. 39. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeks and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 40. That any cul-de-sac, building address, and street name shall comply with City Standards and shall be approved by the Fire Department. 41. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 42. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 43. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each of the planned units, an acoustical engineering study shall be performed based on actual pad, property, and roadway grades, and building lo- cations and orientations to assure that the exterior building shells of each structure will be sufficient to reduce' existing and future noise levels to an acceptable intensity. 44. Prior to occupancy of any unit, a qualified acoustical engineer shall be retained by the City at the applicant's expense to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that noise impacts do not exceed 65 CNEL for outside living areas and active recreation areas and 45 CNEL for interior living areas. -53- MINUTES INDEX CC)MMISSIONER! May222, 1986 MINUTES ' �x o i C v> v m 9 zr 0M A 0= a>Mmo T MONSOON s a s s Tm Cit of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 45. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m, on Saturday and Sunday. 46. A plan depicting the exact location, height, and type of material for all walls separating the project from adjacent uses shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the approval of any grading and/or building permits. The plan shall be approved by the Planning Depart- ment and the Public Works Department. 47. Perimeter walls constructed for screening or sound attenuation purposes shall be designed in an aesthetically pleasing manner, such as slumpstone or stucco block with a brick or stone cap. In no event shall fences such as grape -stake, common cinderblock or chain link be allowed. 48. The units which are located inside the 65 CNEL contour and have any partial view of Pacific Coast Highway or MacAxthur Boulevard shall be mitigated to experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL and indoor noise levels less than 45 CNEL. Specific provisions shall be determined prior to obtaining any grading permit and shall be in- stalled in accordance with alternative design methods and recommendations outlined in the noise report for the Point Del Mar project. 49. Noise barrier heights presented below shall be integrated into project site design. Walls shall be of heights specified below, constructed of masonry material, and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Barriers can be of any combination of berm and wall. BARRIER HEIGHT LOTS (IN FEET FROM PAD LEVEL) Lots 24 to 35 6.0 Lots 36 to 37 8.0 Lots 38 to 43 6.0 50, A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of con- struction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies x-5 and X-6. -54- r I_. I 1 1 221 May 22, 1986 MINUTES xx c o n a m 2 C m> m 2 9 9 Z r S C z N 0 o i 0 0 A m O m> r T 2 9 = y= m m 0 II L L I 1 J of Newport Beach 51. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4, of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. 52. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 53. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded and screened from view by architectural features. 54. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 55. Plan #4 is to have smoke detectors located on the lower and upper levels. 56. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the project, an agreement shall be entered into by the developer, landowner, and City providing for a minimum of 9 units of affordable housing onsite or offsite. Units shall be affordable for a period of ten (10) years from the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 57. The affordable units to be provided on the Fifth Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard site shall meet the following affordability criteria: 70% (6) shall be affordable to County median income and 30% (3) shall be affordable to County low income. Maximum rents shall be based on yearly income x 30% o 12 for a three -bedroom unit. Rents for a two -bedroom unit shall be reduced by 5% and a one -bedroom unit by 10%. 58. That Park Dedication requirements may be satisfied through the use of North Ford Park credits. -55- INDEX ROLL WAMISSIONERS 222 May 22, 1966 x 0 C O n = :n Z C m ," Z C A 9 2 0 2 m a > T T z z a z m m i City of Newport Beach MINUTES , ■ Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) Item No.A Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3158A ' permitted various alterations to the Balboa Inn and related restaurant uses. The proposed amendment Approved includes a request to establish an alternate outdoor , dining area on an existing second floor deck and on a pedestrian bridge over the public East Ocean Front sidewalk for the primary restaurant use. The proposal also includes a request to allow non -amplified live ' entertainment within the two outdoor dining areas. The proposal also includes the termination of a portion of the approved Use Permit No. 3158 that permitted the Caffe Nunzio Restaurant on the property; the transfer of in -lieu parking spaces from the Caffe Nunzio Restau- rant to the subject restaurant facility; and the expansion of the allowable "net public area" of the , primary restaurant use. LOCATION: Lots 12-16, Block 10, Balboa Tract, ' located at 105 Main street, on the northwesterly corner of East Ocean Front and Main street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C-1-Z APPLICANT: Balboa Improvements, Ltd., Costa Mesa ' OWNER: same as applicant Chairman Person stepped down from the dais because of a ' possible conflict of interest. The public hearing was opened in connection with this , item, and Mr. Dennis O'Neil representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. O'Neil stated that the applicant has met with the staff to work out an arrangement whereby the restaurant could , operate with outside dining on the ground floor and on the balcony utilizing 1,696 square feet of "net public area" before 3:00 p.m. and the maximum 2,773 square , feet of "net public area" after 3:00 p.m. along with a set plan of demarking the areas. Mr. O'Neil commented that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". , The public hearing was closed at this time. -56- ' COMANSNUht 7 x c o 9 9 r 9 r Z c m m W 9 a Z r 0 x ' m O m i M 2 9 y y= m L Motion 'Substitute Motion Ayes Noes x Absent x Ayes x Absent x 223 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Commissioner Goff referred to Conditions No. 4 and No. 5 regarding a minimum 3 foot wide space be required between the tables and chairs, and the railings, and the building, and he opined that the width does not leave any space for tables and chairs. Mr. O'Neil replied that the plan shows three foot wide aisles on each side of the dining areas with the tables and chairs, and that there will be room for the outside dining and maintaining the area to insure that patrons will not drop items on pedestrians on East Ocean Front. Mr. O'Neil replied to Commissioner Goff that the applicant would not object to the deletion of Conditions No. 4 and No. 5. In response to Commissioner Turner, Mr. Hewicker commented that staff does not feel that a patron should sit next to a railing where items could be dropped on pedestrians below; that the aisle would provide access between the guest rooms and the swimming pool; and there is a concern that the bridge extends over a public right-of-way. Discussion followed between Commissioner Goff and Ms. Korade regarding the City being liable for any accidents that could occur if a guest tossed items over the balcony and hit someone, and Ms. Korade explained that with the three foot wide buffer there is an argument that a dangerous condition of public property was not created. She said that there is some potential for liability with the three foot wide buffer and in order to cover the City's liability there is a hold harmless agreement required that the City would be indemnified for any liability that would incur as a result of granting the use permit. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A"(Revised). Commissioner Goff made a substitute motion to approve Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A"(Revised) excluding Conditions No. 4 and No. 5. Commissioner Goff reasoned that the conditions are unnecessary and unenforceable, and detrimental to the use being applied for. Substitute Motion voted on, MOTION DENIED. Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A"(Revised). MOTION CARRIED. -57- MINUTES 224 May 22, 1986 MINUTES 1 * m City Of FINDINGS: Beach 1. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That there will be no increase in "net public area" of restaurant uses on the site. 9. That noise from the outdoor dining area should be minimal in that no live entertainment will be permitted. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended) 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, inasmuch as the operation of the existing restau- rant use has not been detrimental to the neighbor- hood. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and revised floor plans. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3158 as approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting of July 18, 1985, shall continue to be observed. 3. That the operation of the primary restaurant shall be restricted to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily. Only 1,365 sq.ft. of "net public area" shall be utilized prior to 3:00 p.m. After 3,00 p.m., the combined "net public area" of the primary restaurant, cocktail lounge and outdoor dining areas shall not exceed 2,773 sq.ft. at one time. -58- 1 1 1 LJ i 1 1 1 1 1 1 LJ i L i 1 C�L�ly MINUTES I 1 u I E x x c o F p y 9 v m z c m> m z m a `ZNo;°° a z r 0 x m T City of z 9 Z 2 M z M a 2 m 225 May 22, 1986 Beach 4. That a minimum 3 foot wide space shall be main- tained between the edge of the bridge over the East Ocean Front sidewalk and any tables and chairs. 5. That a minimum 3 foot wide space shall be maintained between the edge of the buildings and any tables and chairs in the outdoor dining areas. 6. That all outdoor dining areas shall be clearly defined by poles and ropes, or other means to be approved by the Planning Department. 7. That no live entertainment shall be permitted. 8. That the second floor tables and chairs shall be arranged so that they will not obstruct access to rooms or stairways. 9. That twenty four (24) in -lieu parking spaces shall be purchased from the City on an annual basis for the duration of the primary restaurant use and that the annual fee for said parking shall be in accordance with Section 12.44.125 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 10. That one additional in -lieu parking space shall be purchased from the City on an annual basis should the 300 sq.ft. of hotel service use in "Suite D" revert to retail use. 11. Prior to instituting food service on the bridge over the City -owned East Ocean Front sidewalk, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City and be approved by the City Attorney that fully protects the City against any loss or damage from injuries that are in any way related to the intensification of use of the bridge. 12. That the on -site development standards as they apply to walls, landscaping, parking lot illumina- tion, a portion of the required parking and utilities, are waived. 13. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval of this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the -59- INDEX eo x Im-To m z c m r m z rn r x m z 0 O , > , City of z z a z* m 226 May 22, 1986 Beach MINUTES , 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, 14. 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 Municipal Code. ' Amendment No. 636 (Public Nearing) Item No.5 Request to amend the Planned Community Development A636 Standards for the Corona del Mar Homes Planned Commu- nity (Summer Wind) so as to allow individual property Continued , owners to use the side yard of an adjoining lot for to parking purposes, landscaping, and the construction of 7-10-86 pools and spas. , LOCATION., Lots 1-22, Block 531, and Lots 1-14, Block 631, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 500 Carnation Avenue, comprising a t portion of the block bounded by Carnation Avenue, Fourth Avenue, Dahlia Avenue and Second Avenue, in the Corona ' del Mar Homes (Summer Wind) Planned Community. P-C ' ZONE., APPLICANT: Gfeller Development Co., Ina , Tustin , OWNERS Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Philip Bettencourt, appeared before the ' Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Bettencourt described the uses permitted in the side yards, and he commented that the City has declined to issue building permits for spas that cross property lines. He stated that the private CC&R's anticipated this encroachment but the City felt that this situation should be clarified. Mr. Bettencourt opined that there t are homeowners who are anxious to have the expanded use approved; however, he pointed out that there are other homeowners who state that no structural appurtenances -60- 1 1 ' COMMISSIONERS x x ill c o = z c m i m z m x v z r 0 x O O Iv m O M> z s z s z T m LI �I C E II ICI 1 227 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach should cross property lines including spas. Mr. Bettencourt commented that the staff has advised that patio covers cannot be constructed over property lines so there are some encroachments that will have to be removed. Mr. Bettencourt asked for a continuation of this item in order that the applicant may meet with the homeowners. Mr. Bill Manrow, 516 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Manrow stated that the applicant has built or allowed to be built two illegal spas, and that another spa has been under construction adjacent to his property. He cited that one of the model homes has an illegal spa. Mr. Manrow said that the CC&R's clearly define the parking spaces and access to the front of the property, and that the CC&R's should be followed as originally stated. Mr. Jim Kirkpatrick, 517 Dahlia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that a spa has been constructed adjacent to his property, and that he does not know where the spa pipes are. Mr. Kirkpatrick asked if fences that cross property lines are permitted. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that he supports Mr. Manrow's testimony. Mr. Mike Watson, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Watson advised that he is purchasing a home in Summer Wind. Mr. Watson stated that he is opposed to spas next to the foundation of his dwelling unit and he pointed out that there are fences that are touching homes. Mr. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the subject Amendment was initiated by the Planning Department, and that staff was not aware of the objections that have come about as a result of the Amendment. He said that homeowners have requested building permits so that they would be able to construct spas similar to those spas developed by the applicant in the construction of the model homes. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that staff does not know of any illegal construction. He commented that if there are encroachments as envisioned under the CC&R's, that they should be made a part of the Planned Community Development Standards so that there would not be any question in interpretation by this staff or any future staff. Mr. Hewicker recommended that this item be continued so that staff can meet with the applicant and the homeowners to resolve the problem. MINUTES INDEX in -61- Motion Ayes Abstain Absent x 228 May 22, 1986 of Newoort Beach MINUTES ' in response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Bettencourt replied that five homes in Summer Wind , remain unsold, and that the applicant would meet with the homeowners so that all interests are protected. Mr. Manrow reappeared before the Planning Commission and said that the models are misleading, and that they have created confusion for the new homeowners. Chairman Person pointed out that would be a civil ' matter between the homeowners and the developer. Motion was made to continue Amendment No. 636 to the ' Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 1986 so as to allow the developer and the homeowners time to resolve their problems. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ' Site Plan Review No. 40 (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to construct a two story building containing SPR No.4 parking on the ground floor and storage on the second floor, on property located in the Corona del Mar Approved specific Plan Area where a specific plan has not been adopted. The proposal also includes modifications to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the buil- ding to encroach 5 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley, and to allow the use of tandem parking spaces for a portion of the required , parking spaces. LOCATION: Lots 4 and 5, Block P, Tract No. 323, located at 2855 East Coast Highway, on the southwesterly side of East Coast Highway, between Heliotrope Avenue and Goldenrod Avenue, in Corona del Mar. , ZONE: C-1 , APPLICANT: Eric D. Welton, Corona del Mar OWNER: same as applicant ' James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has submitted a document stating that he agrees with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". ' The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and there being no others desiring to appear and ' be heard,the public hearing was closed at this time. -62- 1 1 MINUTES C 0 c o F - -� z c ma 9 m> 7J y 9 9 m z r a 0 = m z S °1City ' �XM o m> m m of z s z z z m m 229 May 22, 1986 Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner ' Koppelman, William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, replied that jet skis will be stored in the storage area. Motion was made to approve Site Plan Review No. 40, tion x subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Ayes x x x x x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. sent x FINDINGS: ' 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. ' 2. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with ' the proposed development. 3. The proposed development is a high -quality pro- posal and will not adversely affect the benefits ' of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. ' 4. The proposed development does not adversely affect the public benefits derived from the expenditures of public funds for improvement and beautification ' of street and public facilities within the area. 5. The proposed development will not preclude the attainment of the specific area plan objectives stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. ' 6. The proposed development promotes the maintenance of superior site location characteristics adjoin- ing major thoroughfares of City-wide importance. ' 7. That the proposed modification to the Zoning Code to permit tandem parking spaces and a five foot encroachment into the required ten foot rear yard ' setback area will not, under the circumstances of the particular 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 the proposed modifications are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. ' -63- ROLL x x c o � i m y 9 19 oC 9 A 2 r o CA O m>oe +oi 2 9 2 ,y = 4 ml 230 May 22, 1986 of Newaort Beach MINUTES t 8, 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans# and elevations. 2. That the ground floor shall only be accessible and ' usable for vehicular storage at all times. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required ' by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to , further review by the Traffic Engineer. 5. That the displaced portions of tree -damaged , sidewalk be reconstructed along the East Coast Highway frontage under encroachment permits issued by the Public Works Department and the California ' Department of Transportation. That all work be completed prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. , A. Use Permit No. 3195 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No UP3195 Request to permit the expansion of an existing hotel located in the C-1 District. Said proposal includes: R826 a request to convert a portion of the existing ground , floor of the building into a new hotel lobby and Approved reception area and to establish the facility as a bed and breakfast hotel which will include the service of a continental breakfast and alcoholic beverages to hotel guests only. AND B. Resubdivision No. 826 (Continued Public Hearing) , Request to resubdivide two existing properties into two parcels of land# so as to establish two legal building sites in conjunction with the remodel and alterations ' of the existing Portofino Hotel. -64- , MISSIONERS 231 May 22, 1986 MINUTES I L I 1 J 1 x x c o � v A v m c z c m> m Z m A `= A N z r °; °°(City 2 a m m m T of Z 9 2 z y z T m t Beach LOCATION: Lots 3, 4 and a portion of Lots 29 and 30, Block 23, Newport Beach Tract, located at 2306 West Ocean Front, on the northerly side of West Ocean Front, between 23rd Street and 24th Street, adjacent to the Newport Pier parking lot. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: Piero Serra, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jim Skaug, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Skaug referred to Condition No. 2 of Use Permit No. 3195, regarding food or alcohol be limited to hotel guests, and he commented that the hotel guests may have clients that they will be entertaining and that the applicant is asking that there not be restrictions. Mr. Skaug referred to Condition No. 5 of Use Permit No. 3195, "this may require the restructuring of the unreinforced masonry building to resist seismic forces", and stated that Condition No. 9 of Use Permit No. 3195, allows for this and that the project's structural engineer feels that there is not any danger to the structure or integrity of the building. In reference to Condition No. 6 of Use Permit No. 3195, Mr. Skaug described the existing non -conforming encroachment, and he said that staff feels that if the French doors open onto the twelve inch wide balcony that there could be some danger to the pedestrians below on West Ocean Front. He asked for a condition that if there is a complaint regarding the open doors that the doors would be permanently closed, as opposed to modifying the design. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff regarding Condition No. 6, Mr. Webb replied that the section of the sidewalk under the subject balcony is heavily congested and that a balcony with a railing could allow an individual to drop items over the railing. He opined that windows as opposed to a standup balcony would not be a concern. Mr. Skaug advised Commissioner Goff that the reason for the French doors is for aesthetics. In response to Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Skaug described the design of the balcony. INDEX M&M MMISSK)NERS Motion G O :E m v r v C Ol9 = =, a 2 C T N O C O O A 2 = y x T M x 232 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Mr. Skaug referred to Condition No. 9 of Resubdivision No. 826, regarding the corner cutoff at the intersection of the alley, and stated that the 6 foot cutoff would create another encroachment because the building encroaches over the corner. He said that future building owners may want to level the structure on the rear property. Mr. Webb advised that wording could be included to allow the existing encroachment to remain. The intent was that the existing portion of the building would remain until demolished; however, if the building were demolished, the City would still want the easements, and a dedication. Mr. Hewicker referred to Condition No. 6 of Use Permit No. 3195, and advised that Condition No. 9 of said use permit allows the Planning Commission to call up the use permit if there would be a violation of the use permit. Ms. Korade recommended that a hold harmless clause be added in the event of potential liability problems. In reference to Condition No. 2 of Use Permit No. 3195, Mr. Hewicker recommended that the condition could be amended to allow for the hotel guests and their invitees. He said that the intent was that there would be no food service that caters to people coming in off the street. Mr. Skaug commented that the hotel may also host service groups or charity events. In response to Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Skaug replied that the hotel does have a small kitchen. In reference to Condition No. 51 Mr. Hewicker explained that Condition No. 9 to add or modify conditions to a use permit does not relate to Condition No. 5 of Use Permit No. 3195. After further discussion Mr. Hewicker stated that the condition is a requirement of the Building Department and that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive the Building Code. The public hearing was closed in connection with this item. Motion Was made to approve Use Permit No. 3195 and Resubdivision No. 826 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including the following revisions to the conditions for Use Permit No. 3195: modified Condition No. 2 that would state "limited to hotels guests and invitees"; Condition No. 5 that would MINUTES ' n I 1 U 1 I J 1 1 1 -66- I MINUTES H 7 N C o c m z "Im z 0 A `ZN°;°° 9 Z r C) Z City A m 0 m a T of 2 9 2 y= T III Res Absent x 233 May 22, 1986 t Beach delete "this may require the restructuring of the unreinforced masonry building to resist seismic forces"; and Condition No. 6 would include a "hold harmless" clause. In response to Commissioner Goff, Mr. Newicker advised that the deletion of the sentence in Condition No. 5 does not change the Building Code requirement. Commissioner Kurlander referred to Condition No. 4 of Resubdivision No. 826, and recommended "that the current encroachment is acceptable until such time as the building is demolished" be added. Mr. Webb agreed to the recommendation and Commissioner Turner accepted the amendment to the motion. Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3195 and Resubdivision No. 826 subject to the findings and conditions, including amended Use Permit Conditions No. 2, No. 5, No. 6 and Resubdivision Condition No. 4. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3195 FINDINGS: 1. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that it does not contemplate any problems. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3195 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental 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 development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevation except as may be noted below. INDEX -67- x x Co z c m > m C z V O x 0 W m O m> ro Z 9 z M Z ro ROLL 234 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach 2. That the service of any food products or alcoholic beverages shall be limited to hotel guests and invitees only. 3. That the appropriate license be secured from the State Alcoholic Beverage Commission for the on -site consumption of alcoholic beverages. 4. That the hotel employees shall park in the on -site parking area (Parcel No. 1 of Resubdivision No. 826). 5. That the project shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code and all local amendments. 6. Prior to allowing the proposed French doors located on the second floor of the hotel that encroach over the West Ocean Front right-of-way to open, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City and be approved by the City Attorney that fully protects the City against any loss or damage from injuries that are in any way related to said openings on the balconies. 7, That no more than 16 hotel rooms shall be permit- ted unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. B. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 826 be fulfilled. 9. 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. 10. 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. MINUTES ' I I r I G I F -68- I MINUTES J I I I I I, I I 11 I 7; x ... c o x m 2 C m > m Z A A Z r G) S C Z 0 o r O O 9 m O m> m m 2 9 = y 2 m m Of Resubdivision No. 821 FINDINGS: 235 May 22, 1986 Beach 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. reGl"Lil fig7iiljzc 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That an encroachment permit be obtained for existing and proposed encroachments into and over the West Ocean Front right-of-way and the alley right-of-way. The encroachment permit shall require City Council approval. 4. That a 6-foot by 6-foot corner cutoff at the intersection of the alley northerly of and paral- lel to West Ocean Front and the alley westerly of and parallel to 23rd Street be dedicated to the City. The existing encroachment may remain until such time as the building is demolished. 5. That a structural evaluation by a structural engineer be performed on the existing structure located over the public alley and that the struc- ture be repaired and upgraded in conformance with the recommendations of the structural engineer and to the satisfaction of the Building Department; that the spalling concrete, stucco and other surface material on the building adjacent to and above the alley be repaired to the satisfaction of INDEX 1 Si=15 Motion s x C O = f v A v m ms z b m o xrnx�City m z r { 0� : s z s z m m 236 May 22, 1986 t Beach MINUTES I INDEX I the Building Department and Public Works Depart- ' menu and that the existing piping (water, sewer, etc.) over the existing alley be brought up to Code. Use Permit No. 3202 (Public Hearing) Item No.1 Request to permit the establishment of an automotive repair facility on property located in Area 2 of the North Ford Planned Community. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 45-39 (Resubdivision No. 357), located at 1071 Camelback back Street, on the westerly side of Camelback Street, between Jamboree Road and Bison Avenue ' in the North Ford Planned Community. ZONE; P-C APPLICANT; Mark Redfield, Irvine OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach I , The public hearing was opened in connection with this Item, and Mr. Mark Redfield, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Redfield stated that he ' concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A„ 1 In response to questions posed by Commissioner Goff regarding the maintenance of The Irvine Company and public vehicles, Mr. Redfield replied that he will be servicing a portion of The Irvine Company vehicles, and that he will be able to maintain his business with three employees. In response to Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Redfield commented that he proposed to install an ' identification sign on Camelback Street. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3202, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Commissioner Goff asked that Condition No. 9 be added stating that the operating hours be from 800 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. , -70 1 237 May 22, 1986 MINUTES I 1 1 I 11: s ent 1 r 1 1 1 1, x x c o C m> 2 z m m M `Z 9 N z r M i ° 2 °City A m o m> of z z z a z M M Ix Beach Mr. Redfield reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he would prefer 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that the letter previously submitted by the applicant was erroneous. Commissioner Goff said that he based the operating hours on the fact that the business is adjacent to a residential area. Discussion followed regarding the proximity of the auto repair facility to the residential area. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3202, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including added Condition No. 9 that the business operating hours be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. The proposed off-street parking will be adequate to serve the automobile repair facility. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3202 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental to he 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. 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from Camelback Street. INDEX 1 i 111 lilt -71_ 238 MMISSIUNERS May 22, 1986 MINUTES r it x n c o = y y "1 b m A m o°> T o City of z a x x z T m Newport Beach_ 3. That all repair and service activities shall be located inside the building. ' 4. No vehicle waiting for service shall be parked outside of the building for a period longer than twenty-four hours unless it is in the process of ' being serviced. No vehicle shall be considered to be in the process of being serviced for a period longer than one (1) week. 5. That all signs shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. ' 6. That a minimum of fifteen (15) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the subject automobile repair facility. 7. That the Planning Commission may 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. S. 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. 9. That the business hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Use Permit No. 3203 (Public Hearing) Item No.& Request to permit the installation of 8 to 10 food UP3203 E carts within the open courtyards adjacent to Robin- son's, Bullock's Wilshire, and Neiman Marcus, located A rove in the Fashion Island Shopping Center. LOCATION: Portions of Tract No. 6015, located in the interior courtyards of the Fashion Island Regional Shopping Center in Newport Center. COMMISSIONERS x x c o m Z a Z r 2 C 2 O 0 i 0 0 CI z m m> T T 0 I l z v z x z T m tion s sent x I Of 239 May 22, 1986 Beach ZONE: C-0-H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3203, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. That adequate off-street parking in the Fashion Island parking lot is being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 4. That the Police Department has no objections to the establishment of the proposed food carts. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3203 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. MINUTES CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan. 2. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapters 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 3. That no trailers or oversized vehicles used for transport of the food carts shall occupy parking spaces in the Fashion Island parking lot any -73- INDEX )IONERS 240 May 22, 1986 MINUTES C co 0 � x v v m C W 9 A= r O x c z y d r 0 0 70 10 M > T r z x z a z r m of Newport Beach longer than is necessary for the loading or unloading of the food carts. 4. That the food carts shall not be stored on public streets. 5. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold from the food carts. 6. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations in proximity to the food carts. 7. That all trash, including compact trash bags and recyclable containers, shall be stored within a screened area until It is to be picked up. 8. That the outdoor malls shall be kept clean and shall be swept, vacuumed or washed in such a manner that any debris or waste water does not enter the storm drain system. be 9. That a minimum 10 foot clear space shall maintained between the individual carts and the carts and any building. 10. That the food carts shall not block entrances or exits of any building. 11. That twenty (20) parking spaces shall be provided in the Fashion island parking lot for the food cart use. 12. That the number of outdoor food carts on the site shall not exceed ten (10). 13. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval of 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. 14. 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. -74- ' 241 May 22, 1986 MINUTES I n I I I I I I I 7 x c o E y 9 9 m 2 C m> m z ////++++ C 2 N p; 0 0 a m o m> M m z= z :oz M m Of Beach Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of the private club known as "Tiffany's Astrological Club" with on -sale alcoholic beverages and dancing. The proposed amendment includes a request to approve an off -site parking agreement so as to allow a portion of the required off-street parking to be located in the City Hall employee parking lot. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow tandem parking for a portion of the on -site parking spaces and the use of a valet parking service. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 60-43 (Resubdivision No. 433), located at 3388'Via Lido, on the northeasterly side of Via Lido between Via Oporto and Via Malaga, adjacent to Lido Marina Village. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: Tiffany's Astrological Club, Newport Beach I I I I I I I I OWNER: Traweek Investment Fund #12, Ltd., Marina del Rey ttion Ayes sent x I I I I Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) to the Planning Commission meeting of June 5, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment -of the Bubbles Balboa Club with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertain- ment. The proposed amendment includes: a request to enclose an existing outdoor dining area; a request to enclose a second floor deck with a greenhouse enclo- sure, to be used for office purposes; a request to expand the hours of operation of the restaurant so as to include the service of lunch, Monday through Satur- day and to extend the closing hour to 1:00 a.m. daily; a request to permit the use of an off -site parking location for a portion of the required parking spaces INDEX Item No.10 Continued to Continued to 6-19-86 -75- COMMISSIONERS , 242 May 22, 1986 MINUTES c o y 9 x v m r v z c m Z m z 21 w m o m > ° City of Newport Beach z a z s z* m ROLL CALL INDEX at the southwesterly corner of East Bay Avenue and Washington Streets and modifications to the Zoning Code so to allow a portion of the off -site parking spaces to encroach into the 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley and the establishment of a full time valet parking service for the restaurant. ' LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 189-17, 1B (Resubdivision No. 713),, located at ' 109-111 Palm Street, on the southwesterly corner of Palm Street and East Balboa Boulevard (restaurant site), and Lot 7, Block 7, Balboa Tract (off -site parking lot), in Central Balboa. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: Bubbles Balboa Club, Ltd., Balboa OWNER: Same as applicant Motion x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 2045 Ayes x x x x x x (Amended) to the Planning Commission meeting of June Absent x 19, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Exception Permit No. 20 (Discussion) Item No. Request to permit the installation of a pole sign on a EPEP N parcel with less than 50 feet of street frontage on property located in the Newport Shores Specific Plan Approved Area. LOCATION: A portion of Lots 12, 13 and 14, , Block 3, Seashore Colony Tract, located at 6306 West Coast Highway, on the northeasterly side of West Coast Highway, between Cedar Street and Prospect Street, in the Newport Shores Specific Plan Area. ZONE: Sp-4 APPLICANT: George Stevens, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant -76- 243 MINUTES 1 I ,ttion substitute i tion es es Absent es sent x � c o 0 r v z c m y m z W A= r O S C z O i 0 0 0 m Z T T X M M Ix May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Mr. George Stevens, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Stevens replied that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B", which would permit the pole sign. Commissioner Turner commented that he agrees with staff that the alley may be too narrow to accommodate the pole sign. Motion was made to approve Exception Permit No. 20, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", allowing the installation of a roof sign. Substitute motion was made to approve Exception Permit °Jo. 20, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B". Motion voted on, MOTION DENIED. Motion voted on to approve Exception Permit No. 20, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of this exception permit is necessary to protect a substantial property right. 2. That the proposed roof sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Newport Beach Sign Ordinance. 3. That the sign is similar in nature to other signs in the neighborhood. 4. That the location and characteristics of the building preclude the use of a pole sign, ground sign or projecting sign at this location. 5. That a roof sign at this location will not ob- struct vehicular circulation in the alley, whereas a pole sign could impede the traffic. 6. That the proposed advertising roof sign will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. INDEX mrc C O 9 10 r b zC m yM a m O m > z a z z z a I ROLL itv of 244 May 22, 1986 Beach CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed sign shall be in substantial conformance with the approved elevation except as noted below. 2. That the sign shall be mounted on the roof, and shall not exceed an area of 80 sq.ft. per face. 3. That the distance between the roof and the top of the sign shall not exceed the distance between the top of the roof and the grade below. 4. That any projection of the sign over public property shall meet the requirements of Section 20.06.070,B#3 of the Municipal Code. ADJOURNMENT: 1:22 a.m. PAT EICHENHOPER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r -78- 245 I ' Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1986 Agenda Item No. 6 ICITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) (Public Hearing) Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circulation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of ' the Newport Beach General Plan, so as to allow construction of an additional 1,275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, 248,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to delete the Avocado -MacArthur one -way -couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major arterial roadway, and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No: 9 (Public Hearing Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, 1 Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, and PCH/Jamboree sites. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach ISuggested Action Hold hearing; if desired, give direction to or request additional information from staff, and continue to May 8, 1986. Background On February 25, 1985, the City Council concurred with a recommendation of the 'Planning Commission and initiated General Plan Amendment 85=1(B) for Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. On March 20, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of receiving the formal presentation by The Irvine Company of the proposed project, and to allow members of the public to identify particular issues of interest. At the conclusion of testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing, with the direction to r 246 TO: Planning Commission - 2. I staff that the subsequent public hearing not be advertised and set until receipt of all environmental documents. Project Description - The proposed General Plan Amendment involves eight sites within , Newport Center, three sites on the periphery of Newport Center and a component of the Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan Amendment involves one site in Newport Center and two peripheral sites. The components of the project and the specific amendments to the General Plan are listed below: Specific Sites 1. Fashion Island: Increase the allowed development in Fashion Island by 128,000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to the , 66,000 sq.ft. transferred to the site from Newport Village and Civic Plaza, and will bring the total development in Fashion island to 11369,250 sq.ft. New development will be a mix of commercial retail and restaurant uses. No change in the land use designation is necessary. 2. Block 600: Increase the allowed development in Block 600 by 300,000 sq.ft. of office. This development is in addition to the existing 800,000 sq.ft. of office and the 325 room hotel current- ly under construction, and will bring the total office develop- ment in the block to 1#100,000 sq.ft. No change in the land use designation is necessary. 3. Civic Plaza: Increase the allowed development in Civic Plaza by 50,000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to the 14,000 sq.ft. of additional institutional use allowed by the General Plan, and will bring the total development in Civic Plaza to 332,706 sq.ft. of office and institutional uses. 1,350 theatre seats will be deleted from Civic Plaza. New development will be a mixture of office and institutional uses. No change in land use designations are necessary. 4. Block 700/800: Increase the allowed development in Block 800 by 440#000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to the 9,500 sa.ft. recently approved for Pacific Mutual (Block 700), and will bring the total development it: Block 700/800 to 991,900 sq.ft. of office and restaurant use. 245 residential dwelling units will be deleted from Block 800. New development will be office uses. A change in land use designation from "Multi -Family Residential" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" for a portion of Block 800 is necessary. 5. PCH/Jamboree: Increase the allowed development by 130 residen- tial dwelling units. The project will form an extension of the previously approved Villa Point project (154 du's). An unde- termined amount of office and related uses will be deleted from PCH/Jamboree. A change in land use designation from I 247 TO: Planning Commission - 3. ' "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi -Family ' Residential" is necessary for both the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. 6. Corporate Plaza West: Increase the allowed development in Corporate Plaza West by 100,000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to 8,400 sq.ft. of additional floor area currently allowed in the General Plan, and will bring the total development in Corporate Plaza West to 123,400 sq.ft. New development will be office uses. A change in land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" with alternate use of "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" is necessary. 7. Newport Village: Increase the allowed development in Newport Village by 345,000 sq.ft, of office and 59,250 sq.ft. of commer- cial retail. This development is in addition to 750 sq.ft. of commercial currently allocated to the site, and will bring the total development in Newport Village to 405,000 sq.ft. 360 residential dwelling units will be deleted. New development will be in office, retail and restaurant uses. A change in land use designation from "Multi -Family Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Finan- cial Commercial" and "Retail and Service Commercial" is neces- sary. Deletion of the neighborhood park designation from the Recreation and Open Space Element is also required. S. Avocado/MacArthur: Increase the allowed development in Avoca- do/MacArthur by 44,000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to a transit terminal currently planned for the site. New develop- ment will be office and transit facility uses. A change in land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and 1 "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" is necessary. 9. Big Canyon/MacArthur: increase the allowed development in Big Canyon/MacArthur by 80 residential dwelling units. A change in land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Multi -Family Residential" is necessary. 10. Bayview Landing: Increase the allowed development in Bayview Landing by 60,000 sq.ft. 76 (alternate use) residential dwelling units will be deleted. New development will be predominantly restaurant with some retail commercial possible. A change in land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" on the upper portion and "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with alternate "Low Density Residential" on the lower portion to "Retail and Service Commercial" is necessary. The Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan designation of a mixture of "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" and "Retail and Service Commercial" must also be changed to "Retail and Service Commercial . " 248 To: Planning Commission - 4. 11. Newporter North: Increase the allowed development on Newporter North by 278 residential dwelling units. This development is in addition to 212 du's currently allocated to the site, and will ' bring the total development to 490 du's. A change in land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential" is necessary for both the General Plan and Local ' Coastal Program. Circulation System ° Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard One -Way Couplet: Delete the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard One -Way Couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial Roadway (6 lanes, divid- ed). Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses Newport Center is a major regional commercial center bounded by Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach. The center is currently developed with a wide variety of uses, including high-rise and garden office, region- al and local support retail commercial, hotel, governmental and institutional, recreation and open space and residential uses. There are approximately 78.5 vacant acres in Newport Center. This estimate of vacant acres does not include the Newport Beach Country Club, which is 128.5 acres. The three peripheral sites are all vacant. The project area is easterly of Upper Newport Bay. Developments on the westerly side of the project include the Newport Dunes, the Newporter Resort, and the Park Newport Apartments. To the north of the project is the Big Canyon Planned Community. Easterly of the project are residential developments including the Baywood Apartments, Harbor View Homes, Harbor Point, and Harbor View Hills. Irvine Terrace and Corona del Mar are southerly of the project site. Environmental Significance An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy K-3. Based upon information contained in the environmental document, the project will result in significant impacts in the areas of land use, aesthetics, transportation and circulation, air quality, energy, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. A copy of the draft Environmental Impact Report has been previously distributed to the Planning Commission, and it is requested that the document be brought to the public hearing. As required by the State CEQA Guidelines, the draft Environmental Impact Report has been circulated to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) and State and regional agencies. Copies of the document are available for review by members of the public at the City Planning department and all City libraries. 249 TO: Planning Commission - 5. ' Additionally, a copy of the draft EIR may be obtained by any interest- ed person from the Planning Department. Discussion The buildout of Newport Center has been an issue of on -going concern to the City of Newport Beach since 1977, with the adoption of Resolu- tion 9009. Resolution 9009 was the first action taken on the part of the City to limit development in Newport Center on a comprehensive basis. In 1978, the City adopted General Plan Amendment 78-2, which reduced the allocations provided for in Resolution 9009 by 549,600 sq.ft. of office, 51,000 sq.ft. of commercial, and 12,000 sq.ft. of institutional. GPA 79-1 further reduced development limits by 763,744 sq.ft. of office and 650 theater seats. GPA 79-1 added 166 residential dwelling units to Newport Center. General Plan Amendment 80-3 was the first comprehensive proposal made by The Irvine Company for Newport Center. As approved, GPA 80-3 would have increased office development by 713,750 sq.ft. and hotel development by 465 hotel rooms. Commercial development would have been reduced by 38,750 sq.ft. Residential development remained approximately the same, but was allocated in a different manner: 589 units plus 225,000 sq.ft. GPA 80-3 was rescinded by the City Council at the request of The Irvine Company in 1982. Since 1982, there have been a number of general plan amendments for individual sites. GPA 81-3 increased allowed hotel development on the Marriott Hotel site by 234 rooms to a total 611 hotel rooms. GPA 81-2 increased allowed 'of office development in Block 400 (Rhodes) by 80,000 sq.ft. to 380,000 sq.ft. GPA 82-2(A) added 325 hotel rooms to Block 600 allowing construction of the Four Seasons Hotel. These three amendments were all processed in response to development ' proposals from the private sector. As part of the Housing Element implementation program, the City processed General Plan Amendment 83-1(E), which added 428 residential 1 units to Newport Center. This amendment established a program of incentives to development of affordable housing units. Two subsequent amendments made small changes in Newport Center devel- opment limits. GPA 83-2(C) (Villa Point) reduced residential develop- ment by 24 units and GPA 85-3 increased allowed office development in Block 700-Pacific Mutual, by 9,500 sq.ft. It is evident from this chronology that, since the approval of GPA 80-3 was rescinded, "components" of a Newport Center buildout program tend to be processed on an individual site development basis. This is not the -most desirable way to address this project from the City's viewpoint, since it does not allow for land use patterns, land use intensity, and development effects to be evaluated on a comprehensive basis. Comprehensive planning allows for analysis and project re- quirements and mitigation measures commensurate with the cumulative effects engendered from the project approved. With this fact in mind, u 250 To: Planning Commission - 6. the City Council and City staff have worked with The Irvine Company to , bring a buildout plan for Newport Center back before the City. Analysis The proposed project is extremely complex, involving eleven develop - rent site proposals and a major component of the circulation system. Additionally, the environmental document included discussion of virtually every other site within Newport Center, seven other sites within the City owned by The Irvine Company, and seven other compo- nents of the local and regional circulation system in order to give the staff, Planning Commission and City Council the greatest ability to discuss, analyze and mitigate the project under consideration. in order to keep the staff report as concise and readable as possible, restatement of the EIR analysis has been minimized. Cross-references will be provided when necessary. Analysis will be in the areas of land use, recreation, housing, cultural resources, transporta- ' tion/circulation, noise, public services, fiscal, and phasing. Recommendations will be in two areas: 1) land use, intensity and land use phasing; and 2) transportation/circulation improvements and phasing. Land Use in reviewing the proposed General Plan Amendment from a land use standpoint, staff has four primary objectives: 1. Land use compatibility 2. Land use intensity compatibility 3. No residential reductions 4. No floating or transfer residential units. The discussion of land use will address Newport Center generally, then each site individually. 1 Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. Newport Center and the peripher- al sites lie in a developed urban environment. Both within and surrounding the project areas, the land uses are mixed and include virtually all of the land uses included in the project proposal, as well as development intensities of a similar nature. The Irvine Company proposal is generally in keeping with the land use patterns established in the original concept plan for Newport Center. Not only is commercial and office development proposed in areas already used in a similar manner, but intensity and style patterns (high rise, garden) have been maintained. The proposed project is, therefore, compatible with existing land use patterns. The project proposal is not, however, consistent with the long stand- ing effort on the part of the City to maintain and increase the planned housing stock, both in Newport Center and on a city-wide basis. The concern over the housing stock stems from two basic policy areas: 1) compliance with State planning law and the programs and policies of the City's Housing Element} and 2) the circulation system "balancing" effects resulting from mixed use developments, since 251 TO: Planning Commission - 7. residential and commercial uses generally have opposite directionality characteristics. The proposed project in Newport Center, if approved, would increase commercial/office development by 1,466,250 square feet and reduce residential development by 490 dwelling units. Including the peripheral sites, commercial/office development would increase by 1,526,250 square feet and decrease residential development by 122 dwelling units. it should be noted that the decrease in residential units assumes maintenance of the 145 transfer units in Newport Center which are not likely to be constructed in this development scenario. In terms of intensity of development, the project proposal fits generally within intensity limits within the City and prior actions of ' the Planning Commission. When calculated for commercial sites only and for commercial and residential sites combined, the Floor Area Ratio permitted by the existing General Plan is 0.41 FAR, and as proposed in GPA 85-1(B)is 0.47 FAR. when the land area occupied by the recreation uses are included, the Floor Area Ratios reduce to 0.30 FAR existing and 0.35 FAR proposed. These compare to the two other major commercial Planned Communities: Newport Place = 0.39 FAR ' permitted; Koll Center Newport = 0.525 FAR. The older commercial Drive areas allow significantly higher intensity ranges: Campus at 0.5; Mariners' Mile and Cannery Village at 1.0; and other older commercial areas at 2.0 or 3.0 FAR. Fashion Island. Proposed is expansion of existing regional retail 1 uses; the project is consistent with established land uses. Block 600. The proposed high-rise office tower is similar in size to the three existing office towers in Block 600. Office uses are considered compatible with the hotel use which is under construction in the block. Civic Plaza Expansion. The proposed site development area is adjacent to the existing library and art museum sites and the Civic Plaza office area. The proposal to allow an additional 50,000 square feet of institutional or office use is compatible with these uses. The additional square footage requested would allow structures of a scale similar to those which exist in the area. It is currently anticipated that most, if not all, of the additional development requested will be for museum and library expansion. Block 800. The proposed project would allow construction of an additional 440,000 square feet of office use in Block 800. Block 800 is currently developed with two eight -story office buildings and a restaurant. The proposed land use is considered compatible. The developed portion of Block 800 has a Floor Area Ratio of 0.55 FAR. If 1Assumes 15 sq.ft. per theater seat, 1000 sq.ft. per hotel room. Existing General Plan residential calculated at 1200 sq.ft. per du; proposed at 1500 sq.ft. per du. i 11 252 TO: Planning Commission - 8. approved as requested, the vacant portion of Block 800 would be developed at a 1.55 FAR with the overall FAR of Block 800 increasing to 0.92 FAR. The intensity proposed in Block 800 is significantly higher then that which exists in the area. PCH/Jamboree. The project site lies in the corner of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road between the existing Sea Island residential develop- ment and the approved Villa Point apartments. The additional 130 apartments are expected to be a continuation of Villa Point. The use ■ is considered compatible with surrounding land use, and the major arterial location, since multi -family development can easily be mitigated for noise effects. As found for the Villa Point project, the residential density is considered compatible with the areal ' considering the site location between Coast Highway and the Newport Beach Country Club. Corporate Plaza West. Proposed is an office development of 100,000 square feet which will be added to the existing allocation of 81400 square feet. New development will be similar in nature to the Carver office building recently completed on the site as well as Corporate Plaza (East) across Newport Center Drive. Development intensity of the two projects is also similar with Corporate Plaza West requested to be 0.27 FAR, and Corporate Plaza (East) allowed at 0.21 FAR. Newport Village. The office and retail commercial project requested is proposed to be an extension of the existing Corporate Plaza devel- opment, but at a slightly higher floor area ratio (.28 FAR). The proposed land use is compatible with uses in the area, but will require design measures to avoid aesthetic (signage, parking lot lighting) impacts to residential uses across MacArthur Boulevard. Avocado/MacArthur. The 44,000 square feet of office requested will result in "garden" style offices similar to the Newport Village proposal, and is at the same floor area ratio. immediately across Avocado Avenue from the site is Block 400 which has an allowed floor area ratio of 0.55 FAR. Some design controls will be needed here as well to avoid impacts on residential uses across MacArthur Boulevard. The transit terminal proposed does not involve any significant struc- tural intensity and is for use as a daytime transfer area. No storage or routine maintenance of OCTD vehicles will occur on the site. Land uses proposed are compatible, Big Canyon/MacArthur. Eighty apartment units are proposed for the northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, forming an extension of the existing Big Canyon apartments along San Joaquin Hills Road. The use is compatible with other residential uses in the Big Canyon Planned Community. Bayview Landing. A restaurant complex is proposed for this site totalling 60,000 square feet. The location immediately adjacent to the Newport Dunes aquatic park and near the Newporter Resort is appropriate for visitor -related commercial uses. Site constraints, including roadway improvements, coastal bluffs and public view oppor- tunities, may limit the intensity of development the site can support. 71 L 253 ' TO: Planning Commission - 9. Newporter North. The residential project proposed (490 du's) is similar in nature and density to other bluff -top developments sur- rounding Upper Newport Bay. in fact, virtually all of the existing development surrounding the Upper Bay is residential in the medium or multi -family density ranges. The Park Newport project immediately north of the site is 24.5 du's per acre. Depending on the amount of ' the site approved for development, the units proposed could result in densities ranging from 7.5 to 25 du's per acre. Cultural resource constraints on the site are discussed in a subsequent section of this report. Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet. The primary land use ' issue associated with the Avocado/MacArthur Couplet is one of site planning. The one-way couplet "isolates" the land in between the roadways, requiring additional ingress/egress points and more land used for road facilities. Reversion to a two-way MacArthur Boulevard with Avocado Avenue a secondary two-way facility will allow for more flexible site planning and broaden the uses to which the intervening land can be put. Amending the Master Plan of Streets and Highways to delete the couplet is compatible with existing land uses and would reflect the existing character of MacArthur Boulevard with an in- creased number of lanes. Noise impacts associated with this change are addressed in a subsequent section of this report. Recreation and Open Space ' The Master Plan of Parks currently designates two neighborhood parks within the project area: one on Newport Village of approximately 4 acres to serve residents and business communities; and one on Newporter North for public view and neighborhood recreation. The request to change the Newport Village site from residential to commer- cial/office would also remove the neighborhood park designation. The development requested on the Newporter North site would require 5.5 acres of park dedication and/or fees. The project would, therefore, enable implementation of the Master Plan of Parks at the time of I development. The PCH-Jamboree and PCH-Frontage (Villa Point) area has no designated master plan park. The open space designation on the Big Can- yon/MacArthur site was originally for freeway reservation and later a roadway reservation for the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet. Both of these sites are in areas which are able to utilize park credits established at the time of dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon. The approved Villa Point and the Big Canyon Villas projects will also use these credits. The accounting for Mouth of Big Canyon Park Credits is as follows: I I F LJ 254 TO: Planning Commission - 10. 1 Credits Established 5.0 Acres Big Canyon Villas 0.9 acres remainder 4.1 acres Villa Point 1.7 acres remainder 2.4 acres proposed Big Canyon MacArthur .9 acres , remainder 1.5 acres proposed PCH/Jamboree 1.5 acres , remainder 0.0 Currently 145 floating units are allocated in Newport Center as a t result of mandatory residential transfers from the Eastbluff Remnant (24 du's) and Westbay (141 du's). As indicated in the land use discussion, it is an objective of this amendment to eliminate any floating units in Newport Center. Whether considered a deletion of units or as an allocation to one of the residential proposals, the net result is to finalize the elimination of development rights on Eastbluff Remnant and to significantly reduce development on Westbay. The County of Orange is currently pursuing acquisition of the Westbay site for a regional park. City staff has been working with County staff and The Irvine Company to establish a mechanism to implement the park. The expansion of Newport Center is a significant project on a regional scale and can be considered to increase demand for regional ' park facilities. As such, consideration should be given to elimina- tion of the remaining 40 residential units on the Westbay site and require dedication of the developable area for regional park purposes. Housing Housing Element Policies. The Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element, as amended in June of 1984, contains various policies which apply to the mixed residential and commercial project proposed. Housing Element Objective IV is "To encourage, wherever feasible, mixed -use development that achieves a balance between residential and appropriate commercial/industrial activities." In addition, the implementation plan for objective IV indicates that "In major projects involving commercial and industrial uses, the City shall encourage, wherever feasible, the development of housing that is geared to the affordability range of the projected labor force." Housing Element Objective V is "To achieve an appropriate balance between employment and housing." The implementation plan for Objec- tive V indicates that the City will prepare a housing impact analysis on proposed major commercial and industrial projects. Housing Element Objective VI is "To encourage the housing development industry to respond to the housing needs of the community as well as 7 V 255 TO: Planning Commission - 11. the demand for housing as perceived by the industry." The implementa- tion plan for objective VI indicates that in projects assisted with mortgage revenue bond financing and where development incentives are granted by the City, that the developer should provide between 20% and 30% of the total project as affordable units. The 20% at County ' low-income level corresponds to the County mortgage revenue bond requirement. The additional 10% at "City very -low income" is required only where development incentives are granted. Consistent with Housing Element Objective V, a detailed housing impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Nattelson, Levander, Whitney Inc. on March 28, 1986. This housing impact analysis is Appendix C to the ' Environmental Impact Report on the proposed project. EIR Housing Discussion. The housing impacts of the proposed project are also discussed in detail in the housing section of the Environ- mental Impact Report prepared by Sanchez Talarico Associates. This discussion is on pages '217 through 242 in Volume I. The Nattelson, Levander, Whitney report and the Environmental Impact Report discuss the housing impacts of the proposed project in the context of region- al, subregional and localized impacts. The reports analyze the income levels and commuting patterns of existing Newport Center employees in an attempt to project future demand for housing at different income levels generated by the proposed commercial development being con- sidered in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). The proposed development is estimated to generate 5,859 employees. Based on an average of 1.5 workers per household (which is documented in the Nattelson, Levander, Whitney report) these 5,859 additional employees would generate demand for 3,906 additional housing units on a regional basis. Following is the estimated demand generated by income group (based on County median income): Very Low (0-50%) 733 ' Low (50-80%) 688 Median (80-100%) 589 Moderate (100-120%) 440 Middle (120-150%) 443 Upper (150% plus) 1,014 Total 3,907 ' The EIR concludes that because of the City's existing policies and requirements regarding affordable housing and the City's efforts to meet the regional demand as reflected in the Southern California Association of Government's Regional Housing Allocation Model, that no additional mitigation measures with respect to affordable housing are necessary and that there are no significant housing impacts related to the project. Regional Housing Allocation Model (SCAG). SCAG attempts to forecast both employment and housing for the SCAG region as reflected in the SCAG Growth Forecast. in addition, through the Regional Housing Allocation Model, SCAG attempts to balance employment and housing ' within the SCAG region. The employment -housing balance concept is extended to the subregional level, but not the individual city level 256 T0: Planning Commission - 12. in the RHAM. The subregion in which we are located, includes our community as well as the cities of Irvine, Laguna Beach, and other cities and unincorporated areas south to San Clemente. Although there is not very much vacant residential land within the City of Newport Beach, there are substantial amounts of vacant residential land in the other communities within our subregion. Periodically, the Regional Housing Allocation Model and the SCAG Growth Forecast is updated to reflect increases in commercial and office development and measure the increased demand for housing within the subregions and the region. The next update to the RHAM will occur in 1989. SLAG has also pre- pared a draft Regional Housing Element (September 1985) which discuss- es issues regarding regional housing and proposes policies for the region. Included in the 1985 draft SLAG Regional Housing Element are policies regarding "Jobs/Housing Balance." In this document, SCAG proposes policies which would encourage communities with a jobs/employment imbalance to move towards more balance, whether they be jobs rich or housing rich. In November of 1985, the City responded , to these proposed SCAG policies indicating that the concept of jobs/housing balance is more reasonably applied at the aubregional and regional level than it is on an individual community basis. Cultural Resources Paleontological Resources. As indicated in the Environmental Impact Report, Newport Beach is an area where paleontological resources (plant and animal fossils) are known to exist. Any or all of the subject sites could contain these resources. The City has standard policies and requirements which enable these fossils to be recovered at the time of discovery during development. The presence of , paleontological resources is not considered a constraint to develop- ment. Archeological Resources. As indicated in the Environmental Impact , Report, five sites being considered for development have identified archaeological resources: Block 800, PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village, Bayview Landing, and Newporter North. As for paleontological re- , sources, the presence of archaeological resources on a site is not generally considered a constraint for development. standard City policies and requirements require salvage of a site prior to commence- ment of grading, if it will be destroyed by the proposed development. , Standard resource recovery requirements are considered adequate and appropriate mitigation for the Block 800, PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village, and Bayview Landing sites. Newporter North, however, requires some special consideration. y Newporter North site is located westerly of Jamboree Road between John Wayne Gulch and San Joaquin Hills Road. There are five archaeological sites identified within the project boundaries, covering approximately 20-25 acres. Of the five sites, CA-Ora-51, -52, -100, and -518 are of a nature that standard resource recovery requirements are appropriate. One site, CA-Ora-64, is a unique site for which a mitigation program requires careful design and implementation. Ora-64 is approximately 20 acres in size. In 1977, a test level investigation was conducted by Archaeological Research Incorporated to determine the extent and r 257 ' TO: Planning Commission - 13. resource value of the site. This investigation confirmed that the site is of significant value. The site contains artifacts from more than one cultural tradition indicating occupancy by man for a longer period of time than is generally the case in Orange County. The size and quality of this site makes it an important regional resource. ' Mitigation measures for preservation, partial preservation and salvage have been presented in the draft EIR. Ultimately, whether the site is preserved or developed, adequate mitigation can be required. The basic decision to be made is whether the site should be salvaged now or later. it is the understanding of staff that the professional archaeological community generally favors preservation of this site, primarily because of the belief that archaeological science will ' become more refined and better able to garner knowledge from the site in the future. However, there are some additional practical consid- eration which may affect the decision of the Planning Commission. If ' the salvage and development option is chosen, residential development will be able to proceed on the entire site, allowing less clustering of the requested development or perhaps an increase in dwelling units from the requested 490 du's. Salvage will also delay at least a portion of the development since it will require at least three years or more to complete. One additional consideration is the cost of salvage. Resource recovery of this magnitude is very costly. The ' size and nature of the Newport Center request is such that the costs of the program could reasonably be required of the developer. As previously discussed in the land use section, the timing of res- idential development is an important component of the Newport Center GPA. In the past, the City has traditionally tried to require res- idential development to proceed before or concurrent with large I commercial and office projects. Archeological mitigation will defer development of a portion of the site either for the term of resource recovery or indefinitely if preservation is required. ' Transportation and Circulation ' A key area of analysis for any development is the impact the project has on the roadway system. Traffic impacts are a major area of concern to the community, decision makers, and staff. in order to provide the best and most complete traffic information for the proposed project, a comprehensive analysis of the circulation system was prepared in addition to the standard traffic phasing ordinance requirements. Major components of the study are as follows: 1. origin and Destination Study - An origin and destination study was conducted to help quantify the possible diversion around Corona del Mar that Pelican Hill Road would provide and also to quantify the amount of traffic using local Corona del Mar streets to avoid East Coast Highway at times of peak congestion. 2. Transportation Modelling - The City's Transportation Model is a useful tool in the analysis of the ability of the circulation system to sustain the planned development in the long term. The model also allows information to be provided on the effects of Pelican Hill Road, the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, 258 TO: Planning Commission - 14. and the various connections to the Corridor. It was also used to ' cross -verify the anticipated diversion resulting from Pelican ' Hill Road. 3. Traffic Phasing Ordinance - Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis was prepared for the project using the methodology in effect ' prior to December 13, 1985. while this portion of the study must be supplemented to include morning peak hour analysis prior to a TPO approval, the information provides good information on , intersection impacts and improvements which will be of aid in the consideration of the General Plan Amendment. 4. Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet Analysis - Inter- ' section and roadway link analysis was used to access the ad- visability of deleting the Primary Couplet designation for Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard in favor of a Major ' Arterial classification for MacArthur Boulevard. Discussion of traffic and circulation will be in the areas of circu- lation system capacity at buildout under the General Plan and with the project, revisions to Circulation System Master Plan, regional roadways, and traffic phasing. Circulation System Capacity. The analysis of circulation system capacity at buildout of the master plan is done primarily using the City's Transportation Model. The traffic model of the City of Newport Beach involves an intensive analysis of a subregion defined by the Pacific ocean, Beach Boulevard, Edinger Avenue, and the I-5 Freeway. outside of this area the model makes use of the Orange County Trans- portation Model (OCTAM). Model analysis is done in the timeframe of ' 25 years, or in this case, the year 2010. The City's General Plan anticipates the City to be essentially builtout in this timeframe. It is important to understand in traffic that traffic , using modelling engineering is not a precise science, in that projections must always be made as to the distribution of traffic into any area. The dis- tribution of traffic in the future is based on a combination of factors, including current traffic patterns and planned locations for future residential and commercial development. To estimate ultimate traffic generation, the City uses a "Trend Growth" estimate which assumes complete buildout of all zoned land uses in residential and newer commercial areas, and maximum buildout estimate in older commer- cial areas (such as Corona del Mar) taking height limits and parking requirements into consideration. Circulation system capacity is generally presented as a volume to capacity ratio, with 1.00 representing a roadway used to its technical capacity. Table 1-44, page 247, EIR Volume I, presents existing volume to capacity ratios, Table 1-AAA on page 256, EIR Volume I, presents trend growth traffic volume to capacity assuming completion of the circulation system as currently planned. Table 1-MMM, page 312, EIR Volume I, presents trend growth plus project volume to capacity ratios. Findings are summarized below. ' 259 TO: Planning Commission - IS. ' Existing Roadway Configuration: Existing traffic volumes exceed capacity in the following areas: ° Coast Highway between Poppy Avenue and Newport Boulevard, except east of Newport Center Drive ° MacArthur Boulevard between San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road ° Jamboree Road between Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive At buildout of the land use and circulation system master plans, traffic volumes exceed capacity in the following areas: Coast Highway between MacArthur and Marguerite; the Coast Highway Bay Bridge; and Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile ° MacArthur Boulevard northerly of the couplet to Jamboree Road ° Jamboree Road east of MacArthur Boulevard ' Marguerite Avenue south of Fifth Avenue ° Bristol Street Northwest of Birch Street ° Bristol Street west of Birch Street With the proposed project added, traffic volumes on the following links exceed capacity in addition to those above: ° Coast Highway between Marguerite and Poppy This volume to capacity ratio for the Marguerite to Poppy link is I increased from 0.99 to 1.03 by the project. It should be noted that the 1.03 V/C ratio projected is less than that which exists today (1.08). This is due to the fact that Pelican Hill Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor remove substantial traffic from Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. In fact, with the exception of the Coast Highway Bridge and Jamboree Road east of MacArthur, volume to capacity ratios improve upon completion ' of the circulation system as planned with buildout of the General Plan plus the proposed project. In terms of overall capacity, the circulation system is in balance with planned and proposed land uses. Areas which remain deficient in capacity are Coast Highway in Corona del Mar (the planned deficiency), the Coast Highway Bridge, Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile, MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road east of MacArthur, and the Bristol Couplet west of Birch Street. These deficiencies are not caused by the proposed project, and are worsened by the project generally, in the range of 2-3%. In the immediate vicinity of the project, volumes are increase in the range of 7-11%. Circulation System Master Plan Revisions. A complete discussion of the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet deletion is discussed in EIR Volume I, pages 315-323, and in EIR Volume IV, pages 5-1 to 5-20. The findings of the traffic study are summarized as follows: 260 TO- Planning Commission - 16. ' 1. In both 1989 and 1993 Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis , (ICU), the function of the one-way couplet versus two-way MacArthur appears equivalent. Without the couplet, the inter- section of MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road experi- ences capacity problems. With the couplet, the intersection at Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard experiences capacity problems. 2. In the long term, the couplet and two-way MacArthur also appear equivalent. The capacity of the Primary Couplet and a Major Arterial Roadway are the same. Additionally, site access to the Newport Village and Avocado/MacArthur sites would be provided on Avocado Avenue in the two-way MacArthur scenario, eliminating ingress/egress conflicts with through traffic. Elimination of the couplet also reduces out -of -direction travel necessitated by the couplet configuration. ' Other Master plan Considerations ° Avocado Avenue. It has been suggested that Avocado Avenue be required to be a "straight" road, so that it might serve as an alternate route to MacArthur Boulevard. It is the opinion of staff that in the two-way MacArthur configuration, through traffic will not use Avocado Avenue as a bypass route. This is due to the proximity of the intersection of Avocado/San Joaquin Hills to MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills. There is not sufficient distance between these intersections to allow a safe right turn across three travel lanes to the left -turn bay, particularly since the queing length for the left -turn pockets extend westerly of Avocado Avenue. , A right -turn -out could not be provided without a traffic signal at Avocado Avenue coordinated with the traffic signal at MacArthur Boulevard to ensure that left -turn storage on eastbound ' San Joaquin Hills Road would be available for the vehicles making the right turn from Avocado Avenue and then desiring to turn left onto MacArthur Boulevard. If a signal were to be provided and , were to be coordinated with the signal at MacArthur Boulevard, the operation would have to be designed to stop eastbound left and through traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road to provide the clearance between intersections to permit Avocado Avenue traffic to have sufficient room to cross the through lanes and enter the eastbound left -turn lanes. This design option is better than the full access option. , it has the negative impact of requiring eastbound San Joaquin Hills Road through traffic to be stopped at the same time the eastbound left -turn to northbound MacArthur Boulevard traffic is stopped. This is necessary to prevent eastbound left -turn traffic from staying in the through lanes and maneuvering into the left -turn lanes after they pass Avocado Avenue (bypassing the left -turn lanes). This later movement would be expected to result in the eastbound left -turn lanes at MacArthur boulevard to I TO: 261 Planning Commission - 17. LJ I 1 I lJ r d I fill, resulting in no room for Avocado traffic to enter the left -turn lanes. ° MacArthur Boulevard. It has been suggested that MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel Road be limited to four lanes. Based on six -lane MacArthur, the volume to capacity ratio is estimated to be 0.87 at Master Plan buildout plus project. If MacArthur remains four lanes, the V/C ratio is 1.30. It is possible to delay the widening of MacArthur until after the completion of Pelican Hill Road. In fact, it is anticipated to occur in that sequence, since the MacArthur improvements are frontage improvement requirements for Newport Village and Avoca- do/MacArthur, which will be phased after Pelican Hill Road. It is the opinion of staff that six -lane MacArthur Boulevard is warranted based on projected roadway volumes. Further, traffic volumes indicate that MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road warrants eight lanes, but it should be emphasized that this is needed whether GPA 85-1(B) is approved or not. ° Coast Highway -Mariners' Mile. Concern has been expressed over the impacts the project may have on Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile, most particularly whether the project necessitates the widening of Coast Highway to master plan configuration (6 lanes). This segment of Coast Highway is projected to carry traffic in excess of capacity at General Plan buildout. The estimated V/C ratio with six lanes is 1.26. If existing road configuration is maintained, the ratio is 1.52. With the addition of GPA 85-1(B) traffic, these ratios increase to 1.30 and 1.56 respectively. The increase in traffic from the project is 2,200 ADT or 3% of projected volume. ° San Joaquin Hills Road. San Joaquin Hills Road is designated on the City's Circulation System Master Plan as a Major Arterial - six lanes, divided. The roadway is also shown as a major arterial on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The traffic study indicates that the ultimate traffic volumes on San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hill Road does not warrant the major arterial designation. Projected traffic volumes can be accommodated by a Primary Arterial - four lanes, divided. Regional Roadways. The master plan roadway facilities proposed for construction easterly of the City play a vital role in the adequate functioning of the City's circulation system. Of particular impor- tance in the short-term is the construction of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road to MacArthur Boulevard. This road is estimated to divert approximately 23% of traffic forecast on Coast Highway -between MacArthur Boulevard and the easterly City boundary, and 22% of traffic forecast on MacArthur Boulevard. In addition to providing additional capacity, the roadway serves to improve ICU ratios at intersections along these routes as well. As such, the early construction of Pelican Hill Road is an important part of the improvement program expected for a Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval. 262 TO: Planning Commission 18. The extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road will also divert some traffic during the peak hours, although it will not divert nearly as much as Pelican Hills Road. In terms of the proposed project, the San Joaquin Hills Road extension will serve traffic with a destination in Newport Center, where Pelican Hills Road primarily serves north Newport Beach and airport area trips. in the long term, the most important of the future roadways is the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The Corridor provides substan- tial relief for East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. Addition- ally, the Traffic Study indicates that the planned connections of San Joaquin Hills Road and Ford Road are also important to the local circulation system. If San Joaquin Hills Road is not constructed between Pelican Hill Road and the Corridor, traffic volumes increase at Ford Road and through Harbor View Homes on San Miguel Road. When the Ford Road interchange is also eliminated, volumes on MacArthur increase by approximately 26%. Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The project will be reviewed for compli- ance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance as part of the final approval action. Currentlyi morning peak hour traffic counts and distribution data are being compiled. A supplement to the TPO section of the traffic study will be prepared as soon as morning data is available. Initiation of the project, preparation of the EIR and the Traffic Study commenced many months prior to recent revisions to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The TPO information provided in the Traffic Study and EIR was prepared consistent with the ordinance prior to revision in December 1985. Complete 1% test, ICU analysis and intersection mitigation has been conducted for the afternoon peak hour. It is anticipated that the additional morning analysis and the update of the afternoon analysis to current TPO criteria will show the same inter- sections with capacity constraints, and a similar, if somewhat expand- ed mitigation program. It is not anticipated that any additional intersections with no available improvements will be affected by the project. The complete TPO Analysis is contained in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Study (EIR Volume IV). Findings are summarized as follows: 1989 (Phase 1): Analyzed Intersections: 37 Intersections increased by 18 as a result of the project: 37 1985 ICU over .90: 9 1989 ICU over .90 (no committed improvements): 18 1989 ICU over .90 plus project (no committed improvements): 22 Twelve intersection improvements have been required of previously approved projects and are considered to be "committed." Standard 263 TO: Planning Commission - 19. practice of the City is to include all committed improvements at intersections affected by the project as approval conditions. This insures that intersection improvements will occur with the first projects constructed. ' Intersections with improvements still needed after "committed" improvements: 10 Intersection improvements have been proposed to satisfy 1989 TPO requirements and are described in detail in EIR Volume I, pages 280-283. Briefly, feasible intersection improvements are identified for five intersections: ' Coast Highway at: Superior Avenue Jamboree Road at: Campus Drive Bison Avenue Santa Barbara Drive 1 Pelican Hill Road reduces ICU values sufficiently to satisfy TPO requirements at four intersections: Coast Highway at: Goldenrod Avenue Poppy Avenue MacArthur Blvd. at: San Joaquin Hills Road San Miguel Drive i One intersection has been identified for which staff cannot identify a ' feasible improvement until the widening of Coast Highway westerly of Dover Drive. Therefore, the following intersection is not considered mitigatable at this time: Coast Highway at: Dover Drive ' 1993 (Phase 2): Analyzed Intersections: 37 Intersections increased by 1% as a result of the project: 37 1993 ICU over .90 with committed ' improvements and 1989 miti- gation measures: 10 1993 ICU over .90 plus project: 12 I Intersection improvements have been proposed to satisfy 1993 TPO requirements and are described in detail in EIR Volume I, pages 290-294. Briefly, intersection improvements are identified for eight intersections: u 264 'TO: Planning Commission - 20. 1 Coast Highway at: Superior Avenue Riverside Avenue Tustin Avenue Bayside Drive Jamboree Road at: Campus Drive Eastbluff Drive North MacArthur Blvd. at: San Joaquin Hills Road San Miguel Drive One additional improvement has been identified, but may not be feasi- ble due to insufficient right-of-way: Jamboree Road at: Ford Road Three intersections have no feasible identified improvements: Coast Highway at: Dover Drive Jamboree Road , Goldenrod Avenue As previously discussed, Dover Drive improvements are not considered feasible until the widening of Coast Highway westerly of the inter- section. Additional widening at Goldenrod Avenue is not considered feasible. Existing traffic volumes at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road signifi- cantly exceed the intersection capacity, resulting in an existing ICU value greater than 1.00. Traffic at this intersection is expected to increase considerably in the future. Unlike other intersections along Coast Highway, the situation at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road is complicated by an extremely heavy eastbound left -turn demand from , Coast Highway onto Jamboree Road, which conflicts with the heavy westbound through movement. Some of the heavy eastbound left -turn demand is attributable to the fact that Coast Highway and Route 73 (Bristol Street and Bristol Street North) are the only facilities available for travel between the western and eastern portions of Newport Beach. Thus, a considerable amount of "around -the -bay" traffic is included in this movement. There is also a substantial soutbbound right -turn movement which also includes considerable "around -the -bay" traffic. As part of the committed widening of Coast Highway, improvements would , be made at this intersection (adding through and turn lanes). These improvements would meet TPO requirements for 1989, but would leave the ICU value at a high level (1.08). After the implementation of the 1989 improvements, it would be vir- tually impossible to provide additional lanes at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road. Accordingly, for 1993, in lieu of adding ■ lanes at the intersection, two alternatives were considered: ' TO: 265 Planning Commission - 21. 1 I r rl L F 1. The extension of Back Bay Drive to a signalized intersection with Coast Highway, to accommodate some of the vehicles making east- bound -to -northbound left turns. This option has been evaluated in detail in prior studies, and in fact is considered to be a "committed" project. However, the improvements included in the 1989 conditions were considered to be preferable, and that set of intersection improvements were used as the "committed" conditions for 1989. The extension of Back Bay Drive could still be considered an option for 1993, however. 2. The construction of a grade separation at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road to carry the through traffic on Coast Highway over and across Jamboree Road without having to stop at a signal. For the extension of Back Bay Drive to satisfy TPO requirements, the ICU at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road would need to be reduced from 1.15 to 1.10. This could be achieved if about 21 percent of the vehicles turning left from eastbound Coast Highway to northbound Jamboree Road could be diverted to make a left turn at coast Highway/Back Bay Drive Extension. To reduce the ICU at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road to 0.90, about 90 percent of the left turns would need to be diverted. This is considered impractical, since it would necessitate the provision of three eastbound left -turn lanes at Coast Highway/Back Bay Drive Extension and would create congested operating conditions there. Thus, the option of the Back Bay Drive Extension can at best be considered to be a measure that could bring about some improvements in operating conditions at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road, but cannot be considered a long-term solution. The construction of a grade separation at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road is considered to be a long-term solution, and one that would achieve satisfactory operating conditions. The concept would consist of a grade separation structure to carry Coast Highway through traffic uninterrupted over Jamboree Road. Thus, much of the conflicting traffic would be eliminated, and turns would be made opposing much lesser levels of traffic. From an intersection capacity standpoint, ICU values can be reduced to levels below 0.90, depending on the number of lanes provided for turning movements. It is important to note that the need for further improvements at Jamboree/Coast Highway are necessary with or without the proposed project. Noise As discussed in detail in the draft EIR (Volume II, pages 1-45), there are no significant noise increases associated with the implementation of the project except in the immediate vicinity of Newport Center. The most significant noise impacts flow from the elimination of the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet in favor of two-way MacArthur Boulevard at six lanes. A mitigation program has been identified by The Irvine Company which involves the lowering of the grade of MacArthur Boulevard at the time of improvements by as much as 266 TO: Planning Commission - 22, ' 13 feet. This proposal would also shift the centerline of MacArthur ' Boulevard west an average of 50 feet. Noise wall heights have been calculated for the couplet alternative noise generation and the two-way MacArthur with depression alterna- tive. The average noise wall height for the couplet is 3.1 feet. The average noise wall height for two-way, depressed MacArthur is 2.6 feet. on an individual basis for the 25 affected lots, the noise wall height is the same for either alternative in 7 locations; is higher ' for the couplet in 12 locations; and higher for two-way MacArthur in 6 locations. Noise barrier height requirements are listed for each lot on Table 2-I, EIR Volume II, page 37. Public Services The Fire Department has indicated that the proposed project will significantly affect the demand for emergency services from the Santa ' Barbara Drive station. The City has been seeking for the past several years an appropriate site close to the airport area for an additional fire station. in fact, a fire station reservation was made as part of ' the approval of the General Plan Amendment for North Ford, even though the location was not considered the best available. The Fire Department has now determined that a more appropriate lo- cation for this future facility is slightly further north, across from the Bayview development on the San Diego Creek North site. This site is currently designated for "Governmental, Educational and Institu- ' tional Facilities" with an allowed use of a Park -and -Ride facility. It is estimated that 2.5 acres of the 12-acre site would be needed for a fire station. Fiscal A fiscal impact analysis for GPA 85-1(B) was prepared by the firm of , Nattelson, Lavender, Whitney. The analysis utilized the methodology of the City's Fiscal Impact Analysis model, and indicates that the project would generate revenue in excess of expenditures of approxi- mately $1 million annually. Approximately 75% of this revenue is attributable to four sites (Fashion Island, Block 600, Block 800, and Newport Village). It should be noted that the fiscal consultant believes the City's model significantly understates prospective sales ' tax generation, which they feel could be 50-100% greater, or an additional surplus of $160,000 to $320,000 annually. Denial of the project could have revenue impacts upon the City as well. in addition to not accruing the revenue benefits enumerated above, some costs could be incurred by the City. Most significant ' would be the possibility that Circulation System Master Plan improve- ments which The Irvine Company has indicated they will either con- struct or dedicate right-of-way for on Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard, would then have to be partially financed by , the City. 267 TO: Planning Commission - 23. 1 Phasing There are three phasing components which must be determined in any approval granted. 1. Residential/Commercial. The City is interested in assuring that construction of the residential projects occur as early as possible. The proposed phasing schedule of The Irvine Company show all proposed residential units occurring in Phase I by 1988. Only retail commercial projects ,(Fashion Island and Bayview Landing) precede residential projects. The office development in Block 600 and one-half of Newport Village is proposed to be constructed concurrent with the residential. All other development follows completion of the residential projects. 2. Circulation Improvements in the City. The commercial and res- idential project components will be phased with master plan (road widening) and intersection (TPO) improvements in the City. Phasing for master plan improvements will be determined based upon relation to the individual projects geographically. TPO improvements will be tied to occupancy of individual projects within the major completion phases analyzed (1989, 1993). 3. Regional Roadway improvements. The Irvine Company has proposed completion of Pelican Hill Road in Phase I (est. 1988-1989). It will be necessary to specify which projects may be occupied prior to this roadway. Additionally, consideration should be given to phasing some portion of the project with the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road.' Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions and recommendations are presented in two segments: 1) land use, land use intensity, and land use phasing; and 2) circulation system improvements and phasing. The recommendations of staff result from consideration of land use balance, compatible density and inten- sity, and affects on the circulation system. Land Use Land use conclusions and recommendations are presented on a comprehen- sive project and individual site basis, followed by housing and land use phasing. Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. The project as requested by The Irvine Company is generally consistent and compatible with existing uses in -the area, both from a use and intensity standpoint. The project does have individual components which are more intense than that which occurs in the immediate vicinity. In terms of the overall plan, the project represents an increase in commercial and office development allowed in the existing general plan of 1,523,000 square feet and a reduction in allowed residential development of 122 dwell- ing units (267 dwelling unit reduction with floating units). This is .: TO: Planning Commission - 24, n undesirable from both an employment -housing balance and traffic directionality standpoint. It is therefore the conclusion of staff that a reduction of commercial/office development and an increase in residential development is appropriate and desirable. The individual site land use recommendations flow from this basic conclusion. In order to better relate the land use recommendations, the order of site discussion maintained in the EIR Traffic Study and staff report has been changed. Project recommendations are followed by recommenda- tions for sites other than those in .the project requested by The Irvine Company. Bayview Landing. Due to site constraints and the high trip generation rates (restaurant) at an intersection with capacity problems, it is recommended that the development on Bayview Landing be limited to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, for restaurant or retail commercial use. The development should be limited to the lower portion of the site where the use can interface with other visitor -serving uses on the Newport Dunes. Site access will be from Back Bay Drive. The upper portion of the site should remain as designated in the General Plan: open space for view park and pedestrian/bicycle facilities. It is also recommended that sufficient land for a grade separated inter- section be designated as roadway reservation for 15 years. The 40,000 sq.ft. should not be deleted, but moved to Fashion Island. Civic Plaza Expansion. The proposal to add 50,000 sq.ft. of of- fice/institutional to Civic Plaza is in keeping with established uses and development intensities in the area. Staff recommends approval of this component of the General Plan. it is also proposed that the 1,350 theater seats, which are in the existing General Plan, be maintained in Newport Center and allocated to Fashion island. Fashion Island. The maintenance of the viability of the Fashion Island retail center is desirable from both a community amenity and fiscal viewpoint. The only comment of staff is that the center could be expanded beyond that requested by the applicant. A long-standing effort has been made by the City to increase night-time use of Newport Center. it is the opinion of staff that evening activity in Fashion Island will lead the way to more evening use of the center in general. It is therefore recommended that the request of The Irvine Company be approved with the addition of 40,000 sq.ft. from Bayview Landing and 1.350 theater seats from Civic Plaza. The increase in Fashion island would then be 168,000 square feet + 1,350 theater seats. Block 600. The proposed office tower in Block 600 is similar in size to the three existing office towers and the hotel which currently exist. Staff recommends approval of the Block 600 proposal. PCH/Jamboree. This site will be a logical extension of the approved Villa Point project, and will result in less traffic impacts than the previously planned office development. Staff recommends approval of this request. [] L F I I 269 ' TO: Planning Commission - 25. ' Corporate Plaza West. The proposed garden office complex is an ' appropriate use and is at an intensity similar to other office devel- opments in Newport Center (Corporate Plaza, Civic Plaza). Staff recommends approval of the request. Avocado Avenue/MacArthur. The site is appropriate for office develop- ment and is proposed at a floor area ratio less than existing develop- ment in the area. Staff recommends approval of the project as re- quested. Big Canyon/MacArthur. The site is available for development if the c Avoado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet is deleted from the ' Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The proposed residential project is similar in nature to existing multi -family development in the Big Canyon Planned Community. Staff recommends approval of the project as proposed. Newporter North. The primary constraint to development on this site is the presence of significant cultural resources. The site, estimat- ' ed to be eighty acres in size, still has substantial areas which are not subject to such constraints. The 490 dwelling units can be accommodated on the remaining acreage. If only twenty buildable acres ' are identified on -site, the resulting density would be 24.5 du's/b.a., which is the same as the adjacent development of Park Newport. It is therefore recommended that the area of the site necessary to protect and preserve the CA-Ora-64 site be designated as a cultural resource reserve and the mitigation measures requiring the site to be capped with clean fill soil be adopted (Preservation - Option #1). It is recommended that the remainder of the site' be designated for Mul- ti -Family Residential with a maximum 490 dwelling units as requested by the project proponent. ' Block 800. The development intensity proposed in Block 800 is signif- icantly greater than the surrounding area (1.55 vs. 0.55). If ap- proved as requested, the overall intensity of Block 800 would be .92 ' FAR. If the residential development currently planned were construct- ed, it would be anticipated to be somewhat higher in intensity than the existing developments. Since office use surrounds the site, it is the recommendation of staff that the change to office use be approved, ' but that the size of the project be reduced to 300,000 sq.ft., or approximately the size that could be anticipated from the residential project allowed in the existing General Plan. Newport Village. The proposed office project, while in an area which is appropriate for the use, is also in an area which was converted to ' a planned, multi -family use relatively recently. The Newport Village project was one of the major components of the City's overall housing program.- The deletion of the project, which results in an overall decrease of dwelling units in the City, has an adverse affect on the established housing program. As a result, it is the opinion of staff that the project as a whole is inconsistent with the policies of the City's Housing Element. In order to preserve the integrity of the overall Newport Center Plan with established City policies, it is recommended the 345,000 sq.ft. of office and 59,250 sq.ft. of retail r 270 TO: Planning Commission - 26. 1 not be approved, and that the remaining 750 sq.ft. of retail in the ' block be deleted. The former Newport Village residential project , allowed 360 residential units, or an estimated 25 du's/buildable acre (26 gross acres; 14.4 buildable acres). Staff recommends that the entire 33 acres of Newport Village be designated for multi -family residential uses, with a 4-acre park maintained on the recreation and ' open space plan. 560 residential units are recommended, or an es- timated density of 24.5 du`s/b.a. Other Land Use Element Chanqes San Diego Creek North. As part of the mitigation program, it is recommended that a 2.5-acre fire station reservation be added to the San Diego Creek North site. We_ stbay. As part of the mitigation program, it is recommended that ' the remaining 40 units on Westbay be deleted and the site designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Any portion of the site not acquired by a public agency through other mechanisms shall be , dedicated to form a regional park. I I r I I 271 TO: Planning Commission - 27. Site Fashion Island Block 600 Civic Plaza Block 800 PCH/Jamboree Corporate Plaza West Newport village Avocado/MacArthur Big Canyon/MacArthur Newporter North Bayview Landing LAND USE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Proposed Project 128,000 (C) 300,000 (0) 50,000 (0/I) 440,000 (0) 130 (R) 100,000 (0) 345,000 (0) 59,250 (C) 0 (R) 44,000 (0) 80 (R) 278 (R) (212 = 490) 60,000 (C) Recommended Project 168,000 (C) 1,350 (T) 300,000 (0) 50,000 (01I) 300,000 (0) 130 (R) 100,000 (0) 0 -750 (C) 560 (R) 44,000 (0) 80 (R) 278 (R) (212 = 490) 20,000 (C) TOTALS 1,279,000 (0) 794,000 (0) 247,250 (C) 187,250 (C) 0 (T) 1,350 (T) 488 (R) 1,048 (R) 272 TO: Planning Commission - 28. r F L DAILY TRIPS FROM LAND USE RECOMMENDATION Recommended Site Proposed Project Project , Fashion Island 4,992 7,092 Block 600 3,900 3,900 Civic Plaza 1,334 1,334 Block 800 51720 3,900 , PCH/Jamboree 845 845 Corporate Plaza West 1,300 1,300 Newport Village 7,410 3,640 Avocado/MacArthur 572 572 Big Canyon/MacArthur 520 520 , Newporter North 3,185 3,185 Bayview Landing 4,500 1,500 TOTAL 34,278 27,788 Affordable Housing Recommendations ' After reviewing the housing element objectives regarding balancing commercial and residential development, and after reviewing the ' housing impact analysis prepared in conjunction with the proposed project, staff has suggested some modifications to the project which significantly reduce the demand for additional affordable housing and, at the same time, increase the supply of housing. The proposed modifications to the project would reduce commercial office develop- ment by 545,000 sq.ft. and increase residential development by 560 dwelling units. The commercial office reductions would decrease the ' demand in the low- and very -low income ranges from the 1,421 dwelling units previously indicated, to approximately 900 dwelling units. In addition the increased residential development offers an opportunity for the City to encourage the construction of additional affordable units in conjunction with the project. 273 TO: Planning Commission - 29. ' Staff Proposed Affordable Housing Reauirements. Based on the modified project, there would be a total of 1,414 new residential units con- t structed on Newport Center and the adjacent sites. With the exception of the Newport Village site, mortgage revenue bond financing has been made available for the remaining residential sites. It is anticipated that mortgage revenue bond financing would also be available for the Newport Village residential site. It is proposed that a total of 453 low- and moderate -income units be provided in Newport Center and on the surrounding sites, including the Baywood Expansion project, as follows: Orange County Median -Income Units: 23 ' Orange County Low -Income Units: 289 City Very -Low Income Units (at Fair Market Rent): 141 ' It is proposed that these rental units be made available for a period of 20 years. The City very -low income units, which would be estab- lished at fair market rents, would give priority to occupants who were participants in the Orange County Section 8 Certificate Program, which provides rental subsidies to Orange County very-ldw income families. The following chart indicates the number of units in each affordabil- ity range and the estimated current maximum incomes and maximum rents for a two -bedroom unit as well as the anticipated market rate rents (based on the North Ford project). i ' Maximum Maximum # Units Income Rent Market Rate 990 --- t$900 County Median 23 $41,549 $987 County Low 289 $33,239 $789 City Very Low 0 $29,022 $689 ' Fair Market Rents 141 $18,400 $657 1,443* I* includes 29 units in Baywood Expansion F 1 274 t TO: Planning Commission - 30. Land Use Phasino ' In order to insure completion of residential units early in the ' development program, the City usually keys commercial development to the residential development program. Using the phasing program originally proposed by The Irvine Company, staff recommends the ' following land use phasing program: Phase I - No Newport Center (PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village) , units required for: A. Fashion Island Expansion B. Civic Plaza Expansion C. Any residential on the periphery of Newport Center Phase Ila - 400 units in Newport Center must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction (foundations plus some framing) before building permit issuance for: , A. Block 600 B. Bayview Landing C. Avocado/MacArthur , Phase Iib - 400 additional units in Newport Center must have building permits issued and substantial progress in , construction before issuance of occupancy permits for: A. Block 600 , Phase III - Completion and Certificate of Occupancy for 800 du's before building permits issued for: ' A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West Traffic and Circulation Circulation system recommendations are in three segments: 1) Circu- lation System Master Plan, 2) Traffic Phasing requirementsr and 3) Phasing. 1 Circulation System Master Plan. Recommendations are as follows: ' 1. Delete the Primary Couplet designation for Avocado Avenue ' and MacArthur Boulevard. Designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial - six lanes, divided. Designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial - four lanes. Request the County of Orange to amend the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 1 I 275 ' TO: Planning Commission - 31. ' 2. Designate MacArthur Boulevard northerly of Ford Road to ' Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial - eight lanes, divid- ed. Request the County of Orange to amend the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. ' 3. Designate San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hill as Primary -Arterial - four lanes, divided. (The current designation is for Major Arterial - six lanes.) Request the County of Orange to amend the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. TPO Requirements. Intersection improvements will be finalized at the time of the approval of the project under the Traffic Phasing Ordi- ' nance. TPO conditions are not applied as part of a General Plan Amendment, but stand separately within the parameters of the TPO approval. When the final list of intersection improvements is estab- lished, staff will tie each specific improvement to a particular project, taking into consideration the relationship of the project to the specific improvement and the priority of each improvement. ' Phasing. The local and regional circulation system improvements will be tied to the project phases within the context of the General Plan. ' Circulation System improvements identified are: 1. Dedication of Right -of -Way for Coast Highway improvements. 2. Completion of Jamboree Road to six -lane major arterial standards from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. ' 3. Completion of MacArthur Boulevard to six -lane major arterial standards from Coast Highway to Jamboree Road. 4. Construction of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road between ' Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. 5. Construction of San Joaquin Hills Road between Spyglass Hill ' Road and Pelican Hill Road'. These improvements shall be required in the following phases: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for any component of GPA 85-1(B) all dedications from The Irvine Company ' necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and before installation of Pelican Hill Road: a. one-half of Fashion Island b. Civic Plaza c. Big Canyon/MacArthur Blvd. d. Newporter North ' e. PCH/Jamboree f. Newport Village TO: 276 Planning Commission - 32. 3 The following project may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and the completion of Jamboree Road, but before installation of Pelican Hill Road: Balance of Fashion Island 4. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements: a. Block 600 b. Bayview Landing c. Avocado/MacArthur Blvd. 5. Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of Pelican Hill Road: Block 600 6. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: a. Block 800 b. Corporate Plaza West PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator SR15/jm Attachments: 1. Correspondence 2. Fiscal Impact Analysis 277 t� f;.i�6 • -'-'^• A unique blend of people and place Corona del Mar f` ; C'• ` CHAMBER of COMMERCE ' March 10, 1986 ' Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California THE PELICAN HILLS ROAD - SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD•CONNECTION It was the unanimous decision by the Board•of Directors of the ' Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce to approve the build -out of Newport Center within the codes and restrictions as may be determined by the City Planning C©mmission and the City Council, ' but only if Pelican Hills Road is connected to San Joaquin Hills Road and in place before the build -out. Corona 'del Mar can no longer bear the burden of increased traffic ' with no viable alternate route around the city to destinations in Newport Center and the airport area. Our residents are "up in arms" over the increased use of our narrow residential streets as ' bypasses to already saturated Pacific Coast Highway. 'The Pelican Hills Road alignment as it is now planned to Bonita Canyon Road and termination at.Mac Arthur will indeed eliminate some of the traffic that is destined for the airport area, but it in no way alleviates the Newport Center -bound traffic that is suffocating Corona del Mar. ' Why must an already severly affected area suffer more when it is apparent that some relief could be felt if the Pelican Hills - San Joaquin Hills Road connection is made? Corona del Mar is caught between the State Park and down -coast developments of the south and the Newport Center build -out on the north; it would seem very poor economics and poor judgment as well not to utilize ' - a six -lane road that was designed to avert this tremendous traffic congestion. 71 �I ' 2855 East Coast Highway - Post Office Box 72 • Corona del Mar, California 92625 • 714/673-4050 �3 278 Page two Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 THE PRI,TCAN HILLS ROAD - SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD CONNECTION The taxpayers of old Corona del Mar who have supported the city for many, many years, and whose taxes paid for their share of building that road, as well as the huge expense of maintaining the road and its beautiful landscaping for twenty years, deserve to have this investment brought to fulfillment as it was intended to reduce traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and Corona del Mar. This vital link which was started in 1966, twenty years ago, should no longer be a pawn of selfish interests, but should be connected to Pelican Hills Road as soon as construction on that roadway reaches that connection point. The residents and businesses in Corona del Mar deserve your thoughtful and impartial consideration of this vital problem. Luvena Hayton, Transportation Chairman Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce cc: Newport Beach City Planning Commission, James C. Person, Chairman Clarence J. Turner, lst Vice Chairman Revana M. Coppelman, 2nd Vice Chairman Patricia Eichenhouser, Secretary David Goff John A. Kurlander Joan S. Winburn The Irvine Company, Ron Hendrickson, Director of Design and Planning Mike Ericksen I I I F I r L 36-�-' 279 �VV\\\�► AV•7\Lh NO- 0 NEWPDRT CENTER MEDICAL PLAZA A,r' /�� 1\1h5Sr5aatil'D,Y1ICa.M7N/ ' "�sppLMit^ March 18, 1986 g V\su �B'PCN' NEtypO•r Lt, rr � `��1986 rtt Mayor and City Council ' City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: ' I am writing you as President of the Newport Center Medical Plaza Association, an organization of 170 physicians and dentists who practice in the medical buildings at Newport Center. Our Board members have expressed several concerns regarding the parking situation adjacent to the medical buildings. ' 1. Access to the 1401 Avocado building can be made only through the San Miguel Drive entrance and this is an awkward entrance to explain to patients. It has ' been proposed that cutting an additional entryway between the 1401 Avocado and 1441 Avocado buildings would greatly ease the access to these two buildings. In addition, it is very difficult to drive through the parking lot ' between the 1401 and 1441 buildings and we feel a direct driveway through the middle of the lot would aid in the parking and traffic flow. 2. We are aware that the City has plans to convert Avocado Avenue to a one way street from Pacific Coast Highway inland. We feel this would make access to our buildings even more difficult for patients who are elderly and who are easily disoriented. S 3. We are also aware that the Irvine Company plans to build two garden office da or buildings between Avocado and MacArthur. We are concerned regarding the Y increased traffic flow on Avocado that would be produced by these buildings. JncAmen ager4, We are concerned that the a ro riate numbers of handica ed arkin s aces•^•Y PP P PP P g P , 31which are wide enough and identified appropriately, be clustered close to the entrance of the various medical buildings and not scattered or spread out over P& P, Dir. the lot. anning Dlr, Ice Chiet S, We feel that the Council should be aware that the required number of parking irDir spaces for commercial buildings are usually inadequate for medical buildings due to their high volume of patient traffic and high number of employees per square foot of office space. We are hoping that with the completion of the 360 San Miguel building that adequate spaces have been anticipated. J = iJ 280 1 6. We remain concerned that adequate signage on the medical buildings identifying ' them as medical buildings has not been created. The 2 foot high caduces on the Csecond floor level are inadequate. The Newport Center Medical Plaza is the largest collection of doctors west of the Rockies not connected to a hospital. As an Association, we are are planning a patient Information and education center as well as a major diagnostic center which we expect to attract patients from a very wide area. Therefore, we feel that it is important that these buildings be clearly identified as medical buildings and that their access and facilities are clearly marked. If you would like to discuss any of these issues, please feel free to contact me at my ' office (714) 720-1163. Sincerely, - Barbara Jess n, M.D. , President cc: Gene Rhodes 3acqueline Heather (Dictated but not read) ' r r r r I 281 C �I I 1 I DM CORONA DEL MAR REALTY CO. P.O. BOX 116. CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 TELEPHONE 714 673.4120 March 19,1986 Honorable Mayor and Members of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Re: Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce letter dated March 10, 1986 concerning Pelican Hills Road, San Joaquin Hills Road and Newport Center Build out. Members of Citv Council: We are in complete agreement with the views expressed in the above referenced letter. When GPA 80-3 came before Planning Commission and Council, it was approved with the contingent requirement that Pelican Hills Road and the connection to SJH Road be in place according to a specific schedule. Thisr contingency should be specific to approval of the proposed amendment to the general plan. In addition to building and maintaining SJH Road at taxpayer expense, we would like to point to the incalculable expense of pedestrian accidents in the cross walks of Corona del Mar. Traffic to Newport Center which would be diverted by Pelican and SJH Roads will alleviate, to some extent, this problem. ' DM/is Copy to: Chairman, Planning Commission The Irvine Company CDM Chamber of Commerce very truly yours, G[la ,es W. & Doris B. Masters ' C'1IARLES \V. Id ASTERS • DORIS 11. MASTi:RS • REAL ESTATE BROKERS �� 282 r \ �,. 980 �_ HARBOR VIEW HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. U. eoy 54 Corona del Mar, CA 926ES March E6, 19,115 P,ernbers: of thu Planninn C.omrilission CITY OF N,SWPOR BEACH 3300 Newdc-rt Blvd. Newoort 8cacn, CA 926SQ4 RE: NEWPORT CENTER GENERAL PLAN AIfENDI+iENT Dear Commissioners: The Hara-m View Hills Community Association is comoosed of 146 homeowners. Our Association borders on the east side of MacArthur, directly across the street from Newport Center. Proposed plans for Newdart Center were presented to our association by the Irvine Company, at our annual homeowners meeting in January, 198G. Following the presentation there was a lengthy discussion among our association's homeowners about these plans. IT IS OUR ASSOCIATIONS VERY FIRM POSITION THAT MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD SHOULD NOT BE WIDENED TO SIX LANES. Before the issue of the widening of MacArthur to six lanes is even considered, the following should be completed' 1, Pelican Hills Road should be in glace and omen for travel. 2. Pelican Hills Roam shovlo have a connection with San Joaquin Hill_ Road. S. Av-ocado �_ should be four lanes wide and straichtenec to eliminate the carves as on present plans. This would. as is a70ropr'iate, encouraus sowp of the nort,i/south traffic to stay within the center. Studies to date have discussed the tremendous amount of traffic that Pelican Hills Road will divert around Corona del Mar. Thus. no wideninc of MacArthl.tr would be needed when Pelican Hills Road is built, Tne Cecisicn to widen MacArthur should be ❑ostooned un�il traffic studieG demonstrate the affect of Pelican Hills Road. If oelican Hills Road does significantly reduce the traffic, load thr umh Corona del Mar there would be no need to wider, MacArthur. 7!X^ herm_re, we are concerned that, if MacArthur is widened to s:.x land there will be increased dressure from city/county/state Widen PCH thr'•ooL",h old' Corona del Mar and male our small oltSiness district tru)y inaccessible and a very underirabie place t snr a anci walill;. yaurz u,: ''W. P mrer•c,y. PredioenL 283 t I April 1, 1986 dWN Corona del Mar CHAMBER of COMMERCE A unique blend of people and place Newport Beach City Planning Commission ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 ' THE PELICAN HILLS ROAD - SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD CONNECTION It was the unanimous decision by the Board of Di- rectors of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce to approve the build -out of Newport Center within ' the codes and restrictions as may be determined by the City Planning Commission and the City Council, but only if Pelican Hills Road is connected to San Joaquin Hills Road and in place prior to occupancy of the first phase of the build -out. ' `John L. Blom President I 1 1 ' 2855 East Coast Highway • Post Office Box 72 • Corona del Mar, California 92625 • 714/673.4050 u. 284 Wyndham LetghNSFAH°Rr April 16, 1986 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: 1986- LJ On March 18, 1986 the Board of Directors of the Fashion Island Merchants Association adopted a resolution in support of the Newport ' Center General Plan Amendment. Enclosed is a copy of that resolution. The Fashion Island Merchants Association represents over one hundred retailers in Fashion Island. We support the Newport Center General Plan Amendment in order that Fashion Island may be expanded and improved for the benefit of the entire community. we feel that with a broader mix of retail opportunities, Newport Beach residents will find it advantageous to shop at Fashion Island rather than travel long distances to outlying shopping malls. The proposed entertainment plaza and increased dining opportunities will offer our community more than just a place to shop; Fashion Island will become a center for Newport Beach cultural, social, educational, and charitable activities. We also support the proposal for a day care facility in or adjacent to Newport Center. This facility will allow our retailers to attract and retain quality employees who might otherwise seek employment in locations where child care is more readily available. As men and women with a dedicated commitment to the community, the Fashion Island Merchants Association support of the Newport Center General Plan Amendment provide not only additional revenue to the city but, international recognAtion as one of the outstanding country -- an hono(do which we can all share. Birth mbert, President Fashion Island Merchants Association future of our urges your -- it will as well, centers in the r E �i tlyyndh,nn Leigh 1)jaulundb Inc. ' 215 Atrium Court, Fashion Island, Newport Center, Newport lleach, California 92660 Telephone. p141 644.0501 285 FASHION ISLAND MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF NEWPORT CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLVED, that Fashion Island Merchants Association hereby supports the General Plan Amendment for completion of Newport Center as proposed by The Irvine Company. The foregoing Resolution has been adopted by the Board of Directors of Fashion Island Merchants Association this day of March, 1986. i pre"denx Sec et(ary M I Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1986 Agenda Item No. 6 Supplemental Information CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) (Public Hearing) AND This supplemental report has been prepared in response to questions raised by the Planning Commission on the above referenced project. 1. Resolution No. 9009 1 In June, 1976, the consulting firm of Crommelin, Pringle, and Associates, Inc., prepared and submitted a report analyzing the traffic impacts of the ultimate development of Newport Center. The report was prepared for The Irvine Company with the par- ticipation of the City of Newport Beach. The traffic analysis was based on an ultimate buildout projection provided by The Irvine Company which was significantly less than the C-0 Zoning District would allow (est. at 30 million sq.ft.). The projected buildout was as followst Office & Medical Commercial/Retail/Restaurant Theater Hotel Residential Civic/Cultural Automotive Golf Course Tennis Club 4,299,600 sq.ft. 11301,000 sq.ft. 4,400 seats 377 rooms 538 units 122,100 sq.ft. 5 acres 1s holes 24 courts The major outcome of the study was the adoption of Resolution No. 9009, which established these projected buildout projections as the development limits for Newport Center. Compaxed to Resolution No. 9009, the general plan amendment request is an increase of 55,156 sq.ft. of office; 191,406 of retail; and 90 residential units. The City has already approved an increase of 559 hotel rooms. The GPA request is a decrease of 1 1 C I r 287 ' TO: Planning Commission - 2. ' 2,000 theater seats and 16,000 sq.ft. of institutional uses from ' Resolution No. 9009. The staff recommendation is an increase of 116,250 sq.ft. of retail and 390 residential units; and a de- crease of 429,844 sq.ft. of office; 650 theater seats; and 16,000 sq.ft. of institutional uses from Resolution No. 9009. 2. Newporter North Views Currently, there are no public views across the Newporter North site to Upper Newport Bay from the primary pedestrian/vehicular access, Jamboree Road. Because the site is vacant, development on the mesa across the bay (Westcliff) can be viewed from places along Jamboree Road. High-rise commercial development in Newport Center has views of and over the site. Depending on location, orientation, and height location within a building, the proposed development of Newporter North could affect available views from these structures. Views from commercial development have not been a concern of the City in the past. ' The Newporter North site itself has significant views of Upper Newport Bay. The Recreation and Open Space Plan, which would be implemented with the development of the site, calls for the Newporter North Park to be a "special view park" located at the bluffs. The City also has the option of requiring an access road with parking along the bluff, similar to Ocean Boulevard in ' Corona del Mar. 3. Newport Village Residential The existing General Plan designates the Newport Village site for 18 acres of Multi -Family Residential and 15 acres of Retail and Service Commercial. Development allocated is 360 residential units (150 of which are affordable) and 750 sq.ft. of commercial. 58,000 sq.ft. of commercial was transferred from the site to Fashion Island with a written acknowledgement by The Irvine ' Company that this may result in vacant land with no development rights. ' This land use designation was established by the City of Newport Beach in the approval of General Plan Amendment 83-1(E). This amendment was one of several recent general plan amendments processed as part of the Housing Element implementation program. ' The amendment established a program of incentives to the develop- ment of affordable housing on Baywood, Fifth Avenue/MacArthur, and Newport Village by granting additional market rate units (up ' to 278 units) in Newport Center on a one -for -one basis for affordable units on these sites. If the existing general plan program were implemented, the Newport Village residential development could be 20 du's per gross acre, 25 du's per buildable acre (est.), and 42% afford- able. The staff's recommendation in GPA 85-1(B) would result in 17 du's per gross acre, 24.5 du's per buildable acre and 30% affordable. I 288 TO: Planning Commission - 3. ' ' In addition to the "incentive/floating" units in Newport Center resulting from GPA 83-1(E), there are also 145 "float- ing/transfer" units in Newport Center resulting from GPA 79-1. ' As indicated in the staff report previously distributed, it is one goal of staff to remove transfer/floating/incentive units in Newport Center if this project is approved. 4. Block 600 Structures Estimated gross square footage of Block 600 structures is as follows: Union Bank 319,576 sq.ft., 19 stories Avco Building 277,105 sq.ft., 17 stories Wells Vargo 293,895 sq.ft., 17 stories Four Seasons 334,017 sq.ft., 20 stories S. Clarification of Staff Recommendations Staff would like to clarify or correct the reoommendations contained in the staff report, as follows: ° Page, 30, Circulation System Master Plan recommendation , number 1: Designation of Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial is between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. ° Page 31, Master Plan recommendation number 2: Amendment to , the Circulation System Master Plan for the City of Irvine will also be required, since most of this roadway is in that City. , ° Page 31, Phasing Improvements, identified number 3: MacArthur Boulevard to be completed to six -lane, major ' arterial standards from Coast Highway to Route 73, not Jamboree Road. Also, this improvement includes the "de- pression" and westward re -alignment of MacArthur Boulevard ' between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator SR15/jm 99 I TO: FROM: 11 SUBJECT: I I i I I Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1986 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Planning Department it Plan Amendment 85-11 Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circu- lation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, so as to allow construction of an additional 1,275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, 248,000 sq.ft, of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to delete the Avocado -MacArthur one -way -couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major arterial roadway, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. AND No. 9 to the Ci Plan Beach Local Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, and PCH/Jamboree sites. Background On March 20, 1986 and April 24, 1986, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment for Newport Center and Peripheral sites. On April 24, 1986, the Planning Department staff presented to the Planning Commission and the public its recommendations on the Newport Center Plan. During the course of the public hearing, questions and issues were raised by the Commission and members of the public relative to the project and the staff recommendation. Subsequent to the public hearing, The Irvine Company has also responded to the staff recommen- dation. Questions and issues raised at the public hearing are addressed in this report. The discussion is presented on a topic basis, rather I 290 T0: Pla. ing Commission - 2. ' than responding to each individual question separately. Topics include noise, a comparison to the GPA 80-3 approval, cost/revenue, Newport Village commercial, Westbay Park, restaurants, building heights, landscape treatment on MacArthur Boulevard, parking impacts ' of the Fashion Island addition, and traffic and circulation. The staff has also prepared an analysis and recommendations on the revised proposal of the Irvine Company. Discussion Noise. Several questions have been raised in regards to the noise issues associated with the General Plan Amendment. Most of these relate to the change in MacArthur Boulevard from a one-way couplet to a two-way major arterial. This circulation element amendment alters the future noise contours in the area. However, with the proposed depression of MacArthur Boulevard, the heights of required noise barriers for Harbor View Hills compared to those which would be required by the couplet are generally lower. On the Newport Village site, the residential development recommended by staff is not anticipated to pose a problem from a noise mitigation standpoint. Generally speaking, multi -family development can be designed to provide its own sound attenuation, through the orientation of buildings and outdoor living spaces away from the roadway. There is a wall on MacArthur Boulevard near the Harbor View Hills development. This wall steps down with the grade of MacArthur and ranges from three to five feet in height. The sound attenuation walls needed for MacArthur Boulevard with the depression of the road are ' generally within this range. There is some apparent misunderstanding as to the design of the "depressed" MacArthur Boulevard. As proposed, the Newport Village ' site will also be reduced in elevation. MacArthur Boulevard would not be in a "canyon," but would be lower and further away from Harbor View Homes. ' General Plan Amendment 80-3. The comparison of either the proposed project or the staff recommendation to the project approved in GPA 80-3 is difficult since the sites addressed are not the same. The following chart illustrates the proposals: I I 23. 91 TO: Planning Commission - 3. I GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COMPARISON GPA 80-3/GPA 85-1(B)/STAFF RECOMMENDN Future Allowable Location GPA 80-3 GPA Requestl Staff Recom.I Block 600 225,000 (0) 300,000 (0) 300,000 (0) 225,000 (R-sq.ft.) -- 100 (R-Du's) -- 300 (H) (325) (H) (325)(H) Block 800/PacMut Block 800/CivPza Avocado/MacArthur Newport Village Corporate Plaza West Fashion Island 245 (R-Du's) 100,000 (0) TRANSIT TERMINAL 440,000 (0) 50,000 (0/I) 44,000 (0) TRANSIT TERMINAL 208,750 (0) 345,000 (0) 20,000 (C/Rest.) 60,000 (C) 123,400 (0) 108,400 (0) (15,000) (0) -- 194,000 (C) PCH/Jamboree 80,000 (0) -- -- 130 (R-Du's) PCH Frontage 57 (R-Du's) (154) (R-Du's) Block 900 165 (H) (234) (H) 10,000 (0) (10,000) (0) Floating (145) (R-Du's) (145) (R-Du's) 747,150 (0) 1,312,400 (0) 20,000 (C) 240,000 (C) 465 (H) 559 (H) 547 (R) 429 (R) 225,000 (R-sq.ft.) 300,000 (0) 50,000 (0/I) 44,000 (0) TRANSIT TERMINAL 560 (R) 108,400 (0) (15,000)(0) 234,000 (C) 1,350 (T) 130 (R) (154)(R) (234) (H) (10,000)(0) 827,400 (0) 234,000 (C) 559 (H) 844 (R) 1,350 (T) IIncludes all requested and approved GPAs on subject sites in Newport Center. Approved projects shown in (parentheses). Legend C - Commercial 0 - Office H - Hotel R - Residential I - Institutional T - Theater 292 To: Pla. ,nq Commission - 4. ' Cost/Revenue. As requested by the Planning Commission, the fiscal impact of the ' staff's recommendation has been calculated. A yearly revenue benefit estimate of $871,000 would result if the staff recommendation were approved and constructed. The fiscal consultant again qualifies this number, since it is his belief that the City's Fiscal Impact Model is overly conservative in some revenue estimates. The revised fiscal impact charts are attached. ' A statement was made in the course of the public hearing that residen- tial development is more favorable to the City from a cost/revenue standpoint. The City's Fiscal Impact Model indicates that all uses in the City provide revenues in excess of expenditures. However, commer- cial development generally results in a more favorable revenue advan- tage than residential uses. This is due to the fact that commercial property is generally valued higher than residential property and , provides more types of revenue (such as sales tax or bed tax). For example, The Irvine Company request for Newport Village would result in a yearly revenue advantage of $122,000 test.), where the staff's recommendation for residential development would result in $48,000 (est.). Newport Village Commercial. A question was raised by the Planning Commission as to whether some commercial development would be appropriate on the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Coast Highway in Newport Village. Currently, there are temporary commercial uses in this area, and its continued use is , possible. staff has concerns with this proposal. A commercial development in this location would be immediately adjacent to residen- tial uses recommended by staff. This would create the same type of residential/commercial conflicts which are prevalent in older areas of the City such as Central Balboa and Corona del Mar. A limited commer- cial development may have ingress -egress problems due to close prox- imity to the Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard intersection. Addi- tionally, it is the opinion of staff that in the review of a site plan or tentative map for a residential development in Newport Village, a substantial portion of this area may be taken by landscaped edge treatments and building setbacks. Westbay Park. The County of Orange testified at the public hearing, requesting that r the City designate the County of orange as the receiving agency for any park dedications. The orange County Regional Recreation Facil- ities' plan map (attached) designates Westbay as a proposed County Regional Park. it is the purpose of staff's recommendation to enable this regional park, and staff also recognizes that if a regional park ; is established, the County is the logical agency to own and maintain it. There does exist, however, the possibility that some of the site may be required to be dedicated to another agency, such as the State 293 TO: Planing Commission - 5. Department of Fish and Game. For this reason, staff prefers to keep the receptor agency undefined. Restaurants in Newport Beach. Questions were raised by the Planning Commission regarding the amount of restaurants requested by The Irvine Company in the General Plan Amendment. The request included 60,000 sq.ft. on Bayview Landing, approximately 15,000 sq.ft. (est.) on Newport Village and approximate- ly 43,200 sq.ft. (est.) in Fashion Island (22% of expansion). specif- ic concerns were expressed in regards to creation of a "restaurant row and the viability of such uses. Staff believes that any concerns in this regard should be reduced by the staff recommendation which eliminated the subject use on Newport Village and reduced the develop- ment on Bayview Landing by two-thirds. The placement of additional ' development in Fashion Island would be anticipated to be retail development rather than all restaurant use. However, staff can make the following observations. 1 Newport Beach is historically a resort community. The City has always provided recreational facilities for the region. -This is, of course, due to the amenities of the beach and bay. One way of providing ' public access to the shoreline is through the development of visitor -serving uses in waterfront commercial areas. While the City reviews restaurants in great detail to assure compatibility with neighboring uses, the use itself has never been considered inappropri- ate by the City. in fact, the Local 'Coastal Program puts restaurants into a priority category. In terms of viability of the use, the City has never intruded into the economic and marketing decisions of the private development community, or attempted to define an acceptable level of risk for development proposals. Further, the concern of a "single use structure" being left vacant if a restaurant operation is not successful, is one which is no more or less pertinent than any other use or structure. By and large, almost all structures are single purpose (residential, office, retail, medical office, hotel, hospital, etc.). As has been illustrated by Atrium Court in Fashion Island, even when replacing one use with another in the same class, substantial renovations can be necessary. Block 600 and 800 Heights. Heights in Block 600 are contained in the EIR in Volume 1, page 157. Heights of existing buildings are as follows: Wells Fargo 247 feet Avco 240 feet Union Bank 285 feet Four Seasons Hotel 214 feet 6;2 inches An eighteen -story building at 13� feet per floor would result in a 243-foot building. 294 TO: Pla:.... 6. ng Commission - I Heights in Block 800 are contained in the EIR in volume 1, page 161. Heights of existing buildings are as follows: ' Pacific Mutual 77 feet Pacific Plaza 1 158 feet Pacific Plaza 2 158 feet ' A twelve -story building at 1A feet per floor would result in a 162-foot building. MacArthur Boulevard Landscape Treatment. The concept of MacArthur Boulevard as a landscape parkway has been a ' long-term objective of the City of Newport Beach. This item was inadvertently omitted from the previous staff report on the project. With the widening of MacArthur Boulevard as required in the project , phasing, landscape treatments will be required for both sides of the roadway and the median strip. It is the opinion of staff that this area should be a minimum of 35 feet wide, exclusive of any handscape (sidewalks, fences, etc.) and wider wherever possible. some of the current plan components help implement this landscape corridor, such as the lovering of MacArthur, which will provide a landscape berm area between the road and Harbor View Hills. The most significant land use , issue associated with the landscape plan for MacArthur is on the Freeway Reservation East site adjacent to Harbor View Homes. It is anticipated that after the required widening and landscaping, the site would be virtually eliminated, with the exception of a small site at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Fashion Island Parking. , The proposed Fashion Island improvements include the construction of two parking structures. A question was raised as to the impact of the staff recommended additions on Fashion Island parking. The retail center has long had an adequate parking supply, and adequate parking for the expansion will be required as part of the proposed addition. ' The added square footage suggested by staff may require an additional parking structure level. Traffic and Circulation. , Before addressing individual questions on traffic and circulation, some additional discussion of traffic study assumptions is warranted. There were many comments regarding what developments were included in the Traffic study. It is important to understand that the study is essentially two totally separate studies which provide different types of information and use different base data. The long-term traffic volume projections are developed using the City's Transportation Model. This allows estimation of the ULTIMATE traffic volume on each roadway segment at build -out. This means, it L 1 TO: Planning Commission - 7. 7. not only includes build -out of the City under the General Plan, but assumes build -out of the entire County of Orange and all Orange County ' cities as provided for in their General Plans. The database, there- fore, includes all the projects mentioned during the public hearing, including the development of the Downcoast area as provided in the Orange County General Plan. The "Increased Trend" model information includes all this development, plus significant developer requests not yet approved but under consideration in the vicinity. The intersection analysis has been prepared pursuant to the require- ments of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The base data includes all existing traffic, all "committed" development through the year of analysis and a yearly growth factor through the year of analysis. The TPO analysis has always been a "Point in Time" type of analysis rather than a "Build -Out" type of analysis. Therefore, committed projects, ' all projects which have the right to construct, received all discretionary approvals and have would be included as background traffic, if the anticipated date of completion is on or before the analysis year. Projects which are not committed or are anticipated to be completed subsequent to the analysis year are accounted for only as a part of the yearly growth factor. As a result, in the intersection analysis for this project, approved developments such as the Newport Dunes, 1 Bayview, and IBC in Irvine, can be factored in as committed projects in the appropriate year. Developments such as the Downcoast develop- ment are not directly added to the background because there are many discretionary actions necessary before considered committed, and there is no way to establish an anticipated completion date at which time the traffic generated would appear as part of the background traffic. MacArthur Boulevard Volumes.• Many questions and comments were made regarding the appropriate roadway designation for MacArthur Boulevard. Currently, the Master Plan designates Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard as a primary couplet with three through lanes in each ,• direction. It is anticipated that if the couplet were constructed, some additional acceleration/deceleration, left and right turn, and ingress/egress lanes would be required in addition to the six through lanes. The roadway capacity for MacArthur Boulevard at six lanes, with Avocado Avenue as a secondary road, is essentially the same as the one-way couplet. Even though Avocado Avenue between Coast Highway and San Miguel may be constructed as a four lane road, it cannot be anticipated to carry any through traffic, but will only serve for local circulation on the east side of Newport Center. A rather I lengthy discussion was included in the previous staff report (pages 16-17) on the inability of Avocado Avenue to serve as an alternate facility for through traffic. In considering the General Plan Amendment for the Circulation Element, it is important for the Commission to consider the function of the overall circulation system. it is the long-standing position of the City that the planned roadway system be adequate to serve planned development. It is staff's firm recommendation that MacArthur Boule- vard not be downgraded from a six lane road (either with or without couplet) to the four lane road requested in the public hearing. Volumes and capacities in the traffic study are as follows: I ALM Plc 296 ing Commission - 8. F Without Project/With Couplet Volume 4-lane v/c 6-lane v/c w/o project capacity ratio capacity ratio MacArthur Blvd. (couplet) n/o Coast Hwy. 46,200 36,000 1.28 54,000 .86 n/o Harbor View 46,700 36,000 1.30 54,000 .86 n/o Bah Miguel 30,300 36,000 0.84 54,000 .56 With Project/Without Couplet Volume 4-lane v/c 6-lane v/c with project capacity ratio capacity ratio MacArthur Blvd. n/o Coast Hwy. 46,800 36,000 1.30 54,000 .87 n/o Harbor View 49,100 36,000 1.36 54,000 .91 n/o San Miguel 31,000 36,000 0.66 540000 .57 It is important to note that both of these scenarios assume completion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and all planned connections, as well as completion of the entire City and County Master Plans of Circulation (except University Drive). The testimony received stating that the traffic volumes do not account for further volume reductions which result from the SJHTC and Pelican Hill Road is in error. The projected volumes on this roadway segment without the corridor are as follows: LJ 7 with Project/without Couplet/Without SJHTC/With Pelican Hill Volume 4-lane v/c 6-lane v/c with project capacity ratio capacity ratio MacArthur Blvd. n/o Coast Hwy. 51,700 36,000 1.44 54,000 .96 n/o Harbor View 54,200 360000 1.51 54,000 1.00 n/o San Miguel 48,100 36,000 1.34 54,000 .89 r I LIB 297 TO: Planning Commission - 9. If MacArthur Boulevard were not constructed to the necessary 6-lane configuration, the road would be congested at build -out. As is ' currently experienced in Corona del Mar due to the "planned deficien- cy," traffic will seek out less congested routes during peak periods. Since the 6-lane MacArthur is needed even after installation of Pelican Hill Road, it is anticipated that any diversions will occur closer to MacArthur. The road which staff anticipates would receive most diversion traffic is Marguerite Avenue to San Joaquin Hills Road in both directions. Thus, if MacArthur Boulevard is kept at a 4-lane configuration, the use of local Corona del Mar streets for through traffic could begin to increase, defeating all that the City has worked for in requiring construction of Pelican Hill Road. ' Another related effect is noise impacts on Harbor View Homes. without the depression and the westward shift of the centerline of roadway, noise walls along MacArthur Boulevard will need to be much higher. (Similar to the "No Couplet-A1t.B" depicted on Page 37, Volume 2 of the EIR, but higher since the centerline of a 4-lane road is closer to the residential area than a 6-lane road.) It should be noted that intersection improvements along this segment of MacArthur Boulevard will be required at the time of project devel- opment. These improvements (at Coast Highway, San Miguel, and San Joaquin Hills Road) will require three through lanes in each direction in order to comply with TPO criteria. Were MacArthur to be left at four lanes, the effect of the intersection improvements with adequate merging tapers will leave only the road segment between Harbor View Drive and Crown Drive (extended) at a 4-lane width. ' A concern was raised regarding the flow of three lanes southbound on MacArthur into Coast Highway which is two lanes east through Corona del Mar. The intersection in question is a three -leg or "T" inter- section and allows for both right and left turns. East of MacArthur, Coast Highway is two lanes eastbound; west of MacArthur, Coast Highway is currently two lanes westbound, and will soon be widened to three I lanes westbound. Therefore, the three lanes of MacArthur merge not into two lanes, but into four (current) or five lanes (future) since traffic does, in fact, make right as well as left turns. MacArthur Boulevard will have dual left turn pockets flowing into the two Ieastbound Coast Highway lanes. If MacArthur Boulevard intersection improvements were made as ' required, it may be possible to delay the widening of MacArthur between Harbor View Drive and Crown Drive (extended). It should be pointed out that this will delay the noise mitigation benefits derived by the lowering and shift westward of MacArthur which will accompany the road improvements. Were the Commission to remove this segment of the MacArthur Boulevard improvements from the Circulation Phasing program, the widening could then accompany the development of Newport Village as an adjacent improvement. If it is the desire of the City to delay the implementation of the 6-lane segment further, it is recommended that the road be constructed to a full 6-lane width with an extra -wide median strip. Four lanes could then actually be paved, I 298 ,T0: Pli ,ing Commission - 10. with the additional lanes added towards the road centerline at such time as they are warranted. Coast Highway -Corona del Mar. A question was raised regarding the t possible pressure to remove parking along Coast Highway in Corona del Mar in order to provide additional through capacity. It has been the policy of the City for+many years to prohibit the removal of parking along this road segment for any road widening or intersection improve- ment reasons. Instead, the City and community have accepted the concept of "Planned Deficiency." it is interesting to note that at t build -out (2010), the volume on Coast Highway east of Poppy is antic- ipated to be lower than current volumes so long as the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is constructed. Mariners Mile Improvements. Based upon the EIR traffic study, it is apparent that the City can require intersection improvements on Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue with this project. It Is always possible for the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the project without requiring the improvements or a contribu- tion to the improvements. Land Use Impacts of Couplet. There are two major land use impacts associated with maintaining the Primary Couplet designation for MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. The most significant to the project is on the Big Canyon/MacArthur site. If the couplet is constructed, the site will no longer be appropriate for development due to noise impacts and access constraints. The couplet would also affect the Avocado/MacArthur site and the Newport Village site (wheth- er commercial or residential). site planning, noise mitigation and site access become more difficult with the couplet. , Pelican Hill Road. A question was raised as to the adequacy of 2-lane Pelican Hill Road as proposed for early construction by The Irvine Company. it should first be noted that Pelican Hill Road is designat- ed as a 6-lane, major arterial roadway on the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. , The implications of the construction of Pelican Hill Road were an- alyzed in detail, to assure that the road would, in fact, provide the anticipated benefits to the City of Newport Beach and Corona del Mar in particular. The detailed discussion is contained in Volume 4, pages 3-38 through 3-44 of the EIR. Generally, in the timeframe associated with the Newport Center project, two lanes of Pelican Hill Road are considered adequate. The capacity of a 2-lane road is 18,000 , average daily trips. The total anticipated volume on the road in the year 2010 with buildout of all planned development, including the downcoast development and without the Corridor, does not exceed 22,500. In the 1992 timeframe and prior to the downcoast development, the two lanes will be adequate. It should be noted that at such time as the downcoast development occurs, further improvements to Pelican Hill Road will be required. In fact, the downcoast project phasing ' will tesult in Pelican Hill alwaiys being two lanes wider than the capacity required by the development. This assures that the diversion benefit in Corona del Mar will not diminish. ' 299 T0: Planning Commission - 11. ' ' San Joaquin Hills Road. Questions were raised regarding the staff recommendation to downgrade the designation of San Joaquin Hills Road from Major (6 lane) to Primary (4 lane) status. Clarification of this proposal is, perhaps, warranted. The staff recommendation is for San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hill Road. The Major Arterial designation would be maintained westerly of Spyglass Hill Road to Jamboree Road. This proposal is made since both the City's and County's Transportation Model project the ultimate volumes along this road to be well within the capacity of a 4-lane road. Pelican Hill Road/San Joaquin Hills Road. Testimony was received requesting that the City mandate the processing of Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road connection as one project. While staff understands the desire of the community to have the maximum improve- ments as early as possible, the request could actually prove counter productive to the community goals. The Irvine Company has prepared a report on the timing of the San Joaquin Hills Road (attached). In summary, tying the two projects together would add a minimum of four months to the Pelican Hill Road implementation schedule. If San Joaquin Hills Road is allowed to follow a separate but equally aggres- sive path, it is possible the two roads could actually complete construction in the existing Pelican Hill Road implementation sched- ule. This is due to the fact that additional time needed to complete the engineering and environmental studies can be made up with the shorter construction time needed by the shorter roadway connection. An added advantage is that Pelican Hill Road construction will be allowed to proceed as a separate project if San Joaquin Hills Road incurs any delays or becomes subject to litigation. ' Impact of Staff Recommendations. As indicated in the previous staff report, the adoption of the staff recommendation would result in a reduction of 6,490 average daily trips from the project proposed. The ' Planning Commission requested that the impact to intersections which may result from the project be analyzed. Four intersections were analyzed because they would be the likely locations for ICU increases ' associated with staff's land use recommendations. it is expected that all other ICU values would remain unchanged or be lowered by the staff land use alternative. The intersections analyzed are: I I I I i Coast Highway at: Goldenrod MacArthur Boulevard at: San Joaquin San Miguel Coast Highway At Coast Highway and Goldenrod, the ICU value decreases by 0.01 in both 1989 and 1993 with the staff alternative. At MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, the ICU values do not change in either 1989 or 1993. At MacArthur and San Miguel, the ICU increases by 0.01 in 1989 and is unchanged in 1993. At MacArthur Boulevard and Coast Highway, the ICU value increases by 0.01 in 1989 and decreases by 0.02 in 1993. A complete report prepared by the City's traffic consultant, Basmacyian-Darnell, Inc., is attached. I 300 TO: P1. .ing Commission - 12. The Irvine Company Response. The Irvine Company has submitted a response to the staff recommenda- tion on General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) (attached). The response is summarized, as follows: The Irvine Company is in agreement with the staff recommendations on the following sites: Block 600, PCH/Jamboree, Corporate Plaza West, Big Canyon/MacArthur, and Newporter North. They are also in agreement with the staff recommendation on the deletion of the Avocado Ave- nue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet. The Irvine Company is in basic agreement with some suggested modifica- tions on the sites, as follows: ° Fashion Island: Agrees with the suggested increases, but re- quests addition of ¢0,000 sq.ft. instead of 40,000 sq.ft. and an addition of 2,500 theatre seats instead of 1,350 seats. The Irvine Company indicates that the additional retail sq.ft. is not likely to be used for additional mall shops, but may be used by major tenants such as Bullock's Wilshire or Neiman Marcus. The Irvine Company has explored the possibility of a mall cinema with various operators and has determined that a minimum of 21500 seats are necessary to assure a successful operation. ° Civic Plaza Expansion: Agrees with staff recommendation. The Art Museum has now indicated a need for more than the 50,000 sq.ft. originally proposed. The Irvine Company, therefore, is requesting an additional 15,000 sq.ft., for institutional facilities. ° Newport Village: Agrees with staff recommendation. The Irvine Company requests an addition of 84,800 sq.ft. in Corporate Plaza to bring the General Plan allocation to consistency with the existing P-C District Regulations. 80,000 sq.ft. would be designated for athletic/health club use. • Avocado/MacArthur: Agrees with staff recommendation. The Irvine Company requests an additional 10,000 sq.ft. for use as a day-care facility. The Irvine Company disagrees with the staff recommendations on three sites: ° Block 800: The Irvine Company is opposed to any deletion of square footage in Block 800. It is the position of TIC that the high-rise office is essential to funding the roadway improvements and still agree to the residential program for Newport village and the overall affordable housing program. ° Bayview Landing: The Irvine Company would agree to a smaller reduction in development but opposes the preclusion of develop- ment from the upper portion of the site. Proposed is 35,000 sq.ft. for restaurant uses. I 301 T0: Pla.__ing Commission - 13. Westbay: The Irvine Company disagrees with a reclassification of Westbay in connection with the proposed General Plan Amendment. The Irvine Company agrees to the affordable housing program, but has concerns regarding the mix of low and moderate income units and the period of affordability. The Irvine Company does not agree with the commercial/residential phasing program. The requirement of issuance of permits and substantial construction on 800 units prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Block 600 is considered unrealistic. ' The Irvine Company is in general agreement with all circulation system phasing conditions, except in regards to the construction on Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road in their particular phases. Suggested is that the Jamboree Road dedications occur early with construction completed as an adjacent improvement of Newporter North. The Irvine Company does not wish San Joaquin•Hills Road construction to be tied to any phase, but will commit to construction at the earliest possible time subject to all necessary government approvals. A complete description of The Irvine Company position is contained in their letter (attached). IAnalysis of The Irvine Company Response and Staff Recommendation 1 No analysis is necessary for Block 600, PCH/Jamboree, Corporate Plaza West, Big Canyon/MacArthur, Newporter North, and the One -Way Couplet. ° Fashion Island: The Irvine Company has requested a slightly ' greater increase in retail and theater development than recom- menc=d by staff. As previously stated, it is staff's opinion that the success of the Fashion Island Retail Center is important to the City and that additional development there is appropriate and desirable. The addition of theater seats is seen as an important part of increasing the night-time viability of Fashion Island. Staff therefore can agree with the applicant's request and recommend a total increase for Fashion Island of 188,000 sq.ft. of retail commercial and 2,500 theater seats. ° Civic Plaza Expansion: The Irvine Company has requested an increase in development in order to accommodate the current expansion plans for the art museum and city library. If all the 1 additional allowable is used for institutional uses, staff has no objection to the request and recommends approval of 50,000 sq.ft. for office or institutional use, or 65,000 sq.ft. of institution- al in the Civic Plaza Expansion. The original request has been maintained as an option in the event the art museum expansion is scaled down or fails to proceed. ° Newport Village: The Irvine Company has concurred with the staff recommendation, but has requested an additional amount of '1 TO: 302 ,Plat,,,ing Commission - 14. development on Corporate Plaza. Not to be confused with Corporate Plaza West, Corporate Plaza is an existing Planned Community within Newport Center bounded by Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive, Farralon Drive, and Avocado Avenue. The maintenance of the residential designation on Newport Village has the effect of flaking the "straight" alignment of Avocado Avenue the most appropriate. This makes the original Corporate Plaza planning area the same as exists in land use regulations today. Currently, the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for , 3650200 sq.ft. The P-C development text includes a site plan accommodating 450,000 sq.ft. The reduction in square footage was part of the reductions imposed in GPA 79-1. In agreeing to the Newport Village residential designation, The Irvine Company wishes to re-establish the 450,000 sq.ft, originally planned in Corporate Plaza. Of this 84,800 sq.ft. addition, the applicant has indicated that 80,000 sq.ft. would be limited to use for an athletic/health club. If approved, the request of The Irvine Company would result in an overall floor area ratio of 0.28 in the Corporate Plaza area. This is identical to the proposals for Corporate Plaza West and Avocado/MacArthur previously recommended for approval by staff, The establishment of this use (athletic club) is beneficial in two ways: 1) The use will expand the activity hours in the Corporate Plaza area. As previously stated, the expansion of evening, night-time and weekend activities in Newport Center is considered a benefits and 2) An athletic club has a high likeli- hood of attracting a number of Newport Center employees before and after working hours. As a result, many vehicular trips can be deflected from peak hour use of arterials by such a development. Staff is, therefore, in agreement with the request and recommends approval. , Avocado/MaoArthur: The Irvine Company agrees with the staff recommendation, but wishes to request addition of a day-care facility on the site of 10,000 sq.ft. The establishment of a day-care center in Newport Center is not opposed by staff. The location on Avocado/MacArthur is considered acceptable. Block 800: The Irvine Company opposes any deletion of office development in Block 800 from the original request, indicating that it is the mid -to -high rise office which provides the revenue stream necessary to fund roadway improvements and sustain the affordable housing program. Staff maintains the previously stated position that the requested intensity of development is far out of scale with surrounding development. Staff continues to recommend a reduction in addi- tional development to a maximum 300#000 sq.ft. Bayview Landings The Irvine Company disagrees with the staff recommended reduction in deVelop^ient on the Bayview Landing site. Now requested is 35,000 sq.ft. to allow approximately four LL 303 TO: Pla_ .ing Commission - 15. 1 restaurant facilities with construction allowed on the upper level of site. Staff continues to oppose a high level of devel- opment on this site, and also opposes construction on the upper pad level. It is possible that structures could be placed in the slope area. This could achieve The Irvine Company goal of some i views 'of Upper Newport Newport Bay from the structures while still maintaining public views from the upper level. This type of development would, of course be permitted only if agreed to by the California Coastal Commission. There has also been some discussion that the proposed Teen Center -could be accommodated on this site. Staff is, therefore, revising the previous recommen- dation to allow three restaurant facilities with a maximum total development of 25,000 sq.ft. One of,these facilities may be used for a Teen Center. Development should still be precluded from the upper level of the site, but may occur on the lower level or on the slope. No structure should be allowed which is higher than the upper site level, and should be sited and designed to preserve views of Upper Newport Bay and Newport Dunes. ° Affordable Housing: The Irvine Company is in agreement with most components of the affordable housing program, including the 30% affordability requirement subject to resolution of the mix of low Iand moderate income units and the term of affordability. There is a full discussion of the staff's affordable housing recommendations in the 4/24/86 staff report. The housing impact analysis indicates the project generates a high need for housing in the lower income ranges. The City's Housing Element estab- lishes certain affordability standards based upon the govern- mental incentives uses. The affordable housing requirements proposed by staff are stricter than those applied to previous projects because of revisions to the City's Housing Element ' policies which occurred in 1984. The staff recommendation on GPA 85-1(B) will result in additional commercial/office development in excess of 1 million square feet. Although this represents a ' reduction from the applicant's proposal, it should provide a significant financial incentive to allow the construction of affordable housing in conjunction with the project. Since The Irvine Company has not offered a viable alternative, staff's original recommendation stands. Although a development agreement will, be required for this .project, it is staff's opinion that the affordable housing requirements should be determined at the General Plan Amendment stage, which allows them to be considered concurrently with the granting of significant development incentives. ° Land Use Phasing: Staff recommended an aggressive land use phasing program, requiring commencement of construction of 400 du's prior to issuance of building permits for Block 600, Avoca- do/MacArthur and Bayview Landing and commencement of construction of an additional 400 du's prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Block 600. All 800 units were to be completed prior to issuance of building permits for Block 800 and Corporate Plaza I 304 TO, Plan..ing Commission - 16. West. All 800 units were those within Newport Center, that is, Villa Point and Newport Village. The Irvine Company states that this program is not realistic, but offers no alternate program. Staff continues to recommend the above stated residential phasing program, with the exception that any of the residential projects can satisfy the phasing condi- tion. ° Circulation Phasings The Irvine Company agrees to the proposed phasing program, but requests that right-of-way dedication for Jamboree Road and a commitment to construct San Joaquin Hills Road as early as possible be substituted for actual commencement of construction as proposed by staff. Staff has reviewed this proposal and suggests that bonding for completion and right-of-way dedication occur in the specified phases, with the provision that The Irvine Company commit to aggressively pursue all necessary permits and completion of construction of these improvements as soon as possible. The attached resolutions include the revised staff recommendations contained in this report. Suggested Action Hold hearings if desired, 1) close hearing, take strew votes on the various components of the proposed project (using the attached summary charts), and adopt Resolution No. recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) and accepting the environmental document and Resolution No. recommending approval of Amendment No. 9 to the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plant or 2) take straw votes on the various components of the proposed project and continue to June 5, 1986. 305 ' TO: Pla. ing Commission - 17. PLANNING DEPARTMENT IJAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By z� i PATRICIA L. T T4PLE Environmental Coordinator GPA851/jm Attachments: 1. Summary Charts. 2. Cost/Revenue Chart - Staff Recommendation. 3. May 12, 1986 letter from The Irvine Company on San Joaquin Hills Road Implementation. 4. May 12, 1986 report from BDI, Inc., on ICU changes resulting from staff recommendation. 5. May 15, 1986 letter from The Irvine Company. 6. Draft Resolution - GPA85-1(B). 7. Draft Resolution - LCP Amendment No. 9. 8. May 8, 1986 letter from Natural History Foundation of Orange County 9. Letter from Harbor View Hills Community Associations 10. Orange County Master Plan of Regional Parks. II II UJ r LAND USE OPTIONS --------- ----- ----------- --------------------------------------- t IExiating 1 Original IStafi Recom. 1 TIC (Staff Recow. f f Site lGener. Plan t Pro3ect 1 4-24-86 1 Response t 5-22-86 t Other ) t---------- ---------1-------------- 1--------------- i--------------- 1----- --------- 1--------------- 1---------------i tFashion Island 1 66,000 (C) 1 194,000 (C) 1 234,000 (C) 1 254,000 (C) 1 254,000 (C) I t F 1 1 1 1,350 (T) 1 2,500 -1------- ------- CT) 1 2,500 1-- (T) i i i--------- -----i i-------------- ------ IBlock 600 I-- ------ ----- 1 0 (0) I--- --------- t 300,000 I ------------- (0) 1 300,000 (0) 1 300,000 (0) ------------ 1 300,000 (0) 1 1 I--- ----------------- I ------------- -1-------- ----- 1--------------- I --------------- I --------------- I --------- -----i (Civic Plaza Expansion) 0 (0) 1 50,000 (0,I)1 50,000 (0,I)1 50,000 (0,I>1 50,000 (O,I)I t 1 1 14,000 (I) t t for 65,000 (I) for 6S,000 (1) 1 t f---------------------1------------t-------- ------ 1--------------- I-- ----- - ----- I --------------- 1---------------F (Block 800 1 0 (0) 1 440,000 (0) 1 500,000 (0) t 440,000 (0) 1 300,000 (0) 1 I I 1 245 (R) 1 0 (R) 1 0 (R) 1 0 (R) 1 0 (R) t 1 1_««««__--__--1------------f--- ---- ------ I ---- ------- --t-----------1-- ----------- I --------- -----t IPCNI.Taaboree I n/s (0) 1 130 (R) t 130 (R) 1 130 (R) 1 130 CR) 1 ! 1---__� ««_------ I ------------! ------- ------ I-------------- I---------------1-----------1------------- t 10orporate Plaza heat I- --------- 1 8,400 (0) 1 8,400 (0) 1 108,400 - (0) 1 108,400 - I --------------1-------------- (0) 1 108,400 (0) 1 t I------------ F ---- ---1-- (Newport Village ---------- -1----------«-1 ! 0 (0) 1 345,000 -------- (0) 1 0 --- (0) 1 0 (0) 1 0 (0) 1 f �, F 1 750 CC) I 60,000 (C) 1 0 (C) 1 0 (C) 1 0 (C) 1 t 1 1 360 (R) 1 0 (R) 1 560 (R) 1 560 (R) 1 560 CR) I I 1----------------1--------- ----- 1-----------1««_-«____--t----- -1 _-«____t_««---------i (Avocado/lacArthur 1 n/a CR) 1 44,000 (0) 1 44,000 (0) t 44,000 (0) 1 44,000 (0) 1 I i 1 n/a (C) t I f 10,000 (C) 1 10,000 CC) f t I-----------------1------------- IBig Canyon/MacArthur ! 0 (R) t-------------- I 80 I-------------- (R) 1 80 I---- --------- (R) ( 80 (R) 1----------- 1 80 I----------- t (R) ! ! 1----- ------- - ---- 1_«---------I --------------- I --------------- I-- --- -- ----- I ------- -----I-------------- l INewporter North 1 212 (R) 1 490 (R) 1 490 (R) 1 490 CR) 1 490 (R) t i I---------------- t -------------1------------- t --------- ---- I --____------E ------------- I ------ - ---- -- I IBayview Landing I eat. ICR) 1 60,000 (C) 1 20,000 (C) 1 35,000 (C) t 25,000 (C) I 1 I---------------- ---- I---- --------- I ------------- -1--- ----- ----- I - ------------- I ------- ------ I ---------------I (Corporate Plaza 1 101,174 (0) 1 101,174 (0) 1 101,174 (0) 1 185.974 (0) 1 185,974 (0) 1 t (ADDITIONAL 1 109,574 (0) 11,187,400 (0) 1 $02,400 (0) 11,128.374 (0) 1 988,374 CO) I I IDEVELOPHENT f 66,7S0 (C) 1 314,000 CC) t 254,000 CC) 1 299,000 (C) 1 289,000 CC) I I (TOTALS 1 0 (T) ! 0 (T) 1 1,350 (T) 1 2.500 (T) i 2,S00 (T) I I 1 1 832 (R) 1 700 (R) 1 1,260 (R) 1 1,260 (R) 1 1,260 (R) I f t 1 14,000 (I) 1 0 (I) 1 0 (I) for 65,000 (I) for 65,000 (I) 1 I - ------ ----------------- Tota:s include existing allowable plus proposed pro)ects. 307 Circulation System options Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard: ° delete couplet: MacArthur Boulevard Major Arterial Avocado Avenue Secondary Arterial (Coast Highway to San Miguel Dr.) ° maintain Primary Couplet designation MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road to Route 73: ° Major -Modified Arterial (8 lanes, divided) ° Major Arterial (6 lanes, divided) San Joaquin Hills Road east of Spyglass Hill Road: ° Primary Arterial (4 lanes, divided) ° Major Arterial ( 6 lanes, divided) Other Provisions: All other affordable housing, land use phasing, and circulation system phasing are as defined in the draft GPA 85-1(B) Resolu- tion. GPA851 PINNENtT TNES—SEEM talniate an a Crr busts For All Um SME NILE FWw Eapaditeesa tows) kuk Navin ttAw N9 TOW is lkfwe Nit Public Nair Navel Trws (T+Me N9 Tibet Eapwritaaas rAwt Ntts pipT" Nt Cost ter ■nst Ntle w TAIR 1 KMW M E mrftE PIOIFSf m Fwm PEN CITE OF NOW sFJIOt FWL DOXT MEL 1199 Nwprt Dodd snelopaet moon staff ww" 315M L97 IWAIN NPF v PM a MF INt Nw hwlopnst Wlw per Case St* Estiwte N Ammod Yalu) ►M Iwprty Ta WR; IL66 cants Per sin h®ow w1w; l:rrwt We for TM OU-M a TN) W-M1 Pff3 besnl Eerallatiw Fades; Ln Y; hommon Ns hula Wale[ Ise lx) FA I W »t dens vet inelidr an venal peretiw said; Mt ratter ralnlates a virile ysar at completive of 4aelopomw RStt 1,741 km e 7,495 Mot REC ED MAY 5 }t N Cfry r^ 'JC � C+k1F5` M. QLmitaarxd on next page ............... L M MI= r! M mIft IMMO Im'm Nr 'M r t Table 2 315M L97 PRBIEU, MWITY NO ME MIXING 8 RILL AElf1.13P1EN1 85/14/B6 i Newport Center Development Changes Staff Proposal Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 11 Blank Black Rvxado/ fm7mate Big Carry/ Civic Mmport Plaza FasMan Bayvis POV Nac Neaportr Plan 6M BM Ndithr Village Nest Island LaMing Jamboree Arthur Nath Espan Total MYEIBPIFNC Q11(II7IES Cww Building Space (g) Office 3M,M1 X%m 44,M8 1 118,1M 1 • • • • 5B,1M 794,181 Retail t • 1 • • 234,1N 1 • 1 / 8 234,M1 Restaurant 1 t t t • 1 21,I80 8 1 • (9, IM) 12,1M Total 3M,181 3M,1M 44,111 1 181,111 234,181 2% M 1 / 1 42,M1 1,ae,w Theatre Seats 1 1 8 1 - 1 1,331 1 1 1 1 tl,351) 1 "Ing Units 8 (245) 1 211 t 1 1 136 M 278 1 443 Street Nils t 8 • 1 1 8 t 8 1 1 8 1 N71 DE\fl.DRflif lM1.IE FPCfdG a !tl Per SF Coiner Bldg Space Offin - 210 2M 175 175 173 175 Retail L25 19 125 Restaurant zzs 23 Pr Theatre But 2110 . 4M• Per Hosing Batt B0.M/ M,1M M,gM M,1M B1,1M a NEW DEl4LOWIT VRLIE / F5SESSED LMgIE 111M's) - - Commercial Building Span Dffin 6% M 61,611 7,718 8 17,5M 8 1 1 1 1 8,73 153,95t Retail Restarent 1 1 1 1 1 • 33, 1M • • 1 1 1 35,IM Total 68,118 1 E%M1 1 7,711 1 1 1 17,510 8 35, the 4,5M 4,5M / • 1 1 1 8 II,BMI 6,958 2,7M 191,759 Theatre 1 1 1 • 8 2,7M 1 • 1 1 (2,736) 1 Hosing Units 1 (19,6M) 1 16,188 8 • 1 11,4111 6,411 22,244 1 35,448 Total 61, MB 48,408 7,700 , 16,118 17,5M 37,8M 4,5M 11,480 6,481 22,248 4,258 227,196 EXISTING VRI. (Ows) 1 8 1 t 1 8 1 1 1 1 1ASSEM 1 Vil-MUSE (SBM's) 68,806 A4M 7,7M 16,80 17,SM 37,BM 4,5M 18,48e 6,486 22,248 4,238 227,190 In 1985 Constant Dollars. Source: City of -'Newport Beach; The Irvine Coupany; Natelson Levander Witney, ' Table 1(CamtimeL.......... page 2) 313M L57 WAKE All EI wmvE PIOIA:LRCM m7w 1571413 1 IEII CITY OF W WW OW FISX IMPACT Moil. t191S) Mwport CWAW Beslop w4 Owgn Staff Propsat T UM FAC)016................. IYsidedial Commercial Sigle- Dplea- Milo Mobile local Poliamal Office! Astam Family Forplw Family Mae Mail bull Mice red Ids Ndel Included • FACiOI 1I475 Pe' Uait Par Unit Per Imt Fr Udt fer w Parr P W SF Psr SF par IF Per tea xm NEABtES O Units 1472 7,451 6,3M 9Q Og IMls) QA 3,136 1,T91 5% I'ml, t to: %EYRIE FWM 2,1U hpwty T11200-Urcr1 LM LM LM LM UW 4.1t57 $.*W 0.1457 LPAT 14.M All Variable A13oWim Per Tables Mir W7, t Mlt Tams Ww Thm Party Salo 6 Un Tam 1=93 IM61 A.67 OL14 &OW 11.1641 LIM 1.9143 1,1311 LIe All Variable Allocation Pr Taus tl, M7, 6In All now 31,51 3LV X31 X14 LIM LIM Lt276 LIM7 L0 %,two All Variable Allocation Par Tables M4, 117, a %it TOW ISL9 W-15 1IL31 i2121 LIM L907 L1346 497111 L222 1,43tM Hawes 6 hruits M25 13.18. IL79 1Lt2 LMIG 0.1516 L0516 Lt516 2.1516 IL70 All Variable Alloatis Pr Tables M, $7, 4 Me Uam or Moray 6 irapety SA SL57 307 30T 6.9471 9.1471 0,1471 L8471 L1471 15.25 All Variable, Alloatim Pr Tables Wh M7, 6 MIS Bereave Fro 0Mw A9eeis 75.73 44.93 ZSt 34.3 0.1112 L1152 L9132 LAM LIM 4.91 All Variable Allocation Par Tables Wh W, O MIS Ctte%es for Sreim Other torrent Fed 63.63 WL33 61Q IOL53 Q.63 63.63 0.1331 LIM L1519 LM LED 17.46 All Variable Alloatim Per Tables 1%, W, G Me Park O lbwsetion Fed 2t6S ILM 181.53 1140 1111.33 14.2 LOU LABOR LWA LMM LMU LOW LWA LOU 2L13 All Variable Allaatim Pr Tables At, 117, 6 Nit ubmy Fed LIT LO9 4.99 3.25 0.1110 LMM LMM LOW LMM LOW LMM Lee Lee All Variable Aliantim Mr Tables Na, IA, 6 Y41 All Variable Allocation Pw Tables M4, Al, 6 Mt matt On Tam Fed Firs, Farfeit 6 In Fed 31.12 "It 21,36 21.16 M23 LMM LMM LMM LMM LtM Lee All Variable Allocetim Per Tables 10, )R, 1)Ut bdldvy Eidam Tam Ford L71 64.11 8.70 64.11 L79 Wit 0.0543 LOW LIM LOW LOW 17.35 All Variable Allocation Pr Tables P4, 10, 6 MIS _ 8.70 LM74 LW4 0.1114 8.1474 161174 L41 All Variable Allocation it Tables t4. M7, 6 tit Total lkewm Factors 647.76 ML31 497.0 SILSt L6U4 1.34 L49M 2.3324 0.3161 I'm.61 EIPWITUE FACW Sma ral As saw Pike Safety 7.21 7.28 7.21 Tait LU61 LM61 LOU LWA LMU 1.97 All Variable Allocation Per Tables 94 MI, 6 Y41 peblic marls 215.11 SL96 l21T4 S.! 2IL94 SL91 JUN SL91 LMIS 0.5115 LIM L4131 L0 IIL17 All Variable Attention Pr Tables M5, Mt, i Ali U*wy S25 L35 5.03 5.31 LOW LMM LIM LOOM LMM Lee Variable Allm Per Tables M5, in, 6 Nit for Wear only • Fork teadra t IYusetiam 71.47 SL61 31.15 41693 LMM LMM LMM LMM LOW LOU LIME LIM LMM LMM Lee All Variable Alloatim Per Tables A 4, 4 Y41 Capital loprvmnds SL26 91.3 SL26 SL26 Lt)65 Lt7G5 Lt765 LIM LIM Lee 24.76 Variable Alim Per Tables M5, AN 6 Nil Earl Street Trees All Variable Allocation Pr Tablas 15, AN 6 Mil Total EqW Faders 43697 334.21 411.26 38L16 L6141 L6141 L1149 1.4W LIM4 142.91 to REV Lm IN 2IL79 224.49 /S.75 IM42 0.9172 0,6511 L3112 LAM L47M 1,41B.9 Ibtet Tbst fades are from the apdatad Fiscal Impact todel of MOw.ber 1965, based m the City's INS-& bd1et. Source: City of Mwport Beach-, Matelson tevander witnry. W r O !� •a� ai of a ai a as ran r to �r a � a a a ai � I Table 3 315M L97 MM CITY GFIEIAM FEfW MOM 4 ETPE7®IRK PRMCf106 15/14/86 I t WELL txmi PNE/(I (IN 1985 flINHI{1ff Paim Newport Caster Development Changes Staff Proposal 1 Site 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 11 11 Corporate Big Cary/ Civic Block Block Avocado/ NoWt Plaza Fashion Bayvieu P01/ Mac IlsPM w Plaza Its 611 BM ❑Arthur Mlage West Island Larding Jamboree lk*M North Expan Total .' 1 YOUS in thonsnds of dollars Property Taal Sawed 112 75 14 31 33 71 B 19 12 41 a 424 tkeacured 14 14 2 1 5 11 I 1 1 1 2 48 Total 3% 89 16 31 37 81 9 19 12 41 It 472 Tana Other Than Property Sales 4 We Tax 32 12 5 17 11 212 38 it 7 23 111) 347 All Other a (8) 1 7 3 9 1 5 3 it I 47 Total 41 11 6 24 13 211 39 15 9 33 (9) 395 Liceres i Permits 15 12 2 3 5 12 1 P. 1 4 2 59 _ use of Mar/ 4 Property 14 1 2 '11 5 11 1 7 4 15 2 74 In From Other Agencies. 5 111 1 7 2 4' 1 4 3 9 1 7 George for Swdcn 16 1 2 13 5 13 1 B 5 1B 2 84 @has Gmeel Ford 26 1 4 21 9 21 2 13 B 28 4 134 Park 4 lecrertion Ford • (3) • 3 • 1 1 2 1 4 1 6 Library Ford 1 (1) 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 2 State Gas In Fared • (5) • 4 • • 1 3 2 6 1 9 Fines, Forfeit 4 Pan Ford 16 1 2 13 5 13 1 a 5 11 2 BS kildiog Excise Tex Fad 2 • • 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 t , 12 • Total Armses 261 112 36 129 Be 367 55 M 52 1M 14 I'M — E1PWrTM Garmrai GO am, 2 1 B I I I • 1 1 2 1 11 Public Safety 31 (M) 4 43 11 124 28 2B 17 61 (6) 319 Public Burks 1 (13) a i1 1 1 1 7 4 15 1 23 Library • (1) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Parks Beaches 4 Recreation 1 (11) 1 B 1 1 1 5 3 11 1 17 GPitai iaporeants 23 1 3 i1 B 1B 2 12 7 25 3 129 J Total Experdltaes 5 (45) B 82 11 144 31 53 33 114 (31 491 NEf Sit M(DEFICIT) 215 148 28 47 64 223 25 31 19 65 17 871 to Total Revenues 78.73 144.23 77.53 36.37 77.53 M80 45.65 M37 3&37 X37 119.36 63.98 to Total Expenditures 379.22 (326.11) 344.99 57.15 3".99 M63 B&99 57.15 57.15 57.15 (616.58) 177.61 Source: City of Newport Beach; The Irvine Cwpany; Natelson Levander Whitney. W N 312Ats ' %W THE IRVINE COMPANY J May 12, 1986 1 L� Ms. Patricia Temple ' Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Pat: Subject: Newport Center G.P,A. - Timing of San Joaquin Hills Road Implementation At your request, and in response to questions raised during the last Newport Center GPA Planning Commission hearing, I have asked the consulting firm of Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. (LSA) to give me an assessment of the potential timing of implementing the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road between its current terminus at Spyglass Hill Road and Pelican Hill Road. They assegsed the potential processing and implementation schedule under two scenarios: its inclusion into the Pelican Hill Road process, and its schedule if processed as an independent project. As you can see in the attached, even if processing were to go smoothly, ' inclusion of the San Joaquin Hills Road extension would add approximately four (4) months to the Pelican Hill Road implementation schedule. However, such a processing strategy has a strong potential of further delay which seems quite risky in light of the potential implementation schedule for San Joaquin Hills Road as an independent project. I would like to add that the independent processing schedule for San , Joaquin Hills Road may be a bit optimistic since the July issuance of an "TOP" assumes completion of a fair amount of detailed engineering work , within the next six (6) weeks that, realistically, would take longer and is not yet under way. This could well add one to two (1-2) months to the schedule, but would not appear to change the conclusions. I I 620 Newport Center Drive, PO. Box I, Newport Beach, California 92658.8904 • (714) 720-2000 ' w 313 Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach May 12, 1986 Page 2 I hope the attached assessment from LSA provides the information you were looking for regarding this issue. Please call me at 720-2363 if you have any quest, Very trul; M. E. Eric Director, Policy Mat ME40/ j d Attachment cc: Rict Don 314 , Lqa To: Mike Erickson From: Carollyn Lobellu� Subject: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD EXTENSION TO PELICAN HILL ROAD Date: May 9, 1986 I Natural Resource Management 1 Transportation Engineering Environmental Assessment Community Planning This memo is intended to address several questions regarding the rela- tionship of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Road extension to the ongoing studies of Pelican Hill Road. We have examined two alternatives for proces- sing the environmental clearances for these two roadways. The schedule for the Pelican Hill Road EIR anticipates a Draft EIR in June, 1986, and certi- fication of the EIR in November, 1986. The construction schedule calls for a start date of April, 19870 and gompletion.in October of 1988. The first alternative for environmental processing is to incorporate the San Joaquin Hills Road into the Pelican Hill Road EIR. This would require that additional traffic studies be prepared and field work be conducted, since this alignment has not previously been completely surveyed. The area in the immediate vicinity of the San Joaquin Hills Road extension is highly sensitive for archaeological and cultural resources, and a survey would need to be conducted. In addition to cultural resource surveys, field work would include biological surveys. Although this area has been mapped in previous reports, the project site would need to be spot checked to confirm the con- clusions of prior documents. It is expected that this preliminary research and analysis would require a two month period. In addition, other environ- mental topics such as air quality and noise would have to be analyzed for the San Joaquin Hills Road in the EIR. This analysis would require an additional four weeks during preparation of the screencheck document. The result of this scenario is that a Screencheck EIR for the Pelican Hill Road EIR, which includes the San Joaquin Hills Road extension, would be completed some time between late September and late October, 1986. It is expected that such a document could be certified by the County in March or late April, 1987. Assuming concurrent construction of both roads and a start date of July, 1987, project completion would be in January, 1989. pro- cessed second s separate, stand alone, e,be for project afromathe Pelicanills RHillto be Road EIR. ❑ 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 555 + Newport Beach, California 92660 • )714) 640.6363 ❑ 2606 Eighth Street • Berkeley, Cahfornla 94710 • )415) 841.6840 315 I 1 1 d r� P The schedule would be typical of a roadway EIR, assuming the City of Newport Beach as the lead agency. Two considerations with this scenario are con- straints relative to amending the County's. Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) (from six lanes to four lanes), and potential coastal zone implica- tions. However, our preliminary research has concluded that the amendment to the MPAH would be handled as a discretionary action in the EIR, and such an amendment would be processed and. requested concurrently with the environ- mental clearance process. It also appears that a portion of the San Joaquin Hills extension is on the border of the coastal zone boundary. However, since the proposed four -lane road is consistent with the adopted LCP, any review and permit approval by.the Coastal Commission would be verifying the project's compliance with such plan. The schedule for completion and certi- fication of an environmental document for this type of an EIR would require approximately eight to nine months. This would mean that if the NOP were issued in July of 1986, certification could be expected to occur in approxi- mately March or April of 1987. This assumes that adequate design information is available to start the EIR, and that the County does not review the Screencheck EIR. Given a construction start of July, 1987, and a nine month construction period, the project would be complete in March of 1988. In conclusion, it does not appear ,advantageous to combine these two projects in one environmental do6ment, due to the fact that the Pelican Hill Road EIR is well underway. The San Joaquin Hills Road is actually a sepa- rate, independent project which will have several issues and concerns unique and unrelated to Pelican Hill Road. For example, there are, residential neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the existing portions of San Joaquin Hills Road which would be tied into the extension. Input from these home- owners regarding the impacts of the roadway could be a major factor during analysis of the project. The intent of the Pelican Hill Road document is to be a construction level EIR. In order to analyze the San Joaquin Hills Road extension at the same level of detail, extensive engineering, geotechnical, traffic and field work studies would have to be conducted and prepared prior to issue analysis in the EIR. The end result is that these studies would add considerably to the time frame of completing such a document and to the construction schedule. ' CL/md(738) 316 ' \D1 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ENGINEERING AND PLANNING , Transportation, Traffic, Municipat, Transit 3190 C•1 Airport Loop Drive Costa Maas, California 92626 (714) 657.5780 , May 12, 1986 . r Ms. Pat Temple City of Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ' Subject: Proposed Newport Center General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Additional ICU Computations for Land Use Alternative Recommended by Staff , Dear Ms, Temple: In accordance with our discussions on this subject, we have performed additional intersection capacity utilization (ICU) computations at four intersections to assess differences between the traffic impacts associated with the land use alternative ' recommended by staff and the land uses originally proposed. The four intersections included in this supplemental analysis are: , o MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road o MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive o MacArthur Boulevard at Coast Highway , o Coast Highway at Goldenrod Avenue These four intersections were selected for the supplemental , analysis, because they would be the likely locations for poten- tial increases in ICU, if any, associated with the land use alternative recommended by staff, compared to the originally proposed land uses. At other intersections, ICU values would be expected to remain unchanged or to be lower. The ICU computations have been performed for the land use alter- native recommended by staff in the staff report presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 24, 1986. For purposes of the ICU computations, it is assumed that the phasing , of development would be consistent with the initially proposed phasing for each parcel. Thus, it is assumed that the land use would be developed within the timeframe as originally proposed, even though the type and intensity of the use would be different. I 317 Ms. Pat Temple ' City of Newport Beach May 12, 1986 Page Two 1 II li II II u The analysis indicates that the differences in ICU are very small. The ICU values at the four intersections differ by approximately .01 between the originally proposed project and the currently proposed land use. Attached is a summary table presenting the differences'in ICU for each intersection. ICU worksheets are presented following the summary table. Please call me if I can answer any questions, further information. Sincerely, BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ff Herman Basmaciyan, P.E. or if you require D\ I z`� SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF ICU VALUES MacArthur/ MacArthur/ MacArthur/ Coast Highway San'Joaquin San Miguel Coast Highway Goldenrod Original* Staff** Original* Staff** Or-;--; 1* S ff** 0 - M- g na to rxgxnal Staff* 1989 ----- ---- -- -- ----- Existing Traffic, Plus Regional Growth, Plus Committed Projects, Plus Phase I of GPA 85-1(B): o With Existing Lanes 1.08 1.08 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.31 1.30 o With Committed Improvements 1.05 1.07 1.01(s) 1.02(a) 0.84 0.85 1.31(a) 1.30(a) o With Additional Improvements 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.88 (b) (b) 1.14 1.13 1993 Existing Traffic, Plus Regional Growth, Plus Committed Projects, Plus Phase I of GPA 85-1(B): o With 1989 Improvements 0.92 0792 0.83 0.83 0,77 0.76 1.16 w 00 1.16 o Plus Phase II of GPA 85-1(B); 0.99 with 1989 Improvements 0.99 0.94 0.94 0.79 0.77 1.18 1.17 o Plus Phase II of GPA 85-1(B); 0.90 0.90 0.81 0.81 (c) (c) (d) with 1989 and Additional 1993 (d) Improvements * Land uses at Newport Center and peripheral sites in the traffic study for EIR as proposed by the Irvine Company and presented and analyzed the for the proposed GPA, ** Land uses at Newport Center and peripheral sites Commission its as presented as the staff recommendation to the Planning at meeting on April 24, 1986 (a) No committed improvements at this location (b) No additional 1989 improvements beyond the committed are required at this intersection; however, the construction of Pelican Hill Road will reduce the 1989 ICU further. (c) No further 1993 improvements would be necessary of Pelican Hill Road. beyond the committed improvements and the construction (d) No additional 1993 improvements were identified at this intersection. W 319 Sy ' THE IRVINE COMPANY ' 9 RECEIVED May 15, 1986 PlannIM C. DeC.rtmcM MAY IS 1986 lb - Planning Commission '� CITY OF City of Newport Beach d�� NEwPOWBEACH, ' 3300 Newport Boulevard CALIF. Newport Beach, California ' SUBJECT: Newport Center GPA 85-1b Chairman Person and Commission Members: ' Our company has reviewed the staff recommendation regarding GPA 85-1b as presented in your staff report of April 24, 1986. We would like to offer a number of comments and responses to staff's recommendations. Before discussing specific issues, we would like to provide for the Commission's consideration a brief overview of our planning concept for the ' completion of Newport Center. Planning Ob.iectives I At this stage, Newport Center is twenty years old. We believe it is critical at this stage of its development to reassess and reconfirm future directions for Newport Center as(a buginess, retail, and residential focal point in the Newport Beach community. Our general planning objectives for Newport Center include the following: o Make Newport Center more of a community focal point by providing a greater variety of goods, services, activities and residential opportunities in an exciting architectural setting. o Resolve long-term planning, transportation, and housing issues for Newport Center and peripheral sites. o Complete the undeveloped parcels in and around Newport Center and upgrade existing uses so as to ensure the long-term vitality and economic viability of the Center. o Provide for a continuing strong balance of mutually -supportive land uses and activities including residential, office, retail and recreational. o Improve transportation, by completing the city's arterial system in the Newport Center area, and by contributing to regional transportation solutions through the construction of Pelican Hill Road. We are also implementing transportation system management techniques such as an experimental shuttle service. ' 550 Newport Center Drive, PO. Box I, Newport Beach, California 92658-8904 • (714) 720-2000 31 320 ' -2- Given these basic objectives, we submitted to the City a plan which we believe achieves a desirable balance between land use and transportation needs, and is responsive to the needs of the local business and residential community. We believe that our plan for Newport Center, as submitted, is an appropriate and defensible plan, and this is born out by the conclusions and recommendations of the environmental impact report. The plan has evolved , somewhat during the last year as we have discussed our goals for Newport Center with the community. In addition to our original proposal for Newport Center and fashion Island, it is our desire to provide for a variety of , ses or communityecial facilities,ties and additionalydining and entertainmentlopportunities which people in the community have said they would like to see here. Response to City Staff Recommendations We greatly appreciate the City staff's thoughtful evaluation of our planning , proposal. It represents a thorough analysis of the land use, transportation and environmental issues pertinent to Newport Center. As a general comment, we are willing to work with the City in examining alternatives to our ' original proposal where such alternatives are appropriate and feasible. In most cases, staff's recommendations are compatible with our planning objectives for Newport Center as outlined above. , There are, however, a number of the recommended staff alternatives to our proposed plans which raise some significant concerns on our part or which require further discussion and resolution. These are as follows: ' 0 Significant reductions in office space recommended by staff, particularly in Block 800. , o Substitution of residentiallunitslfor;office and retail space in Newport Village. , o Requirements for construction and phasing of affordable housing which are significantly stricter than applied to previous projects. ' o Ability to provide special uses and amenities (such as day care, health club) if reductions in commercial use are adopted. The office space in Block 800 requested in our proposal is critical to our goal of providing additional high quality mid -rise office in , space order to expansionespacevandltoyattracthnew office,tenantsathatxareineededatosbroadeng the range of business and professional services available in the Center. Further, office development of this type provides our company with the financial ability to commit to major community benefits such ' as transportation improvements and to provide for affordable housing. The Block 800 site is physically suited to the amount and type of office space proposed. And the City's environmental documentation identifies no impacts from ' our proposal that cannot be adequately mitigated. Regarding the City staff's desire for additional housing in Newport Center, we believe that multi -family housing as recommended on the Newport Village ' site is a feasible use of that property. However, our ability to pursue residential development at this location in lieu of office and retail is impacted by the significant reduction of office space suggested by staff in Block 800. r 32 321 -3- 71 The City's Housing Element policies call for "development incentives" to encourage the private production of affordable housing. Yet, the staff recommendation as proposed imposes some significant disincentives to our company in the form of reduced office development opportunities and in potential increased housing subsidy requirements. In terms of requirements to phase residential with office construction (page 30 of the April 24, 1986 staff report), it is recommended by staff that 400 DU's be under construction prior to issuance of building permits for Block 600, Bayview Landing and Avocado/MacArthur, and that another 400 DU's be under construction prior to occupancy of Block 600. This condition is not a practical one in terms of the time needed to resolve site planning issues and secure building and coastal permits for residential projects. It is our intent to construct the residential projects at the earliest possible time. In fact the Newporter North and Villa Point projects have Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing commitments which require early construction in order to retain this favorable financing. The development agreement for Newport Center will guarantee the City completion of all of the residential units prior to completion of all of the office portions of the project. Lastly, with respect to special uses such as day care, a health club and additional civic/cultural facilities, we request Planning Commission consideration of allocating development rights for those specific uses. These amenities will enhance Newport Center as more of a community focal point. More detailed comments on issues relating to land use, housing and phasing of development are attached for your consideration. We look forward to further resolution of these issues in the bbst interest of the Newport Beach community and Newport Center. ' Sincerely, r Monica Florian Vice President Policy Management and Entitlement ' MF:lw Attachment 1 33 IRVINE COMPANY RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GPA 85-1b LAND USE Irvine Co. Staff Irvine Co. Site Request Recommendation Comments Fashion Island 128,000 (C) 168,000 (C) We concur with staff recommendation for 11350 (T) additional retail sq. ft. We could utilize up to 20,000 sq. ft. above what staff recommended (total of 188,000 sq.ft.) for future remodelling of existing department stores. We agree with staff regarding theatre seats. However, a minimum of 2500 seats would be needed for a feasible cinema complex. Block 600 300,000 (0) 300p000 (0) Concur with staff. Civic Plaza 50,000 (O/I) 500000 (O/I) Request additional 15,000 (I) to allow more — flexibility in planning for museum, library, — community meeting facilities. Block 800 4408,000 (0) 3001000_(0) w Disagree with proposed reduction. Office N supports Fashion Island retail. office space needed to accommodate expansion needs of major tenants. Office helps finance roads and other City objectives. Site is physically suited to amount and type of development proposed. There are no impacts in EIR that cannot be mitigated. City will be able to review design at site plan review stage. PCS/Jamboree 130 (R) 130 (R) Concur with staff. Corporate Plaza 100,000 (0) 100,000 (0) Concur with staff. West C- Commercial 0- Office I- Instutional R- Residential T- Theatre 5/15/86 Irvine Co. site Bequest Newport Village provided Avocado/ MacArthur Big Canyon/ MacArthur Newporter North Bayview Landing Corporate Plaza 345,000 (0) 59,250 (C) 0 (R) 44,000 (0) 80 (R) 278 (R) (490 total) 60,000 (C) Not part of original request AFFORDABLE HOUSING Staff Recommendation County Median -Income: 23 DU's County Low -Income: 289 DU's City Very Low -Income: 141 DU's (Fair Market Rent) 5/15/86 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Staff Irvine Co. Recommendation Comments 0 (0) Residential designation acceptable, 0 (C) provided mid -rise office is retained in 560 (R) plan as requested 44,000 (0) Request additional 10,000 sq. ft. for day care facility. 80 (R) Concur with.staff. 278 (R) Concur with staff. (490 total) 20,000 (C) Request 35,000 (C) for 4 restaurants. Our company will construct a view park in conjunction with construction of restaurant use on upper portion of site. ---- — We request an additional 80,000 sq. ft. for a health club/fitness center. Existing - general plan allows 365,000 (0) total. Existing P-C text site plan is designed to accommodate a total of 450,000 sq. ft. The requested sq. ft. would be compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the intensity of use originally planned for Corporate Plaza. Irvine Company Comments Housing Element policies pertinent to residential projects under GPA 85-1b, including Newport Village, call for up to 30% of dwelling units produced as affordable to low and moderate income households. Our company could agree to this requirement, subject to resolution of the mix of low :WA= w N w AFFORDABLE HOUSING (cont.) Affordable term: 20 Years Priority to Section 8 Certificate Program Proposed phasing requires start of construction of 800 DU's prior to occupancy of first major office project. TRANSPORTATION PHASING Pages 30 through 32 of the April 24, 1986 staff report sets forth recommendations and conditions of approval relating to the deletion of the Avocado Couplet,, Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements, dedication of right-of-way, and phasing of transportation improvements with development. 5/15/86 f� T and moderate income units and the period of affordability, based on an economic assessment taking into consideration 1) overall permitted development under the GPA, 2) phasing requirements, 3) the total cost of transportation improvements, fees, dedications, and other City -imposed costs, and 4) the availability of governmental assistance for affordable housing, and favorable financing. staff recommended phasing requirements not realistic or necessary. Due to Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing commitments, we will construct 400 or more units, including a percentage of affordable units, early in overall development program. Development agreement will ensure production of housing. Irvine Comnanv Comments We agree generally with the staff recommendations with the following exceptions: c Regarding the completion of MacArthur Blvd. to 6-lane arterial standards between PCH and San Miguel, we are agreeable to deferring ultimate improvements until the effects of added capacity from Pelican Hill Road can be assessed. We will dedicate ultimate right-of-way and grade for ultimate improvements as part of adjacent development. (page 31, #3) -3- M M M M M M M M M M M M M M i M M M M M M M s M City Staff Recommendation Irvine Companv Comments OPEN SPACE City Staff Recommendation Regarding Westbay, consideration should be given to eliminating the remaining 40 residential units on the Westbay site and require dedication of the developable area for regional park purposes. (page 10) 5/15/86 o Regarding phasing of the final So% of Fashion Island with the completion of Jamboree Road south of San Joaquin Hills Road, we disagree that this improvement is needed to serve Fashion Island development. We will agree to early dedication of the necessary right-of-way and will pursue implementation of the Jamboree.improvements early in the development program in conjunction with residential development of the Newporter North site. (page 32,#3) o With respect to the extension of San Joaauin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road, our company agrees that this is a significant improvement which will serve longer -term regional transportation needs, but is not required to serve the proposed development in Newport Center. This improvement should not be tied to any specific development project in Newport Center. We will work with the City and County to confirm the appropriate master plan designation of this roadway, and we will construct the road extension at the earliest possible time subject to all necessary governmental approvals. (page 32,f6) Irvine Company Comments The recommended deletion of allowed residential development on Westbay plus dedication for regional park purposes are not reasonably related to to the planning issues pertinent to Newport Center. The Newport Center plan already incorporates significant open space benefits including: -4- ca LA 1W City Staff Recommendations Irvine company comments 5/15/86 W W � M ! M i M M o 120 acres of recreational open space in the form of a golf course. o Major commitment to roadway landscaping and upgraded landscaped edge treatment throughout Newport Center. o View park and public trail improvements at Bayview Landing site. o View parks, preservation of major habitat areas, and public recreational use of bluff setback areas on the Newporter North site. o Neighborhood park to be developed as part of Newport Village residential development. —Given these open space amenities, the Westbay —dedication is not justified as part of the Newport Center GPA. Issues regarding the .-ultimate use of the Westbay parcel should be resolved through future discussions with the City and County over the feasibility of establishing an Upper Bay regional park. -5- M w N rn 327 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE ' LAND USE, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED, AND, IN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SAID AMENDMENTS, RECOMMEND THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROTECT BE CERTIFIED AS ' ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B)). ' 'WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Land Use, Recreation and open ' Space, and Circulation Elements have been prepared; and WHEREAS, said elements of the General Plan set forth objec- tives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider certain amendments to the above referenced elements of the Newport Beach General Plani and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to address the com- pletion of Newport Center in a comprehensive manner, enabling the phasing of the project with significant improvements to the local and regional circulation system; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide for a ' balance of employment and housing in the consideration of mixed use developmental and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has, in the General Plan Housing Element, established policies to increase the production of housing in the community and to provide affordable housing oppor- tunities in the Cityl and WHEREAS, the city recognizes its responsibility to designate ' sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Section 65913 of the Government Code; and ' WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to provide a balanced community, with a variety of housing types and designs and housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community; and a" WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to preserve and increase affordable housing for low and moderate income households$ and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the city to eliminate con- strains to housing production and increase allowed density, wherever possible$ and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide incentives to the building industry to facilitate the provision of housing for low and moderate income householdst end WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the unique opportunity to provide housing opportunities in conjunction with commercial development in and around Newport centers and WHEREAS, residential development in and around Newport Center will promote housing opportunities for all persons regordlean of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin or color$ and WHEREAS, approval of the project, with all related land use provisions, circulation system improvements and phasing, will provide for a balance between the planned land uses in the City and the circulation systems and WHEREAS, implementation of the project will provide the City with a significant annual revenue benefitt and WHEREAS, construction of the project will be phased with major circulation system improvements, including the construction of Pelican Mill Road and the completion of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard$ and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environ- mental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State E19 Guidelinebt and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Newport Beach General Plans MCN, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission Of the City of Newport Beach that amendments to the General Plan with related provisions and requirements as described herein are recommend- ed for approval to the City Council. -2- 329 ' Land Use Element: Adopt and include in the Land Use Element the development limitations for each block in Newport Center as specified on the "Newport Center Development Limits" chart, attached hereon as "Exhibit 1." Amend the Land Use ' Element and Map to provide for the following increases in development in Newport Center. 1. Fashion Islands Add 188,000 sq.ft, for general and regional retail commercial uses and 2,500 theater ' seats. Total allowed development in Fashion Island is 1,429,250 sq.ft. and 2,500 theater seats. 2. Block 600: Add 300,000 sq.ft. for general office ' development. Total allowed development in Block 600 is 1,100,000 sq.ft. and 325 hotel rooms. 3. Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 50,000 sq.ft. for office or institutional use, or a total of 284,706 sq.ft. of ' office and 40,000 sq.ft. of institution. An additional 15,000 sq.ft, of institutional may be allowed subject to use of all of the above described 50,000 sq.ft. for institutional uses. In this scenario, total develop- ment is 234,706 sq.ft. of office and 113,000 sq.ft, of institutional uses. 4. Block 600: Change the land use designation from ' "Multi -Family Residential" to "Administrative. Profes- sional and Financial Commercial." Add 300#000 square feet for office development in Block 000, or a total of 553,100 sq.ft. in Block 800. r u 5. PCH/Jamboree: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change the land use designation for Villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Res- idential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. 6. Corporate Plaza West: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial with Alternate Land Use" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 100,000 sq.ft. for office development for a total of 123,400 sq.ft. 7. Newport Village: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 560 dwelling units. Add 84,800 sq.ft. to Corporate Plaza, or a total of 450,000 sq.ft. 80,000 aq.ft. can be constructed only if for an athletic/health club. S. Avocado/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Profession- al and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental, Educa- tional and Institutional Facilities." 44,000 sq.ft. of office uses are permitted with a transit facility and 10,000 sq.ft. for a day care facility. 9. Big Canyon/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Multi -Family Residential," at a maximum of 80 dwelling units. 10. Bayview Lending: Change the land use designation on the lower portion of the site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with .an alternate of "Low Density Residential" to "Retail and Service Commer- cial." Allow 25,000 sq.ft. for restaurant or visitor - 3 - 330 ' serving commercial ueas three restaurant facilities may be constructed, one of which may be used as a Teen , Center. All access for commercial use is to be provid- ed via Back Hay Drive. Structures shall not be higher than the upper pad level, and shall be sited and designed so as to provide for views of upper Newport ' Hay and Newport Dunes. 11. Newporter Northi Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi-Pamily Residential" at a maximum of 490 dwelling units. Significant cultural resources which exist on the site shall be preserved in a manner acceptable to the City, with development clustered in other areas. 12. Mestbays Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental ' Open Space" in partial consideration for increased development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites, 13. San Diego Creek Morth: Add a 2.5 acre rive Station ' reservation to the site. The reservation shall be in effect for a period of 5 years. Recreation and Open Space 21ementi 1. Sayviow Landings Maintain the existing "Recreational and rnvironmentai open Space" designation, but preclude ' development from the upper level. 2. Newporter North+ Maintain existing "Recreational and Environmental open Space" designation, but add unmapped environmentally sensitive area designation for preser- vation of significant on -site cultural resources. 3. Mestbays Designate the site for regional park facil- itios with unmapped envirohmentaily sensitive areas and ' public access where appropriate. A natural history facility may be allowed on the site subject to approval of the City. ' Circulation Elements 1. Delete Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard primary Couplet d*signationj designate MacArthur Boulevard as a ' Major Arterial (six lanes, divided)s designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (4 lanes) between Coast Highway and Sea Miguel Drive. 2. Designate San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass ' Hill Road as a Primary Arterial (4 lanes, divided). 3. Designate MacArthur Boulevard between ford Road and Rout* 13 a•, a Major -Modified Arterial (a lanes, divid- ' ad). All circulation element revision# are subject to approval of the County of orange. The redesi.gnation of MacArthur Boulevard Worth of cord Road is subjaet to approval of the ' City of Irvin*. Affordable Housing, , Based upon the granting of additional commercial develop- ment, increased density for residential development, and ' LJ 331 LI 1 I� i,� governmental financial assistance such as Mortgage Revenue Bonds, the following program is required: 1. Thirty percent (30►) of the total dwelling units constructed on all sites shall be affordable to low and moderate income families. 2. The affordability mix shall be a follows: 66.7% County Low Income• 33.316 City Very Low Income* (with rents not to exceed HUD Section 8 "Fair Market Rents") 'per Housing Element 3. Preference shall be given to Section 8 Certificate holders for the "City Very -Low Income" units. 4. The term of affordability shall be 20 yearn from the date of initial occupancy. 5. The affordable units may be located on any site, however they shall be phased proportional to the market rate residential units. 6. Additionally, the 29 remaining "pool" affordable units in the Haywood expansion shall be committed for a period of 20 years, with 80% at County median and 20% at County low income. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for any develop- ment permitted by GPA 85-1(B), the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City guaranteeing the provision of the affordable unite. This_ agreement may be included within the development agreement. Land Use Phasing: Phase I - No residential (PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village, Newporter North, Big Canyon) units required for: A. Fashion Island Expansion B. Civic Plaza Expansion Center Phase IIa - 400 units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction (foundations plus some framing) before building permit issuance for: A. Block 600 B. Bayview Landing C. Avocado/MacArthur Phase IIb - 400 additional units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction before issuance of occupancy permits for: A. Block 600 Phase III - Completion and Certificate of Occupancy for 800 du's before building permits issued for: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West - 5 - 1 332 Circulation Phasing, 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for any component of OPA H5-1(B), all dedications from The Irvine Company necessary for completion of the Coast Highway IsprW ment Program shall have been made. 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and before installation of Pelican Hill Road] A. One-half of Fashion Island B. civic Plata C. Big Canyon/MacArthur Blvd. D. Newportar North E. PCH/Jamboree F. Newport Village 3. The following project may proceed attar Coast Highway dedications and completion bonding and dedications for Jamboree Road, but before installation of Pelican Hill Road: - Balance of Fashion Island 4. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements: A. Block 600 B. Bayview Landing C. Avocado/MacArthur Blvd. S. Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of Pelican Hill Road] - Block 600 6. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon dedications and completion bonding for Ban Joaquin Hills Road to Felican Hill toads A. Block $00 B. Corporate Plata Nest other R__guirementer 1. A landscape program for MacArthur Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of CPA 85-1(3). The landscaping shall be installed concurrent with MacArthur Boulevard improve, sent$. 2. MacArthur Boulevard improvements shall include the lowering of the roadway grade as discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. 3. All mitigation Mae=$$ outlined in the EIR shall be required. A. The Irvine Company shall aggressively pursue all necessary approvals and construction of Ban Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Bill Road to Pelican Hill Road. S. A Development Agreement and overall Planned Community Development Plan for Newport Center shell be prepared and approved concurrent with or prior to any further discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the development allowed by this conerai Plan Amendment. - 6 - 333 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recom- mends acceptance and certification of the Environmental Impact Report. ADOPTED this day of , 1986, by the following vote, to wit: BY CHAIRMAN BY SECRETARY RES02/jm AYES NOES ABSENT - 7 �i i 334 EXHIBIT 1 ,vEWPORT CENTER DEVELOPMENT LIMITS (Location 1 Allowable I , [Block 0-Corporate Plaza 1 450,000 (0)l I------------------------------ I --------------- I [Block 100-Gateway Plaza 1 165,000 (0)I I------------`----------------- ' I---------------I [Block 200-Desigh Plaza1 150,000 (0)1 I------------------------------I---------------I (Block 300 1 80,000 (0)1 1 1 2,400 (T)l I------------------------------I---------------I (Block 400-Medical Plaza I 380,000 (0)1 I-------------------------`----- I --------------- I ' (Block 500 1 323,550 (0)I I------------------------------ I --------------- I ' (Block 600 1 1,100,000 (0)l 1 1 325(H)I I------------------------------ I -------- ---1 IBlock 700-Pacific Mutual 1 290.800 (0)I I------------------------------I---------------I IBlock 800 1 553,100 (0)1 I 1 80000 (C)l , I------------------------------ I --------_------ I ]Blocks 700/800-Civic Plaza 1 284,706 (0)I 1 1 48,000 (I)[ ' I I or I 1 1 234,706 (0)I I 1 113,000 (I)1 ' I------------------------------I---------------I IBlock 900-Marriott Hotel 1 611 (H)I I Granville Apartmental 67 (R)I I 1 10,000 (0)1 I------------------------------ ' I --------------- I (Avocado/MacArthur I 44,000 (0)1 I 1 10,000 (C)I I------------------------------ I --------------- I (Newport Village I S60 (R)l I------------------------------ I --------------- I ' (Corporate Plaza Neat 1 123,400 (0)I I------`----------------------- I---------------I (Villa Point 1 284 (R)l I-------------------------`---- ' I---I---;-------I (Fashion Island I 1 429 250 (01 1 1 2,500 (T)I I------------------------------I---------------I (Sea Island I 1 132 (R)1 I------------------------------I---------------I IMiacellaneous I i I Institutional 1 58,100 (I)I ' 1 Golf-18 holes I 1 I Automotive-5 acres I Tennis-24 courts I I l axazzxzzsxsasszzzssszzsasxzszslsaszsaxxa=sxsxzl i ITOTALS 1 3,954,556 (0)l I I 1,447o250 (C)1 1 1 4,900 (T)I 1 1 936 (H)I j 1 1 1,043 (R)1 1 106,100 (I)I , j ax=axassza:IIxIIaIIas:axxazxzxssxzzaxaIIIIzszzxxzasII= 1A J J 335 E F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN AND MAPS NO. 29, 30, 37, 38, 48, and 60 AND RELATED TEXT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B). WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to prepare a local coastal program; and WHEREAS, as a part of the development and implementation of the Coastal Act, the City established a Local Coastal Program Advisory Committee, which held 29 public meeting& to develop the goals, objec- tives, and policies of the City's Local Coastal Programt and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach considered the Local Coastal Program, Land One Plan at three public hearings prior to recommending the approval and adoption to the City Council; and WHEREAS, two public hearings were held by the California Coastal Commission in conjunction with the certification of the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan sets forth the objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development in the coastal zone in the City of Newport Beacht and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has initiated General Plan Amendment 85-1(B); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider this amendment to the Local Coastal Pro- gram, Land Use Plant and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in considering this amendment to the Local Coastal Program, has determined that this amendment is consistent with all of the stated goals and policies of the California Coastal Act, the City of Newport Beach General Plan, and the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that the Local Coastal Program, Land Use ��s 336 Plan and Naps No. 25, 30, 37, 38, 40, and 60, be recommended for approval to the City Council as met forth in Exhibit "A". ADOPTED this day of , 1486, by the following vote, to Nit: BY CHAIRMAN BY SECRETARY RES02/jm Attachment, Exhibit W AYES NOES ASSENT .. 2 YK ' 337 1 EXHIBIT "A" NEWPOAT CENTER, BAYVIEN LANDING Newport Center (Maps 37, 48, 49). Approximately one-third of the Newport Center site falls within the Coastal Zone. Most of the area is occupied by the Irvine Coast Country Club, shown as "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" on the Land Use Plan. The Marriott Hotel site is designated for "Administrative, Professional and Finan- cial Commercial" uses to reflect the hotel use on the site. Permitted office uses on the Corporate Plaza West and Chamber of Commerce sites are shown by the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commer- cial" designation and residential use is shown on the Sea Island site by the "Medium -Density Residential designation. The PCH/Jamboree and PCH Frontage Site is designated for "High -Density Residential" allow- ing 284 du's. ' Bayview Landing (Maps 37, 38). This site, adjacent to the Newport Dunes site, is designated for "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" on the upper portion of the site for public recreation uses, with a view park and a bike path. The lower portion of the site is designated for "Retail and Service Commercial" use to allow visi- tor -serving commercial and restaurant use. All access to commercial uses shall be from Back Bay Drive. The structure may be constructed on the slope area, but no portion of any structure may be higher than the upper level of the site. Structures shall be sited and designed to provide for views of Upper'Newport Bay and the Newport Dunes. UPPER NEWPORT BAY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES Newporter North (Maps 38, 60), This site, located on Jamboree Road northerly of the Newporter Inn, is designated for "High -Density Residential" with a maximum of 490 du's. The structures shall be clustered to accommodate archaeological sites and marsh sites. A public bikeway/walkway is proposed for this site. Any development of ' this site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. Westbay (Maps 29, 30), The Westbay site is a large vacant parcel adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve at Irvine Avenue. ' This site is designated for "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" uses, to permit a regional park. Also permitted is a natural history museum with possible joint use as ' an interpretive center for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. A public bikeway/walkway is shown for the Westbay site, but careful consideration shall be given at the time it is developed to the environmentally sensitive nature of the site in locating the ' accessway. Any development which occurs shall be located in order to preserve sensitive habitat areas located on the site. Views from Irvine Avenue shall be maximized. ' Any development of this site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. F GPAS51 5 t ' �a 338 l Natural History Foundation of Orange County 2627 Vista del Oro P.C. Box 7038 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92658.7038 (714) 640.7120 May 8, 1986 tb� RECEIVED c, S Plannlrt ' �— T0: Planning Commission DoparrrtentMAY 1 2 1986 City of Newport Beach b 3300 Newport Blvd Clrrc* Newport Beach, Ca 92658-8915 ► wPCORT ALIF. crl. !! 6, CALIF. RE: General Plan Admendment-Irvine Center Honorable Members: ' We concur with the Staff recommendation that "Development Rights" ' around the Back Bay be transferred as part of this admendment. We operate the only Natural History Musuem within the County(near the Back Bay) and have been working for the past several years with the City, Fish and Game, the County, U.C.I., The Irvine Co., the Department of Education, Friends of Newport Bay and other organizations in coalescing the goals of each group in order to develop a passive regional park. There are many benefits to a cooperative overall planning program for trails, access, circulation, utilities as well as scientific, educa- tional and passive recreational activities -looking at the West Bay areas, Big Canyon and Newporter North. ' We anticipate the incorporation of a 6,000 sq. ft. interpretive center, parking and staging area within the park. If space and opportunity permit, expansion would be helpfuil. We are currently researching and ranking potential sites for our ultimate science center/museum, and the Back Bay might meet our criteria. Sincerely yours, Ron Ye777 ' Chairman Museum Planning/Site Committee ' enclosure . RY; As ' I WIN k .. /o m % ' i /o f Lighto S�• i �ITL1M71ft` '3=ot renas/ mt'm'Y'-m.• cUght Pat ---/ ��T�p 34 / say 13 _e Wp O-Lt • 1�,,_j.Pa1k': may_, � �' q:' . .n 339 M iiin'c �A 3724 It �.__�� 3722 1 .1 `� /' //m J-3120 V \`J, � T 65 hvm C s oun ,Cfuu f •ivin TF'`ece W W k \ ma 1 eM', Zzz n V It \ o 340 'I HARBOR VIEW HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS 1 Newport Beach Planning Commission ' Members: The Newport Center Buildout Special Committee of Harbor View Hills wishes to inform this Commission that, after careful consideration, it unanimously approves of Residential designation ' for Newport Village and the straightening of Avocado along its west side. The Committee rejects any mix of commercial and residential. Sincerely, Jean Morris, Association Vice President and Chairman of the Buildout Committee 0016 0 Rq� nky�o g Mqr jj s 10� �'4CJF `'NCH, I 341 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES INDEX ROLL GAL 2. Mayor Maurer opened the public hearing regarding: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B) - Request CPA 85-1(B) initiated by the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, (45) to amend the Land Use, Circulation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, so as to , allow construction of an additional ' 1,275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, 248,OOD sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a _ revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to delete the Avocado -MacArthur one -way -couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major arterial roadway; and the acceptance of an environmental document; AND AMENDMENT N0. 9 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACHLOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. LAND USE PLAN - Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, and Pacific Coast Highway/Jamboree Road sites. Report from the Planning Department was presented. Letter from Orange County Environmental Management Agency regarding draft Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment 85-10) for Newport Center and Peripheral Sites was presented. Letter from Edward P. Benson supporting General Plan Amendment No. 85-1(B) was presented. The City Clerk reported that after the agenda had been printed, six additional letters were received regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment ?ram the following: (1) SPON (2) Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa ?card of Realtors (3) Douglas Wood d Associates (4) Friends of Newport Bay (5) Newport Heights Community Association (6) Western Center on Law and Poverty volume 40 - Page 224 342 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9A nni t re�i� m 'AJuna 23, 1986 MINUTES iuncY Patricia Temple, Environmental GPA 85-1(8) Coordinator, addressed the Council and (45) stated that the Central Plan Amendment under consideration at this time was the subject of three public hearings held by the Planning Commission in March, April and May of this year. In reviewing the various proposals associated with the General Plan Amendment, several issues were considered, including the balance of community and residential development, community facilities, and traffic and circulation. The project being recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission is the original plan proposed by The Irvine Company as a framework, with revised plans and components to achieve an overall project which balances the uses within the Center and provides saveral community facilities requested during the public hearing process. Me. Temple advised that the changes recommended by the Planning Commission include a change in Newport Village from a major office mite to a residential use, a reduction of restaurant use on 8ayview Landing, an increase in retail development in Fashion Island in order to actommod►te major tenant expansion, addition of a day care center and an athletic club within the plan, and preservation of open space and cultural resources on 8ayviaw Landing, Newportor North and Veatbay, and Fire Station reservation on San Diego Creek North. Me. Temple reviewed the Land Use proposals on an individual basis as depicted on an serial photograph on display for the following sites in Newport Contort (1) Fashion Island (2) Block 600 (3) Civic Plaza Expansion (4) Block $00 (5) PCN/Jamboree (6) Corporate Plaza Uast (7) Newport Village (8) Avocado/MacArthur (9) Big Canyon/MacArthur (10) Dayviev Landing (11) Newportar North (12) weatbay (13) San Diego Creek North Volume 40 - Page 225 343 CITY OF' NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES , , INDEXtp lone 23, 1986 ROLL C to it was also pointed out with respect GPA 85-1(B) affordable housing, that thirty percent (45) (30%) of the total dwelling units constructed on all sites shall be affordable to low and moderate income families, and that the term of affordability shall be 20 years from the I date of initial occupancy. Ms. Temple further noted that contained in the staff report is a review of the Planning Commission's recommendation and a description of the formal responses of The Irvine Company. Clarification of the Planning Commission's intent in regards to MacArthur Boulevard improvements has also been prepared for Council's information. Mr. David Neish, representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and introduced Mr. Tom Nielsen, President of The Irvine Company, who presented the plan for completion of Newport Center. Mr. Nielsen stated that Newport Center is nearly 20 years old, and they believe it is time to upgrade the Center, to make it responsive to changing community needs for the next 20 years, and to fulfill the original goal of making Newport Center the "Town Center" for the Newport Beach Community. He stated they generally concur with the Planning ' Commission proposal as it incorporates objectives they bad in mind the several when they began their comprehensive plan for the completion of Newport Center over two years ago. Those objectives are: (1) Make Newport Center more of a community focal point by providing a greater variety of goods, activities and services, residential opportunities in an exciting architectural setting. (2) Resolve long standing planning, issues transportation, and housing for Newport Center and peripheral sites. the undeveloped parcels in (3) Complete and around Newport Center and upgrade existing uses so as to inaure the long-term vitality and economic viability of the Center. ' 40 - Page 226 ' Volume 344 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES As s 9 P Junk 23, 1986 IN ffFY (4) Provide for a continuing strong CPA 85-1(8) balance of mutually -supportive land (45) uses and activities including residential, office, retail, recreational, and cultural. (5) Improve transportation, by completing the City's arterial system in and around the Newport Center area, by contributing to regional transportation solutions through the construction of Pelican Hill Road, and by implementing transportation system management techniques, such As the experimental shuttle, Von pools, flex hours, through an on site coordinator. Mr. Nielson stated that to has been indicated by staff, the plan before the Council tonight it not the same plan they originally submitted. Over the past year they hive bean meeting with and listening to their residential neighbors and the business community. Many ideas and suggestions were offered. In more than 30 separate meotings with community groups and three Planning Commission public hearings, they have hoard that people want the City's road system to be implemented; they want a greater variety of shopping And entertainment opportunities in Fashion Island; and they want identifiable cultural and community amenities in Newport Center. In working with staff and the Planning Commission, they have also heard the City's specific goals for increased housing opportunities in the community. The plan before you tonight they believe meet@ all these objtetives. Mr. Nielson discussed the proposed expansion of retail opportunities in Fashion Island, the new restaurant uses on the Bayview Landing site, which also includes a now park, their major commitment to new residential housing @nd the proposals for a cultural facility, day care facility, and health club. They art also working with the Restaurant Association and the PTA to provide the opportunity for a "Teen Center" At one of the four restaurant sites they are requesting at gayview Landing. Volume 49 - Page 227 345 , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ��f ��99Gif_G3c��9GP�99��y�9�yF.oc�\ June 23, 1986 INDEX ROLL CAL In concluding his remarks, Mr. Nielsen GPA 85-1(B) discussed transportation improvements (45) which are made possible by the plan, pointing out that a major component of the road program is the construction of Pelican Hill Road, providing a by pass around Corona del Mar for regional through traffic. They are committed to implementing Pelican Hills Road at the. earliest possible time, and have submitted preliminary plans for the profile and alignment of the road to the County for review and approval. Assuming General Plan approval for Newport Center, they expect to be under construction with Pelican Hills Road a year from now. With respect to major ' road improvements around Newport Center • itself, they do not feel the completion of Newport Center generates the need for MacArthur Boulevard to be expanded to eight lanes between Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Road. The extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hills Road is also included. They intend to construct this road as early as possible. Mr. Nielsen also commented that their company will also contribute to various intersection improvements as needed to improve traffic flow. in addition, they have met with members of the Mariner's Mile Association and nearby residents. While they are not proposing specific transportation improvements for Pacific Coast Highway in this area, they are proposing contributions toward improvements and are committed to working with the Mariner's Mile Association, residents, and the City on implementing improvements. In conclusion, Mr. Nielsen noted that the intensity of the proposed plan is significantly less than the allowed intensities in other areas of the City, such as Corona del Mar and areas north of Bristol Street. Their goal for Newport Center has been to create balance, not intensity, in order to ensure the Center's viability in the coming decades. The new development will contribute more than $1 million per year in surplus tax revenue (over and above the cost of providing public services). He stated he hoped the Council would agree that Newport Center should remain a place of diversity and vitality and that it should fulfill its _ Volume 40 - Page 228 ' 346 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES It� � June 23, 1986 INMEX original vision is the "Town Center" for CPA 85-1(B) Newport Beach. (45) Mr. Neish addressed the Council again and stated that there are two areas they wish to take issue with regarding the Planning Commission's recommendations, i.e. (1) Dayview Landing and (2) dedication of the Weatbay site. With regard to Dayview Landing, Mr. Maish commented that this is a 20 acre parcel, and because of its location and proximity to Upper Newport Bay, they thought it highly desirable for restaurant uses. Their original proposal was for 60,000 &quart feet with up to six restaurants in operation. Subsequently, they refined their plan and requested Planning Commission's consideration of 35,000 square feet for four restaurant sites. The Planning Commission voted to recommend 25,000 square fret total, with no restaurant uses to be located on the upper level of the parcel. They believe that the City's goal for view preservation, public access, and a new view park can be accommodated in conjunction with their proposed development plans. Restaurant uses on the upper level of the site will be located and designed so am to preserve the existing views of the bay. They will construct a view park at the expense of The Irvine Company. They are requesting City Council consideration for a total of 35,000 squart fast which would permit two restaurants on the upper level and two restaurants on the lower level, including the proposed Teen Center. Pertaining to dedication of the Westbey site, Mr. Neish stated that The Irvine Company feels that the dedication requirement is somewhat premature, and that it to basically not &soociated with this Central Plan Amendment request. They feel that the issues regarding the ultimate use of the Wastbay parcel should be resolved through future discussions with the City and County of Orange over the feasibility of establishing An Upper Day Regional Park, and would encourage those discussions to take place, but not in conjunction with • Newport Center. Regarding the subjects of affordable housing and residential phasing, Mr. - Naish commented that The Irvin Company volume 40 - Page 229 347 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS Tune 23. 1986 MINUTES INDEX R VLL \.ML concur's with the staff's CPA 85-1(B) recommendations on both of these key (45) items. In conclusion, Mr. Neish described the proposed major landscape improvements, and their locations, in conjunction with this General Plan Amendment. He also discussed the improvement of Pelican ' Hills Road as referenced by Mr. Nielsen. The following persons appeared before the Council in favor of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B).- Audrey Moe, 4518 Roxbury Road, representing the Natural History Foundation of Orange County Dorothy Hardcastle, 507 "J" Street, representing Board of Directors of Speak Up Newport (SUN) Ronald E. Robison, 23 Tiburon Bay Drive William Hamilton, President, Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce Jane Boyd, 2512 Lighthouse Lane, representing Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of Realtors Chuck Colesworthy, 450 Vista Roma Avenue Patti -Gene Sampson, 1942 Santiago Drive, Chairperson, City Arta Commission Ray J.'Johnson, One Trafalgar, President, Newport Harbor Art • Museum Board of Trustees John Konwiser, President, Irvine Terrace Community Association Mary L. Richmond, 1307 Seacrest Drive Pam Howard, 1827 Tahuna Terrace Angela Monroe, 1104 Dolphin Terrace Ed Luse, D2 Fashion Island Karen Evarts, 426 Piazza Pido, Chairperson, Library Board of Trustees Volume 40 - Page 230 _ 348 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS ao� June 23, 1986 MINUTES Whev Doe Natters, 140 Fernleaf Avenue, CPA 85-1(B) npreventing Corona del Mar Chamber (45) of Commerce (submitted letter) Richard Xarowltt, 2719 Setting Sun Drive, President, Newport Cantor Association (submitted copy of resolution adopted by Association) " Say Watson, 2501 Alta Vista Drive Norma J. Clover, 450 Santa Ana Avenue lollies P. Picker, 522 N. Ocean Front (submitted letter) Lae Spencer, 3716 Ocean Boulevard Michael She&, 260 Newport Center Drive Chuck Hirsch, 4141 MacArthur Boulevard,jformer member of city's Transportation Committee (submitted letter) James Bailey, 2301 Margaret Drive Vin Jorgenson, 1533 Antigua Nay Barbara Auna, 1800 Antigua Circle Jim Dale, 118 Apoltna Avenue, representing Villa Nova Restaurant The following persons addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed Central Plan Amendment: Jackie Pirkla, 216 Onyx, representing SPON (submitted letter) Ron Covington, President, Corona del Mar Community Association (submitted latter) Allan Seek, 1945 Shetington Avenue Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue (submitted copy of map shoving.1980 Traffic Flow) Reran Hatrington, President, Newport Haight* Community Association (submitted letter) Susan Deering, 2627 Blackthorn Strut, President, East Sluff Community Association Volume 40 - Page 231 349 , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES c�f �,`SNF.n9G�1'PpV�y�9T 5 �\ June 23, 1986 IN DE X KULL UAL Susie Picker, 110 9th Street CPA 85-1(B) (supports cultural facilities only) (45) In response to comments made by Ms. Pirkle regarding the EIR and inclusion of SPON's comments in said EIR, the Environmental Coordinator responded that previous correspondence received From SPON was under the letterhead of their legal counsel in San Francisco, and therefore, a copy of the City's responses to comments were forwarded to that office. In response to the amount of development which would be permitted in the "down coast" area prior to construction of Pelican Hills Road, the Planning Director stated that there is a certain amount of development that The Irvine Company would be allowed to construct prior to construction of Pelican Hills Road. Said development would be limited to a certain number of dwelling units and a certain number of hotel rooms. Above and beyond that first threshold, the construction of Pelican Bills Road would be required. In reply to inquiry of Mrs. Doering regarding the EIR, the City Attorney advised that pursuant to State guidelines, the law states that a draft EIR shall be prepared directly by, or under contract to, the lead agency. In essence, the City either prepares the document in-house, or contracts with a consultant, which was done in this case. Therefore, it is the City's Environmental Document and not The Irvine Company's. J. Leslie Steffensen, Cameo Highlands Drive, addressed the Council and spoke neither for or against the proposed General Plan Amendment. He expressed his support of representative government, and indicated he felt the City Council would make the "right" decision with regard to the proposed development. Frank Robinson, 1007 Nottingham Road, representing Friends of Newport Bay, addressed the Council regarding the development of lands which may impact Upper Newport Bay ecological reserve, as enumerated in their letter of June 23, 1986. Volume 40 - Page 232 350 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS vni i \PAINN�9�f �\ June 23, 1986 MINUTES In response to the concerns addressed in CPA 65.1(3) the above letter, Bred Talarico, (45) Consultant, stated that he has suggested two different 100 foot setbacks regarding the Newporter North and John Wayne Gulch sites$ one which dells with the gaologieal stability and the other which pertains to biological setback. The Environmental Coordinator pointed out that the site in question is the Newporter North parcel, and includes a bluff and biological resource area on the edge next to Newport lay, and also an area commonly tolled John Wayne Gulch. The 100 foot setback is measured from the biological resources which along the bluff face constitutes the top of the bluff. In tome of John Wayne Gulch, the setback is from the actual location of biological resources which may be somewhat lower than the top of the bluff. Mr. Robinson stated be accepted the clarification which defines the biological resource as the top of the bluff, and stated he bad no further cosaeare. In response to water quality of the bay referred to by Ms. sicker, Mr. Talsrico stated the subject was addressed in the EIR. He introduced James W. Anderson, Attorney, mod former member of the State Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, who stated that the water quality near the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club and the Balboa Yacht Club has been a concern of the Board for sometime now and therefore they conducted studies of the bacteriological quality of the bay. The City of Newport Beach has done considerable work on siltation and drainage control, however, the issues relative to the bay need to be sddressed further by the Board and he believes those studies are being continued. He noted that the studies of the Board and the County Health Department do show that Newport Beach is bacteriologically safe and meets the standards for body contact recreation during the Summer months. Marian Rayl, 426 San Bernardino, addressed the Council and requested clarification regarding the construction of Pelican Hills Road, She also asked Volume 40 - Page 233 k 351 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES • nofi ���9``no �F.n�9G9��Pf y�9�1rp�\ June 23, 1986 INDEX HULL GAL "is it really necessary that there be GPA 85-1(B) 'total' buildout of Newport Center for (45) The Irvine Company to assist the City in its cultural and community needs?" The Environmental Coordinator, in response to the above question regarding Pelican Hills Road, advised that pursuant to the EIR, the numbers that triggered the need for Pelican Hills Road in The Irvine Company's coastal development, is 150 residential units and 300 hotel rooms. In terms of The Irvine Company's development itself, the proposed construction of Pelican Hills Road is a 6-lane major arterial roadway which will be a 6-lanes•divided roadway. In addition, Sand Canyon would also be developed in conjunction with the development as a 2-lane road. Douglas Wood 6 Associates, 3800 Inlet Isle, representing Spyglass Hill and Spyglass Ridge Community Associations, addressed the Council and stated that both of their Associations are "generally supportive" of the proposed General Plan Amendment. However, their major concern is San Joaquin Hills Road, and would like to suggest the following revisions to the Planning Commission's Conditions of Approval: (1) That Pelican Hills•Road be completed from Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard prior to the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road. (2) That the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road be a 4-lane primary arterial from its current terminus to Pelican Hills Road. (3) That dedication of necessary right-of-way occur to accommodate San Joaquin Hills Road to a 6-lane in the event of the need arising for its widening. (4) That there be an initiation of an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to redesignate San Joaquin Hil_'.s pond as a primary arterial, 4-lanes divided, between Marguerite and Pelican Hills Road. Volume 40 - Page 234 352 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS Rnt.1 r.A�t� 'p �r P � 10 June 23, 1986 MINUTES INbEff Crace Seeker&, representing County of GPA 85-10) Orange Environmental Management Agency, (45) Parks A Recreation, addressed the Council and requested that the Wesebay site not only be designatedas and Open Space in the proposed General Plan Amendment, but also that dedication to the Orange County Harbor, leaches d Parks District be required. Barry L. Allen, 1021 White Sales Way, representing Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association, addressed the Council and stated that their Association has reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment and are in favor, with the exception of the staffs tecommandstion regarding the widening of MacArthur Boulevard. Their Association voted unanimously that MacArthur Boulevard be widened to only 4 thru-lanes, and "that is oil." They believe that WMaeArthur Boulevard is widened from 4-lanes to 6-lases, then theta will be 6-lanes to 4-lanes at Coast Highway which will encourage 6-lanes thru Corona del Mar. Motion x Hearing no othare wishing to address the All Ayes Council at this time, motion was made to continua the public hearing to July 14, 1986. With regard to this item, the staff was requested to bring back additional Information at the next meeting pertaining toi (1) Traffic lsprovesants - (intersaction impacts in Corona del Mar as a result of General Plan Amendment and Pelican Hills Road) (2) Sales Tax - (revenue projections in terse of retail sales from General Plan Amendment) (3) bay Care Center - (some type of guarantee that a Day Cate Center will be included in the overall plan) (4) �loyee Wousins Demand - (how is it absorbed in surrounding areas) Volume 40 - Pap 235 353 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 1ALMN0�1"5 9G 'y.� 9c�FROLL�`�p yEP June 23. 1986 MINUTES INDEX (5) Traffic ManaScement Plan - GPA 85 (ride sharing, etc., how (45) extensive) (6) Traffic Improvements - (estimated coat if Council approves recommendation of Planning Commission) , (7) San Joaquin Hills Road/pelican Hills Road - (tie-in time Time) (8) Park Credits - (status with .. respect to this General Plan Amendment) (9) Quality of Life Recommendation - (staff response to the Committee's recommendation that the EIR not be certified) (10) Police Protection, Water, Sewers. Libraries, etc. - (estimated cost revenue impact as a result of General Plan Amendment) (11) MacArthur Boulevard - ("should evaluate Poppy, Fifth and Marguerite Avenue at the same time MacArthur Boulevard widening is evaluated) (12) Pelican Hills Road - (impact on PCH in Corona del Mar when coastal development completed) (13) Pedestrian/Bicycle overpass - (evaluate the feasibility of an overpass that would go over MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View Hills Drive and San Miguel) (14) One -Way Couplet - (discussion of adequacy of two-way MacArthur vs. one-way couplet) Council Member Agee made reference to SPON's letter of June 16, 1986, which suggested that an advisory committee be formed of representatives from interested homeowners associations in the City to consider the impact of this General Plan Amendment, and stated that in his opinion, the City Council is such a committee, inasmuch as Council Members are elected by the voters and represent - Volume 40 - Page 236 354 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS June 23, 1986 MINUTES INDEX seven different stage. He also felt that the City Council has an obligation to not delegate that responsibility. 3, Mayor Maurer opened the public hearingVacation/ regarding VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A kbdn Swr PORTION OF A 10-FOOT EASEMENT FOR WATER amt-Poppy PURPOSES AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO THE We CITY or NEWPORT BEACH RECORDED IN BOOK (90) 13602, PACE 1043 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY (blocks 95 and 96 of Irvinafs Subdivision filed in book 1, page s8 of Miscellaneous Record Naps, County of Orange (southerly of Tract 6425 and northerly of Poppy Avenue). Report from Public Works Dapartment Mss presented. Hearing no one wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Notion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No, Res 86-48 All Ayes 86-48 ordering the vacation of a portion of it 10-foot easement for water purposes{ and direct the City Clerk to have the revolution recorded by the orange County Recorder after the existing water main has been relocated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. B. PUBLIC COMIKENTS: 1. Susie Picker, 110 9th Street, addressed the Council and suggested the City's ordinance regulating noisy construction be amended so that work cannot commence before 8 a.m., particularly during the Summer months. It was indicated by the Mayor that Ns. Ticker's request would be considered at a future study session. 2. Council Member Heather announced that she will not be seeking re-election in Novamber, stating she has been involved with the City for 15 years and is proud of what she has accomplished during that time. P. CONSENT CALENDARt Motion x The following actions ware taken as All Ayes indicated, except for those items removed: Volume 40 - Page 237 COUNCIL IN"ROLL Present Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes 355 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MEMBERS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council �9G9�9�f y�9�yF.oc�\ Chambers TIME: 7.-30uly 14M.DAT1486 MINUTES Nu11FX x x jxx 7xx TXA. ROLL CALL. The reading If the Minutes of the x Meeting of June 23, 1986, was waived, approved as written, and ordered filed. C. The reading in full of all ordinances x and resolutions under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Maurer opened the continued public hearing regarding: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B) - Request GPA 85-1(B) initiated by the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, (45) to amend the Land Use, Circulation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, so as to allow construction of an additional 1,275,000 sq. ft. of office uses, 248,000 sq. ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to delete the Avocado -MacArthur one -way -couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major arterial roadway; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document; AND AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT Amnd#9 LCP/LUP BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE 356 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS SJ•99 �\ July 14, 1986 MINUTES INDEX resolution for MacArthur Boulevard. In CPA 85-1(B)/ addition, a letter was received from 86-2(A) LuVena Hayton, recommending approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment. The City Manager referred to the subject staff report and noted that the staff had responded to the concerns raised by the Council at the June 23 meating, as enumerated in said report. At the request of Council Member Cox, Roger Seitz, Vice President of Planning and Urban Design of The Irvine Company, explained the details of the proposed landscape plan for MacArthur Boulevard from the major future interchange with San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and San Diego Creek to Pacific Coast Highway. The following persons addressed the Council regading the proposed Central Plan Amendment. Donald Christensen, Chairman of Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce Traffic Commission, stated that they strongly support the project; however, they are concerned with traffic, and therefore, are preparing a proposal for consideration by the City Council regarding the feasibility of car pooling, etc., in order to save car trips. He also stated that he, personally, was in favor of the proposed landscape program just presented for MacArthur Boulevard. Jean Watt, /4 Harbor Island, representing SPON, read a prepared statement, (which was also submitted fox the record) summarizing their overriding concerns, i.e., levels of traffic service, affect of Pacific Coast Highway on the community character, and the proposed development agreement. Mrs. Watt also submitted a copy of a letter to Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, dated July 11, 1986, from Terry Watt, Urban Planner with Shute, Mihaly 6 Weinberger, Attorneys at Lew, regarding adequacy of response to torrents on the Environmental Impact Report for Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. In addition, Volume 40 - Page 254 1 357 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS July 14. 1986 INDEX 6 ROLL CAL '" a copy of the Transportation* GPA 85-1(B)/ Systems Management Ordinance for 86-2(A) the City of Pleasanton, was also, submitted for Council review. Lowell Martindale, 649 Promontory Drive East, partner in the law firm of O'Melveny 6 Myers, Fashion Island, stated he felt that careful planning had been given to this project by The Irvine Company and would urge its approval. Ralph Rodheim, President of Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, stated he felt the project would improve the quality of life in the City. He was especially favorable of the proposed Teen Center. Shirley Conger, 3033 Bayside Drive, stated that at the June 23 City Council meeting, there was a "crying" need for office space expressed on the part of The Irvine Company. However, in the July 3 issue of the Los Angeles Times, it was noted that The Irvine Company was "cutting back" on its employees by 30% due to a 1/3 vacancy rate in office space near John Wayne Airport. She stated she had problems reconciling these two statements. She also stated that she did not want to see Newport Center built up to the point where it overwhelms Corona del Mar as a result of the increased traffic. Philip Sansone, 215 Marguerite Avenue, stated he felt that the public was not adequately made aware of this proposal and its importance, and therefore, suggested: 1) The City Council defer action on the project; 2) Disseminate details of this proposal, good and bad, to all residents utilizing cable television, utility bill i inserts and public forum; and 3) Leave the final decision of the project to the electorate and place on the November ballot. Volume 40 - Page 255 - 358 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES C�-F ,99G9�?99f July 14, 1986 rA, INDEX Bob McCaffrey, 409 N. Bey Front, GPA 85-1(B)/ stated he felt the proposal was a 86-20) very good plan and would expand the tax been. However, he was not supportive of the proposed Pedestrian and bicycle bridge over MacArthur Boulevard between San Miguel Drive and Coast Highway. Gary Pomeroy, 2907 Bbbtide Road, President of Harbor View Hills Community Association, referred to their letter of July 7, 1986, which he read into the record regarding MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel and their desire that MacArthur Boulevard remain four lanes at this location. He stated they felt the wording in the Planning Commission's resolution was in error and requested the oversight be corrected with the revised language as set forth in their letter. He also stated their Association has not had time to discuss thoroughly the proposed feet bridge and would request the City Council withhold its approval at this time. Debbie Allen, 1021 White Sails Way, referred to her prepared statement dated July 8, 1986, which had been distributed to the City Council just prior to the meeting regarding widening of MacArthur Boulevard and deletion of the one-way couplet. She stated that the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on this issue reflects an acceptable compromise of the divergent interests in this item, and she would urge its approval with the following clarifications: 1) Refer to the June 23 staff report, pages 25 and 26, which explain the intent of the Commission to apply the conditions for the widening of MacArthur Boulevard to the entire section of the roadway from Pacific Coast Highway to San Miguel Road (subject only to permitting the necessary additional lanes at the intersections). This Intent paragraph was inserted by the Commission to explain and correct the meaning of the _ Volume 40 - Page 256 1 359 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \CO*'Gs Juiv 14, 1986 INDEX ROLL CAL resolution ; and GPA 85-1(B)/ 86-2(A) 2) Refer to the letter from the Harbor View Hills Community Association of July 7, 1986, which explains the Association's position that Pelican Hill Road be completed • from Pacific Coast Highway to • Bonita Canyon Road, before MacArthur is widened. This condition is vital to all of Corona del Mar, because they want to route the through traffic around all of Corona del Mar, before additional traffic is allowed to use Pacific Coast Highway up MacArthur as the access road from downcoast to the Airport area. Bill Ritter, 410 Aliso Avenue, stated he was in support of the General Plan Amendment as he felt it would enhance the City's • financial position and also recognize the responsible efforts on the part of The Irvine Company. Jean Morris, 1032 Sea Lane, stated the Harbor View Hills Community Association, unanimously supports the Planning Commission's recommendation to have MacArthur Boulevard remain at four lanes, at least temporarily. She stated that they originally supported the General Plan Amendment with certain conditions. She stated that they would like the mitigating circumstances for MacArthur Boulevard to be completed prior to any building. It was also their understanding that Pelican Hill Road would be constructed prior to any additions to Newport Center, and not just "tacked" on the end as it is now being proposed. She referred to Page 8 and 9 of the staff report regarding traffic generation on MacArthur Boulevard and expressed her concerns. In conclusion, she requested tha Council take separate vot.s oa the following five items: Volume 40 - Page 257 360 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS July 14, 1986 MINUTES INf1EX RVLL LML 1) should Pelican Hill Road be CPA 85-1(B)/ In place before large segments 86-2(A) of the Center are built; 2) Should sounds and sight and other mitigating environmental concerns for M9cAYthar be done by the applicants before permits be given for building in the Center; 3) Should nothing be dune to improve MacArthur until Newport Village is started which may or may not be a long way down the road; 4) Should Newport Village be allowed a density of 30 units to the acre (park Newport being 24 units par acre) which with the height limitations, would appear about two times as thick as Park Newport; , 5) what actual figure would the Councii use as a criteria as to the cars MacArthur Boulevard could carry as a four lane road? In response to Ms. Morriets comments with regard to Page 8 and 9 of the staff report, the Environmental Coordinator stated that the two charts on Page 8 indicate estimated volume to capacity ratios along !MacArthur Roulevard. Both of these charts assume completion of the regional roadway system, including the completion of Pelican Hill Road to its full master plan capacity, and the completion of rho San Joaquin Hill" Transportation Corridor. The chart on Page 9 was provided for additional information for the City Council, and was included to show what the anticipated volumes would be in the event the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor was not constructed. In response to Council Member !leather regarding the proposal to delete the Avocado -MacArthur one-way couplet, the Public Works Director stated that the detailed discussion of MacArthur Boulevard, its projected traffic and the function it will serve, are contained on Pages 7 to 10 of the staff report. The most fundamental consideration is that the data dots show that the master plan Volume 40 - Page 258 361 CITY OF NEWPORT BE MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS ' C, top, vG_� PF9 S ��� �� July 14, 1986 INDEX ' ROLL CAL for MacArthur Boulevard needs to be six GPA 85-1(B)/ lanes for it to function satisfactorily. 86-2(A) It's important, from a circulation point that that capacity be of view, available; the major intersections not be unduly congested, and the traffic not bypass onto local streets. The Public Works Director stated that the configuration that is shown on the exhibit depicts the phasing proposal that has been made for construction of MacArthur Boulevard to an ultimate six -lane right-of-way. He feels it is a workable plan, and as long as adequate guarantees are in place to insure that it is.constructed to six lanes when the need arises, he thinks it will function satisfactorily. , ' Jean Harrington, 2007 Highland Mariners Community Drive, member of Association, stated that she was supportive of many elements proposed in the General Plan Amendment; however, she was concerned regarding density. She felt that with the build -out of Newport Center, it will be difficult to justify to the County Board of Supervisors, the City's desire to maintain a certain number of flights out of John Wayne ' Airport. John Miller, resident, (no address given) stated that there are many benefits to be derived from the subject proposal, but are these benefits worth the cost of approximately 200,000 cars per day ' In the City. Prey, 5166 Marguerite, spoke Patty in support of affordable housing in the City for the "young professionals" so that they do not have to relocate outside the City. Carrie Slayback, 426 Riverside ' Avenue, spoke in support of preserving open space in the City, and suggested consideration be *I•1v-.i to developing a large park • area at Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway. She would also like to ' see more greenbelt areas around the perimeters of Back Bay. ' Volume 40 - Page 259 362 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS ����P�A4q 9 �\ July 14, 1986 MINUTES wnry Dan Regan, 924 W. Oceanfront GPA Avenue, owner of building in 86-2(A) Corporate Plata in Newport Gunter, indicated he was in favor of the General Plan Amendment. He stated it was not economical for a developer to provide open space, and he also felt that traffic was a nonissue. He stated he lives on the Peninsula, and therefore, copes with the traffic on a daily basis, but realitun the problem is being worked on and accepts it. He also stated he was very pleased with the proposed bicycle trail plan included in this proposal. Jim Wood, 125 Abalone Avenue, stated he was not opposed to the General Plan Amendment; however, he did feel the Pelican Hill connection should be included in the plan. He alco felt the Council should consider, not only the quantity of life in the community, but the quality of life as well, such as the proposed Cultural Center, which he felt should have a larger seating capacity than what is being proposed. He stated he felt the community needs more places for interaction socially, and the proposed build -out provides that opportunity with the proposed Teen Center, Health Club, etc. Jahn Gardner, 1924 Holiday Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed General Plan Amendment. He expressed his conserve with regard to increased traffic, and how he values "lack of crowds." John Killefer, 161 Shorecliff Road, spoke in support of the project and stated he favors a good solid tax base, and the impact Pelican Rill Road will have on Corona del Her. He recommended the City Council ,approve the General Plan Amendment. Barbara Young, 2611 Vista Drive, stated that she was against the original proposal for expansion of Newport Center, but now favors the project, inasmuch as what it has to offer to the entire community. Volume 40 - Page 260 363 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ��f s�yG n`G�F��GP�P9P�y�9�yF9 �\ July 14, 1986 INDEX ROLL GAL Tom Neilsen, President of The CPA 85-1(B)/ Irvine Company, stated that now is 86-2(A) the time to finalize the plan for Newport Center, which has been a ' long-standing issue for 1� years; and which is consistent with the plan that was set forth some 20 years ago. It's a mixed use plan which involves a broad variety of uses that may be somewhat different than one that was envisioned by other communities. This project also resolves some of those long-standing issues, establishes mutual commitments on the part of The Irvine Company, as well as the City, and hopefully, will bring the business and residential community together on a set of mutual objectives. Mr. Neilsen stated that as a result of many meetings with the various homeowner associations, the Planning Commission, and staff, their plan has been modified and now incorporates cultural and community opportunities for a new library, expanded art museum, community meeting facility, fitness center, teen center, etc. They feel the plan responds to the needs of the community, which also includes additional housing opportunities. It also revitalizes the retail heart of Newport Center, as well as provides office opportunities. It also involves a substantial commitment to transportation improvements, which are in excess to the needs i identified in the Environmental Document. It includes a lowering and moving of an existing four -lane highway away from an adjacent residential community, and landscaping that area extensively. Pelican Hill Road and the benefit it will bring to the whole of Corona del Mar from Pacific Coast Highway to Bonita Canyon Road, widening of Jamboree Road, and other significant transportation improvements are also included in the plan. All of the commitments on the part of The Irvine Company, as well as the City. will be finalized in the Development Agreement. In summary, they feel Volume 40 - Page 261 364�: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS July 14, 1956 MINUTES INMFY their plan represents a fair CPA 85-1(B)/ balance between the public interest 86-2(A) and their private interest, and therefore, recoemeud its approval. in response to question raised by Council Member Hart regarding Bayview Landing and Cho proposed Teen Center, Mr. Neilsen stated that they have discussed a plan with the staff that would envision additional square footage over the recommendation of the planning Commission, and would involve a use of portion of the top of the Sayview Landing site. With regard to overall office space, he stated that the office space proposed by the Planning Commissioh is approximately 30% less than what was envisioned when they submitted their plan; a lot of which was lost during the Newport Village conversion site to residential. They are hopeful the Bayview site can be looked at in the context of something that in now before us in terms of an opportunity to use that site to retain a view park, and retain the kind of essential characteristic they understand is necessary there. One of the unique aspects of Newport Center is that there is a market for office space in Newport Center as compared to the airport area. Council Member Strauss stated that prior to considering the Check List for this project, he would like to read into the record the following statement. "I will be straw -voting individually on the many proposals within the general Plan Amendment -I'll comment on them at the appropriate times, but I believe a framework and overall view is necessary to put the individual items in perspective. First, there ate some very good possibilities in the General Plan Amendment: "Possibility of a bigger Central Library (important plus which I support); "Possibility of an expanded Art Museum (world class International recognition)-; - Volume 40 - Page 262 I J I 1 I I I I�I 1 It I 365 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ��f �T�9�'iPaG��9GPF9P�y�9�yFg �\ July 14, 1986 INDEX KULL LHL "Possibility of a Teen Center GPA 85-1(B)/ (vital need of the City, 86-2(A) etc.); and "Possibility of a Child Care Center (valuable to working mothers). "There are certainly other aspects to the General Plan Amendment that are pluses. Please note in each case the word 'Possibility.' A general plan is not a commitment. It simply is a plan. If these things happen to the extent they do, it will be, indeed, excellent. Unfortunately, however, there are three major shortcomings in GPA 85-1(8), which obliges me to•oppose it, at least as now presented. "First and foremost, is the proposal to add 1,275,000 sq. ft. , of commercial office high rise buildings to a city and region already suffocating from traffic congestion. How big is 1,275,000 sq. ft., a neighbor asked me, and as a comparison I looked at the Bank of America building on Via Lido/Newport Boulevard. It is an average bank with approximately 10,000 sq. ft. Now, envision 127 buildings that size and with the traffic it would bring. With , respect to buildings and traffic, let me read from the Lou Angeles Times of July 8, where it references a local "glut" of high-rise office buildings, 'the article states that the company has temporarily stopped the construction of additional office buildings because of soaring vacancy rates in the commercial district near John Wayne Airport, which has been the site of a high-rise building boom. There is a 33% tenant vacancy rate near the airport --the highest rate in Orange County --according to the real estate firm of Caldwell Banker.' "It is important to compare our _ overbuilt office with underbuilt rental housing for people to live in. A report last month from the Planning Department shows a vacancy rate for rental housing as under 2%1 Compare that with a vacancy rate of over 30% in offices near the airport. We're a City out of Volume 40 - Page 263 _ 366 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS e.., , ...of ,'NipG-;9G9�9� �\ duly 14, 1936 MINUTES balance. A City that doesn't need CPA 85-1(B)i more commercial office spacel 86-2(A) Note, too, that our neighboring Citice of Irvine And Costa Mesa are finally saying 'no, or go slow,' to the overdevelopment that is swamping their road$. "Let me quote you a Daily Pilot editorial of June 26, where the plan talks about the 'Costa Mesa Planning Commission which has proposed a freeze on Virtually all new development in north Costa Ness. The plan would allow new buildings to be constructed only to the degree that the streets could accommodate the additional traffic the projects would generate. Since many streets in or adjoining prime development areas already are considered crowded --including the freavdys--the moratorium would mean the end of several controversial proposals. The message is clear: The general public is increasingly agitated about clogged streets and will express that displeasure in opposition to development projects that ignore the problem, it is traffic and all its ramifications -- frustrating jams, noise And pollution --that will shops the future development of the urbanized Orange Coast.' "That's Costa Mass. Most of you are familiar with the City of Irvine where the recent Council election had the same message --slow down) We may all go under with traffic. Have you tried getting from Newport Boulevard to the I-5 between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m.? It's tough and you can hardly get there. "My second point is that the proposal does not, in my judgment, have an adequate Environmental Impact Report. Note that for the first time ever, and certainly in my eight years on the City Council, that a citizens committee in our City has stated that an E1R is inadequate and recommends it not be certifiedl They outline seven rpaeone far their conclusion. Please note, also, that this council'$ own Citizens Advisory Committee is recommending not only that the Elk not be certified, but that the project itself be doniedl Volume 40 - Page 264 ' COUNCIL INMN MEMBERS F� .�F9.� 5FP CITY �p`ROLLp 367 OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 14, 1986 INDEX Further, the manner in which the CPA 85-1(B)/ City's Planning Commission handled 86-2(A) the ETA is a bit worrisome. .The Planning Commission, in a divided vote, closed its hearing and voted before the end of the period provided by law for comments on the EIR. This is a strange thing to do and I believe it is highly improper --I can't figure out why they would do it. ' "My final comments relate to a deep concern about the Planning Commission Development Agreement. We are told on Page 43 of the staff, ' report that such an agreement will _ follow 'later on.' Development Agreements have their detractions and I think one of the responders to the EIR, (law firm of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger) has stated it better than I can. 'The basic defect of a Development Agreement: We seriously question whether the public will benefit from the proposed Development Agreement ' or whether the benefit rests only with the applicant. Binding future planning commissions and city councils to a massive development plan when future circumstances may be drastically different, seems unwise and may well prove to be unconstitutional.' "I am not a.lawyer and so I don't know that much about the constitutionality of it because conditions do change, but I ' wouldn't want to take away from future city councils and planning commissions the right to decide what's good for the City. 1 i sincerely hope you will also agree and will reject the idea of a Development Agreement. "In closing, several people have ' indicated that finances and the tax base are important, and they are, but they should not determine the character of the City. The City is in an excellent financial position, not only for 1986, but also 10 years from now. The City receives, _ each year, a 10—year forecast of ' Volume 40 — Page 265 368 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS July 14, 1986 MINUTES INDEX R VN its financial position and it's CPA 85-1(0)1 'First Class,' and it will be 86-2(A) solvent with or without CPA 85-10). So I do not think that consideration should lead us to the final conclusion. I believe that what should lead us, is the character of the City that we desire to have." Mayor Maurer noted that there has been very little approval given to additional building, or build -out, in the City during the last six years, but in these six years, traffic has increased at an alarming rate. He Stated that the Council is concerned with the traffic problem and is attempting to do what it can to alleviate the conjestion. The City Council is also aware that it is the entire County that is bringing traffic through the City, and around it, and it's not just new building within the City that is causing thin problem. if the City were to place a moratorium on new development ae was recommended in the City of Costa Meas, there are property rights that would be affected. In addition, traffic would still increase. Council Member Heather stated that this is a very complex and involved project, and she felt that all the Council Members would agree that Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, has done an outstanding professional job with regard to this project, and deserves the Council's utmost appreciation. At this time, the City Council strsw-voted the items shown on the Check List of the staff reports LAND USE ELEMENT: Motion x Fashion Island, All188,000 sq. All Ayes ft. £nr general and retail commercial uses and 20500 theatre seats. Total allowed development in Fashion island is 1,429,250 sq. ft. and 2,500 theatre scats. Motion x Block 600: Add 300,000 sq. ft, for Ayes x x x x x x general office development. Total Noes x allowed development in Block 600 is 1,100,000 sq, ft. and 325 hotel roams. Volume 40 - Page 266 11 369 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL 'N GROLL CAL Notion Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Abstain MEMBERS lG33�A G,p�9P�y�9�yFq �\ July 14, 1986 MINUTES M11aV4 Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 65,000 GPA 85-1(B)/ x x x x x x sq. £t. for institutional use. 86-2(A) x x Institutional uses include Art Museum, Natural History Museum and Library uses. Total development is 234,706 sq. ft. of office and 113,000 sq. ft. of institutional uses. x Block 800: Change the land use x x x x x x designation from "Multi -Family x Residential" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 440,000 sq. ft. for office development in Block 800, or a total of 693,100 sq. ft. . in Block 800. ' x PCH/Jamboree: Change the land use x x x x x x designation from "Residential and Marine Commercial" to "Multi -Family X Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change the land use designation for Villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. The combined sites are not to exceed 284 dwelling units. x Corporate Plaza West: Change the x x x x x x land use designation from "Retail x and Service Commercial with Alternate Land Use" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 100,000 sq. ft. for office development for a total of 123,400 sq. ft. x Newport Village: Change the land x x x x x x use designation from "Retail and x Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 560 dwelling units. Add 80,000 sq. ft. to Corporate Plaza, for a total of 445,200 sq. ft. 80,000 sq. ft. can be constructed only if for an athletic/health club. x Avocado/MacArthur: Change the land x x x x x x use designation from a mixture of x "Low Density Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental. Educational and Institutional Facilities." 44,000 sq. ft. of office uses are - Volume 40 - Page 267 ' 370 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS pni 1 re�i� ��6N&0�\tv',P\\ July 14, 1986 MINUTES lunry permitted with a trunnit facility CPA 85-1(B)i and 15,000 sq. ft. for a day care 86-2(A) facility. Motion x Big Canyon/HacArthurt Change the ' Ayes x x x x x x land use designation from Noes x "Recreational and EnvironmentAl Open Space" to "Multi -Family Residential," allowing a maximum of 80 dwelling units. Bayview,Landing: The City Manager summarized Alternatives "A," and "C," as act forth in the staff report. David Neish, representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and stated that they concur with the language set forth in Alternativa "C." He referred to a site plan of the Bayview property and stated that they are proposing four separate tcataurant altes. He explained where each restaurant would be located and answered questions of the Council regarding the sites. The primary access to the Bayview Landing site would be off of Back Bay Drive. In addition, they would be proposing a right -in and right -out only access off of Jamboree. There would be no vehicular access off of Pacific Coast Highway. Motion x Council Member Hart indicated that she will to supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation noted as Alternative "A," inasmuch an there would be no restaurant en the upper level of the site. She stated that if building were allowed on the upper level, valuable open space would be lost, which has already been given up in other portions of this General Plan Amendment. She stated that "we don't need a building on every single lot in this City." She does not think this is the type of open apace the City can lose, and therefore, moved to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation, changing the square footage from 25,000 to 30,000. Volume 40 - Page 268 1 it 11 371 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES July 14, 1986 INDEX nv tea... Discussion ensued with respect to GPA 85-1(B)/ Alternative "C," wherein, Council 86-2(A) Members Cox and Agee expressed their reasons for supporting it. Ayes x x x The motion made by Council Member Noes x x x x Hart was voted on and FAILED. Motion x Motion was made to approve Alternative "C." Motion x Substitute motion was made to Ayes x x x x approve Alternative "C" with the Noes x language to read as follows: Abstain x x Change the land use ,designation of the lower portion of the site from ' "Recreational Open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial." Change the land use designation of the upper portion of the site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to a mixture of "Recreational and Environmental Open Space and Retail and Service Commercial," Allow 32,000 sq. ft. for restaurant or visitor serving commercial use; four restaurant facilities may be constructed, with the intent that one will be used as a Teen Center. All access for commercial use shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. Existing public views from and across the site shall be preserved and maximized through grading of the site during construction of commercial uses. The upper portion of the site shall be used for public park and view area; and may be used for restaurant uses and related parking so long as any building on the upper level is set down as low as possible and located close to Jamboree Road to maximize views. The public park and view area shall be developed at the cost of The Irvine Company at the time of site development in a manner acceptable to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and the City Council. Volume 40 - Page 269 372 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS IMN RO Lp P� July 14, 1986 Motion Ayes Noes Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes Motion Ayes Noes Abstain Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes MINUTES INDEX x Newnorter Northt Change the land CPA 85-1(B)) x x x x x x uea designation from "Low Density 86-2(A) x Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential" with a maximum of 490 dwelling units. Significant cultural resources which exist on the site shall be preserved in a manner acceptable to the City, with development clustered in other areas of the site. A Natural History Museum may be accommodated on this site. x Wootbayt Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" in partial consideration for increased development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites. x San Diego Creek North: Add a 2.5 acre Fire Station reservation to the site. The reservation shall be in effect for a period of five years. The land reserved shall be dedicated to the City of Newport beach if the reservation is exercised within a period of five Years. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT x bavview Lending: Maintain existing x x x x language in the Recreation and Open x x Space Element, which allows some x development to occur on the upper level of the site. x Neiioorter Northt Maintain existing a'n`tional and Environmental Ract; open Space" designation, but add an unmapped environmentally sensitive area for preservation of significant onsite cultural resources. x {leetba i Designate the site for ragianal park facilities with unmapped environmentally sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history facility may be allowed on the site subject to approval of the City. CIRCULATION ELEMENT x Item No. 1, Alternative "A" - Delete Avocado Avmnue/RscArthur Boulevard Primary Couplet designation, designate MacArthur ^ Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six Volume 40 - Page 270 373 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES July 14, 1986 IN I1 F X FULL GAL lanes, divided); designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (four lanes) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. This circulation element revision is subject to approval of the County of Orange. Discussion ensued with regard to Item No. 2 of Alternative "A," wherein the City Manager advised that a letter from the City of Irvine was received this date regarding the subject proposed General Plan change, and notifying the Environmental Coordinator that, "because our General Plan link does not designate the number of lanes, we have determined that the proposal is consistent with our General Plan, and therefore no comments are necessary." In response to question raised by Council Member Hart, the Environmental Coordinator stated that the traffic projects, which were used, included all of the development in the City of Irvine, and as such, any development which would occur across the street would be accounted for within the traffic numbers. Additionally, for most of this link, MacArthur Boulevard is in what is commonly referred to as the "spaghetti bowl" inasmuch as it is in the midst of the interchange of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and for a good portion of that road there will not be immediately adjacent land uses. Motion x Following consideration, motion was All Ayes made to approve Item No. 2 of Alternative "A" to add an additional arterial highway designation to the Circulation Element, as follows: Major Modified: eight lanes, divided. Reclassify the portion of MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and State Route 73 as a "Major -Modified Arterial; eight lanes, divided. This circulation element revision is subject to approval of the County of Orange and the City of Irvine. Volume 40 - Page 271 374 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES p(11 I f:aot� G99G��?pA�y�9�yi^ �\ lal rlFY ' v' 9 July 14, 1986 San Joaquin Hills Road East of CPA 85-1(B)) Spyglass Hill Road: 86-2(A) Hotion x Council Member 0nrt stored she was I in support of Alternative "C," and would move its approval with the language changed to read as followas Initiate an amendmnnt to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to designer* San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hill to Pelican Hill Road as a Primary Arterial, four lanes divided. This Circulation Element revision Is subject to approval of the County of Orange. Motion x Substitute motion was made to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation noted as Alternative "A," which reads as follows: Not recommended for Generni Plan Amendment initiation. Council Member Cox stated that he made the substitute motion because he does not feel the Council han seen the kind of studies needed to tvnluate this item and do a General Plan Amendment. lie also reels six -land arterial ronds are an important ingredient in our community to improve the traffic circulation. Discussion ensued with regard to Resolution No. 85-11, adopted February 250 1985, exprasaing the City'a position on the San Juaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, uhercin the City Manager noted that one of the Council's concerns wen that "The connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican 11111 Road shall not occur until Pclican Hill Road is fully operational. San Joaquin Hills Road should not exceed four travel lanes as it connects to Pelican Hill Road. The extension of San Joaquin Hills Road dead of Pelican Hill Rend to the Corridor shall not occur." It was felt by the City Manager that this resolution was consistent with Alternative "C." He also felt th.,t the recommendation of the Planning Commission would maintain the classification at six lanes. Volume 40 - Page 272 375 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES TITWdl ROLL CAL " Following discussion, the CPA 85-1(B), Ayes x x x x substitute motion made by Council 86-2(A) Noes x x x Member Cox was voted on and carried. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Thirty percent (30%) of the total Motion x dwelling units constructed on all All Ayes sites shall be affordable to low- and moderate -income families. Affordability Mix The City Manager summarized the recommendation of the Planning Commission,designated as Alternative "A," and the Planning Commission recommendation with staff recommended changes, noted as Alternative "B." Following discussion, motion was Motion x made to approve Alternative "B," with the language to read as follows: The affordability mix for any project which uses the Mortgage Revenue Bond program and the Big,Canyon/MacArthur project shall be as follows: 66.7% County Low Income per Housing Element 33.3% City Very Low Income per Housing Element (with rents not to exceed HUD section 8 'Fair Market Rents') The affordability mix for any project, with the exception of the Big Canyon/MacArthur project, which is unable to use the Mortgage Revenue Bond program shall be as follows: 33.3% County Median Income per Housing Element 33.3% County Low Income per Housing Element 33.3% City Very Low Income per Housing Element (with rents not to exceed HUD Section 8 'Fair , Market Rents') The affordable units may be provided on sites owned by The - Irvine Company other than those in Newport Center and Volume 40 - Page 273 376 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS kni i r•eo{ ����`pu•�9L��'p��y�'�y9'14,1�\ duly 14, 1986 MINUTES iNncv the Peripheral sites, CPA 85-1(H), specifically Haywood, L'ayport, 86-2(A) Mariners Square, and Promontory Point, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission. ' Dave Dmohowski of The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and stated that they have no objections with the intent of the clarification, as set forth in the subject motion, however, he would suggest that Newport North also be added to The Irvine Company sites, to which Council Member Plwoeaer agreed. Council Member Strauss suggested that the words, "and City Council" be added after the word "Commission" in the above motion, to which Council Member Pluns,er agreed. All Ayes The motion, as amended, use voted on and carried. Motion x Preference shall be given to All Ayes Section 8 Certificate holder" for the "City Very Lou Income" units. Term of Affordability Discussion ensued with regard to the Planning Commission recommendation, and the Commission's recommendation with staff recommended changes, wherein the applicant was requested to address the podium for clarification. Dave Dmohowski of 'rho Irvine Company, stated that the City$$ Housing Element sets forth a requirement of a minimum of 10 years of affordability, and up to this point, all previous affordable projects have been approved, such As Newport North, Haywood, and the off -site improvements for Hrisa del ' Mar, etc., for 10 years, so the rocommendstior for 20 years of affordability does represent n new term of affnO !bility in their projects. He stated that they agreed with staff to the 20 year term of affordability, with the provision that if economic conditions have changed — Volume 40 - Page 274 377 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS Cif 5��9 J+(G3�y9GP(^9p��y�9�Sf".e �\ i„ 7 v, 1 G _ 1986 MINUTES wnFX ROLL CAL substantially at the time of GPA 85-1(B)i refinancing, that they would have 85-2(A) some relief so that if financing was not available at a reasonable rate at that time, they would not have difficulty in extending that term of affordability up to the • full 20 years. He stated that they support the language set forth in Alternative "B." Council Member Strauss commented that he was pleased to see the change in the term of affordability from 10 to 20 years, and favored the language set forth in Alternative "A," as opposed to Alternative "B." Following comments by Council Members Cox and Agee with regard to Alternative "B," Brad Olsen of The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and stated that they have had extensive discussions with the staff on this subject and are sympathetic with the spirit and desire of the Council. They are also very adversed to the idea of subsidy. Be stated that he felt the point was that, while financing is available initially, and you're talking about long-term financing, there is a letter of credit that goes behind the bond issue that runs between 10 and 12 years, and that is all the further lenders are willing to go in their experience. The discussions with staff were that at the end of the letter of credit period, they would make every effort to renegotiate financing that would carry it on out to that 20-year period of time. x Following discussion, motion was Motion made to modify the language in All Ayes Alternative "B" to read as follows: "The term of affordability shall be 20 years from the date of initial occupancy. This provision my be reevaluated at the time refinancing is required. This affordability term shall be a minimum of 10 years and shall continue as long as reasonable financing for the original loan amount to support the rents required by this CPA is available. Any change in the term - Volume 40 - Page 275 378 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS ant t \AINO��;9`���99�4�'�yP �\ July 14, 1986 MINUTES of affordability shall be approved GPA 85-1(8)1 by the City Council. 86-2(A) Motion x Affordable Sicest The affordable ' All Ayes units may be located an any residential site within the Newport Center and on the peripheral sites or on others within the City of Newport Beach owned by The Irvine Company (Baywood, Bayport, Mariners Square, Promontory Point and Newport North)= however, they shall be phased on all sites proportional to the market rate residential units. Motion x Remainine "Pool" Affnrdable Units: Ayes Abstain x x x x x x The 29 remaining °pool affordable x units in the Haywood expansion may be used to satisfy a portion of the affordable housing requirement for this General Plan Amendment. These units shall be committed for a period of twenty years am defined in Item No. 4 of the affordable housing requirements. The onsito affordability mix may reflect the previous prerental commitment of 80% at County median and 20% at County Low Income standards, but the overall provision of affordable housing shall reflect he affordability ratios set forth in Section 2 of the affordable housing requirements. Motion x Issuance of Buildiun Permits: Ayes x a x x x x Prior to issuance of building Abstain x permits for any development permitted by CPA 85-1(D), the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City guaranteeing the provision of the affordable units. This agreement may be included within the development agreement. LAND USE PHASING Motion x Motion was made to approve the Ayes x x x Planning Commissionta Noes x x x x recommendation, with ant addition, to read as follows. - No residential development (PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village, Newporter North, Big Canyon) unite required (prlor to issuance of building or _ Volume 40 - Page 276 379 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Me ti on Ayes x ANoes bstain I xI d xlxlxlxl I Nc Noes I x I d x I x I x I x l x Y Abstain Motion Ayes •� rI xl x I x x I x Noes Abstain July 14, 1986 MINUTES grading permits) for: A. Fashion GPA 85-1(B)/ island; B. Civic Plaza Expansion; 86-2(A) and C. Day Care Center, which motion FAILED. In view of the foregoing, motion was made to approve the recommendation designated as Alternative "B." which reads as follows: No residential development shall be required to be under construction prior to the issuance of building permits for the following sites: A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza Expansion C. Block 600 D. Bayview Landing E. Avocado/MacArthur (including Day Care Center) F. Corporate Plaza Motion was made to approve Alternative "B," which reads as follows: 400 residential units must have building permits issued and show substantial progress in construction (foundations plus framing) before: A. The issuance of a certificate of occupancy for: i, Block 600 B. The issuance of building permits for: ii. Block 800 iif. Corporate Plaza West Motion was made to approve Alternative "B," which reads as follows: 400 units must have certificates of occupancy issued and 400 additional units must have building permits issued and show - substantial progress in Volume 40 - Page 277 COUNCIL o0 ROLL Notio All A Maria Ayes Noes 0 Mori Ayes Noes 380 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MEMBERS July 14, 1986 MINUTES INDEX construction before the issuance of CPA 85-10), certificates of occupancy for: 86-2(A) A. Block 800 8, Corporate Plaza Nest x Notion was made to approve Alternative "B," as revised by the yea applicant to read as follows: Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits for any components of CPA 85-10), all dedications from The Irvine Company, necessary for the completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program, from MacArthur Boulevard to the Coast Highway bridge, shall have been made. x Motion was made to approve , n x x x Alternative "C," as submitted by x x x x council Member Agee, and amended by the applicant, which reads as follows: The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue dedications and completion bonding and before installation of Pelican Hill Road. In the ease of , MacArthur Boulevard, reservations shall be to the full !ester Plan width as amended, and dedications and completion bonding for six lane, major arterial standards: A. Fashion Island II. Civic Plaza Expansion C, Newporter North D. PCH/Jamboree E. Day Core Center - Avocado/MacArthur (Grading for entire site) • F. Bayview Lending x : Motion was made to approve on x x x x Alternative "Coto as submitted by x x x Council Member Agee, and amended by Council Member Plummer, and the applicant, which resda as follows: Volume 40 - Page 278 ' 381 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES �9G1��Neel w DE X 1 ROLL CAL Building or grading permits GPA 85-1(B), for the following projects may 86-2(A) be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road from Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard, and MacArthur Boulevard improvements from San Miguel • Road to Bonita,Canyon Road: A. Block 600 B. Corporate Plaza C. Big Canyon/MacArthur D. Newport Village B. Avocado/MacArthur- Office ' The completion of MacArthur Boulevard improvements between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive shall be done as adjacent improvements for the Newport Village site. Grading permits for the Newport Village development may be issued upon commencement of construction of adjacent MacArthur Boulevard improvements and construction shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for Newport Village. The number of lanes constructed in this segment of MacArthur Boulevard shall be subject to criteria established in other requirements applicable to the approval of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). Motion x Motion was made to approve Alternative "B," which reads as All Ayes follows: Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road and the completion to Motion � ' Major Arterial Standards of MacArthur Boulevard improvements between San Miguel Drive to Ford Road: A. Block 600 x Motion was made to approve Alternative "C," as revised by the - Ayes x x x x x which reads as follows" Noes x x applicant, Volume 40 - Page 279 382 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS a.... w.o� N9G9Py9��y����P �\ July 14, 1'986 MINUTES INDEX Building or grading permits CPA 85-1(D)/ for the following projects may 86-2(A) be issued upon the completion to Major Arterial Standards, MacArthur Boulevard improvements between Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Rosdt A. Block 800 D. Corporate Plaza West Motion x Motion was made to approve the Ail Ayes following addition to the Phasing Section, as submitted by Council Member Plummer, and revised by the applicant, which reads As follows: This General Plan Amendment establishes planning limits on the intensity and density of land uses for sites in and around Newport Center. Actual • development of the sites can occur only after numerous additional approvals or permits are granted by the Planning Commission and City Council. These subsequent approvals include a traffic study, rezoning, ■ development agreement, site plan review, subdivision maps and use permits. In these subsequent approvals, the phasing of that development with roadway improvements may be reconsidered and modified by the city Council if there is a significant change in the traffic assumptions mods and circumstances considered in any prior approvals for the development, including those traffic assumptions made and circumstances considered for this General Plan Amendment. OTHER REQUIREMENTS Motion x Motion was made to approve All Ayes Alternative "C," as revised by the applicant, which read:• as follows: A landscape program for MacArthur Boulevard shell be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to the Issuance of any building or grading permits for any Volume 40 - Page 280 383 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS .lulu 14. 1986 MINUTES INDEX ROLL GAL component of GPA 85-1(B). The GPA 85-1(B). landscaping shall be installed 86-2(A) concurrent with MacArthur Boulevard improvements. Between San Joaquin Rills -Road and Ford Road, The Irvine Company shall dedicate, and the City shall maintain, • additional right-of-way ' required to create a landscaped parkway. The landscaping shall compliment other landscaping in the area. In areas where large land dedications will occur, an open parkway with low -maintenance landscaping ' shall be implemented, ' consistent with the concept proposed by The Irvine Company in exhibits prepared by SWA. Motion x Discussion ensued with regard to the criteria to widen MacArthur Boulevard, and following comments by Council Members, as well as other interested residents, motion was made to approve Alternative "B," which reads as follows: MacArthur'Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amendment 85-l(B). Motion x Following further consideration, Ayes x x x substitute motion was made to Noes x x x x approve Alternative "C," which reads as follows: MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel Road shall be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). The road shall be constructed as a six -lane divided highway in conjunction with the development of the Newport Village site, which motion FAILED. Volume 40 - Page 281 ' 384 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL. MEMBERS MINUTES 1 Ju1Y 14 , 1986 IN dE X AV L LN Motion x In view of the foregoing action, CPA 85-1(B), Council Member Cox moved to modify 86-2(A) Alternative "B" to read as follows: MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive shall be subject to the following in conjunction with • the Circulation Phasing requirements: A. MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and Son Miguel Drive shall be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). �. Two outside through lanes in each direction on MacArthur Boulevard shall be constructed so that additional lanes constructed, when required by the city, will occur towards the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive. C. That prior to the construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and it prolongation of'the centerline of Crown Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum, shall be mitt. V Volume 4p - Page 282 385 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS Ju1v 14. 1986 MINUTES uunp X ROLL GAL i) Completion of GPA 85-1(B) Pelican Hill 86-2(A) Road to Primary Arterial configuration (4 lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the intersection of ' MacArthur Boulevard. ii) Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Primary Arterial • configuration (4 lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass Hill Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. iii) An average weekday volume -to - capacity ratio of 1.05 on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive. In adopting this criteria relative to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, it is the position of the City Council that a primary purpose in considering this General Plan Amendment is the reduction of • diversion traffic through ' residential streets in Corona del Mar. Volume 40 - Page 283 386 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS July 14, 1986 MINUTES INDEX It is CPA 85-1(B)/ anticipated 86-2(A) that if the average weekday volume -to - capacity ratio on MacArthur Boulevard reached 1.05, diversions to local Corona del Mar streets such as Marguerite Avenue, Poppy Street and Fifth Avenue would occur. iv) A decision has been made regarding the construction of the San Joaquin Mills Transportation Corridor or July 1, 1095, whichever occurs first. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of the criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. All Ayes Following comments by Debra Allan, Jean Morris, the staff and Council Members, the motion was voted on and carried. Motion x Motion was made to approve All Ayes Alternative "A," As revised by the ' applicant, which reads as follows: Volume 40 - Page 284 ' 387 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ��9fyra �\ July 14, 1986 INDEX ROLL CAL All mitigation measures GPA 85-1(B)i outlined in the Final EIR, as 86-2(A) modified by the straw votes, shall be required. Motion was made to approve Motion x Alternative C, which reads as All Ayes follows: The Irvine Company shall aggressively pursue all necessary approvals and construction of San Joaquin • Rills Road from Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road. ' The extension of San Joaquin Hills Road shall be connected to Pelican Hill Road upon completion of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road. Motion x Motion was made to approve Alternative A, which reads as Ayes x x x x x x follows: Noes x A Development Agreement and overall Planned Community Development Plan for Newport Center shall be prepared and approved concurrent with or prior to any further discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the development allowed by the General Plan Amendment. Motion x Motion was made to approve Alternative "A," which reads as All Ayes follows: The initial construction of Pelican Hill Road from Coast to MacArthur Boulevard Motion x Highway shall be a minimum of four lanes. Motion was made to approve C, which reads as All Ayes Alternative follows: As part of the MacArthur Boulevard improvements, The Irvine Company shall submit plane and a feasibility study for the construction of a grade -separated pedestrian Volume 40 - Page 285 , 388 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS dulY 14, 1986 MINUTES INhrx R 1. YM and bicycle bridge over CPA 85-1(B)/ MacArthur Boulevard between 86-2(A) San Miguel Drive and Coast Highway. The City Council will determine the feasibility - of this facility and may require its construction as part of the MacArthur Boulevard improvement program. Messing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Hart requested that The Irvine Company shard their Traffic Management Plan at a future City Council study session. Motion x Motion was made to incorporate by by reference the results of the straw votes, and AdoptlResoiution No. 86-54 Res 86-54 certifying as complete and adequate, the Final Environmental impact Report for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B); Make the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report, Find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final Environmental Impact Report; With respect to the project, find that although the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental affects that will result if the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shell be incorporated into the General Plan, and all Volume 40 - Page 286 389 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9Pf y�9�yrp �\ July 14. 1986 MINUTES INnFX ROLL GAL significant environmental CPA 85-1(B)/ effects that can feasibly be 86-2(A) mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the* remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable; Adopt Resolution No. 86-55 Res 86-55 approving•General Plan Amendment No. 95-1(8), • approving certain amendments to the Land Use, Recreation and Open Space and Circulation Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; Adopt Resolution No. 86-56 Res 86-56 approving Amendment No. 9 to the Local ,Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, being amendments to Maps No. 29, 30, 37, 38, 48 and 60, and related text in connection with the approval and adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 85-1(B); and Adopt Resolution No. 86-57 Res 86-57 approving General Plan Amendment No. 86-2(A), approving a certain amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan.. Council Member Hart stated for the record: "As I told all the City Council Members and The Irvine Company, my vote in support of the General Plan Amendment would be determined on the amount of open space voted in this evening. I especially mentioned keeping Bayview Landing open space, and I still feel the same way, with all the excess density added this evdning, in my opinion. The Planning Commission recommendation on Phasing the development would work better, I think, than some of Volume 40 - 287 ' 390 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS July 14, 1986 MINUTES INDEX 11 V L V I. the phasing we did. People have GPA 85-1(B)i always been in search for the 86-2(A) perfect place to live. Newport Beach is close, but with all the new high-rise, we also need simple open space. So it is no surprise to anyone, either the City Council or The Irvine Company, I must vote tno. t" Council Member Strauss also stated that he will be voting "no" for the reasons as sat forth in the prepared statement he read into the record earlier in the meeting. Ayes x x x x x The motion made by Council Member Noes x x Cox was voted on and carried. Motion x In view of the lateness of the hour Ayes x x (1s15 a.m.), motion was made to Noes x x x x x adjourn, which motion FAILED. Council Member Heathfr was excused from the meeting at this time. 2. Mayor Maurer opened the Public hearing regarding: PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT N0. 635 - PCA 635 A request of THE PACIFIC CLUB, Newport (94) Beach, to amend a portion of the ROLL CENTER PLANNED COMMITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to as to delete restaurant uses from Office Site "A," and to permit a private club in Office Site "As" not to exceed 30,000 sq. ft. in area, subject to the securing of a use permit; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Property located in Koll Center; bounded by MacArthur Boulavard, Von Karsmn Avenue and Birch Street; zoned P-C; AND TRAFFIC STUDY - A request to approve a Traffic traffic study in conjunction with the Study expansion of THE PACIFIC CLUB, a private club in the ROLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND USE PERMIT No. 3208 - A request to U/P 3208 paaion of the dining areas ermit the exp (88) and the addition of an accessory athletic facility for THE PACIFIC CLUB, a private club in the KOLL CENTER MENPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY. Volume 40 - Fate 288 391 F I I I F TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Meeting June 23, 1986 Agenda Item No. D-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Planning Department A. General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circu- lation and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, so as to allow construction of an additional 1,275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, 248,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also requested is a revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to delete the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major arterial roadway, and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND to the Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing and PCH/Jamboree sites. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action Hold hearing; if desired, give direction or request additional infor- mation from staff, and continue to July 14, 1986. Background On February 25, 1985, the City Council concurred with a recommendation of the Planning Commission and initiated General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) for Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. On March 20, April 24, and May 22, 1986, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments and the Environ- mental Impact Report. At the conclusion of public testimony, the I To: City Council - 2. 392 ' Planning Commission discussed the proposed project, the staff rec- ommendation, the response of The Irvine Company and the public testi- mony, then adopted Resolutions No. 1139 and 1140 recommending approval of the project with modifications and acceptance of the environmental document. Planning Commission Recommendation With the adoption for Resolutions No. 1139 and 1140, the Planning Commission recommended approval of increased development in Newport Center and on three peripheral sites. The Planning Commission also made land use recommendations on two other sites in the City of Newport Beach which are owned by The Irvine Company. The project recommended for approval is a modification to the development proposed by The Irvine Company. The Planning Commission recommendation is outlined below: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Land Use Element: Adopt and include in the Land Use Element ' the development limitations for each block in Newport Center as specified on the "Newport Center Development Limits" chart. Amend the Land Use Element and Map to provide for the following increases in development in Newport Center. 1. Fashion Island: Add 188,000 sq.ft. for general and regional retail commercial uses and 2,500 theater , seats. Total allowed development in Fashion island is 1,429,250 sq.ft. and 2,500 theater seats. ' 2. Block 600: Add 300,000 sq.ft6 for general office development. Total allowed development in Block 600 is 1,100,o00 sq.ft. and 325 hotel rooms. 3. Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 50,000 sq.ft. for office or institutional use, or a total of 284#706 sq.ft. of office and 48,000 sq.ft. of institution. An additional ' 15,000 sq.ft. of institutional may be allowed subject to use of all of the above described 50,000 sq.ft. for institutional uses. institutional uses include Art ' Museum, Natural History Museum, and library uses. In this scenario, total development is 234,706 sq.ft. of office and 113,000 sq.ft. of institutional uses. ' 4. Block 800: Change the land use designation from "Multi -Family Residential" to "Administrative, Profes- sional and Financial Commercial." Add 440,000 square feet for office development in Block 800, or a total of 693,100 sq.ft. in Block 800. from ' 5. PCH/Jamboree: Change the land use designation "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change 11 u ' 393 T0: City Council - 3. (PCH Frontage) the land use designation for Villa Point from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Res- idential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. 6. Corporate Plaza West: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial with Alternate Land Use" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 100,000 sq.ft. for office development for a total of 123,400 sq.ft. land use designation from 7. Newport Village: Change the "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 560 dwelling units. Add 80,000 sq.ft. to Corporate Plaza, or a total of 445,200 sq.ft. 80,000 sq.ft. can be constructed only if for an athletic/health club. ' B. Avocado/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Profession- L al and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental, Educa- tional and institutional Facilities." 44,000 sq.ft. of office uses are permitted with a transit facility and ' 15,000 sq.ft, for a day care facility. 9. Big Canyon/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to dwelling "Multi -Family Residential," at a maximum of 80 units. ' 10. Bayview Landing: Change the land -use designation on the lower portion of the site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with an alternate of "Low Density Residential' to "Retail and Service Commer- cial." Allow 25,000 sq.ft. for restaurant or visitor serving commercial use; three restaurant facilities may be constructed, one of which may be used as a Teen be subject Center. All access for commercial use shall to the review and approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. Structures shall not be higher than ' the upper pad level, and shall be sited and designed so as to provide for views of Upper Newport Bay and Newport Dunes. ' 11. Newporter North: Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential' at a maximum of 490 dwelling units. Significant cultural resources which exist on the site shall be preserved in a manner acceptable to the City, with development clustered in other areas. 12. Westbay: Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential' to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" in partial consideration for increased TO: 394 1 City Council - 4. development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites. 13, San Diego Creek North: Add a 2.5 acre Fire Station ' reservation to the site. The reservation shall be in effect for a period of 5 years. Recreation and Open Space Elements 1. Bayview Landings Maintain the existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but preclude development from the upper level. 2. Newporter North: Maintain existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but add unmapped ' environmentally sensitive area designation for preser- vation of significant on -site cultural resources. 3. Westbay; Designate the site for regional park facil- ities with unmapped environmentally sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history facility may be allowed on the site subject to approval ' of the City. Circulation Element: , 1. Delete Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Primary Couplet designations designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six lanes, divided); designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (4 lanes) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. This circulation element revision is subject to ap- proval of the County of Orange, , 2. Recommend to the City Council initiation of an amend- ment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to designate MacArthur Boulevard between ' Ford Road and Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial (8 lanes, divided). Further, recommend to the City Council that final ' action on this amendment be taken concurrent with the action on GPA 85-1(B). Affordable Housingt Based upon the granting of additional commercial develop- ment, increased density for residential development, and governmental financial assistance such as Mortgage Revenue Bonds, the following program is required: '. TO: City Council - 5. 395 1. Thirty percent (30%) of the total dwelling units constructed on all sites shall be affordable to low and ' moderate income families. 2. The affordability mix shall be a follows: 66.7% County Low Income* 33.3% City Very Low Income* (with rents not to exceed HUD Section 8 ' "Fair Market Rents") *per Housing Element 3. Preference shall be given to Section 8 Certificate holders for the "City Very -Low Income" units. 4. The term of affordability shall be 20 years from the date of initial occupancy. 5. The affordable units may be located on any site, however they shall be phased proportional to the market rate residential units. 6. Additionally, the 29 remaining "pool" affordable units in the Baywood expansion shall be committed for a period of 20 years, with 80% at County median and 20% at County low income. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for any develop- ment permitted by GPA 85-1(B), the applicant shall with the enter into an affordable housing agreement City guaranteeing the provision of the affordable units. This agreement may be included within the development agreement. ' Land Use Phasin ' Phase I - No residential (PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village, Newporter North, Big Canyon) units required for: A. Fashion Island Expansion B. Civic Plaza Expansion Phase IIa - 400 units must have building permits issued and ' substantial progress in construction (foundations plus some framing) before building permit issuance for: A. Block 600 B. Bayview Landing C. Avocado/MacArthur ' D. Corporate Plaza I Grw 396 City Council - 6. I Phase IIb - 400 additional units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction before issuance of occupancy permits for: A. Block 600 Phase III - Completion and Certificate of Occupancy for 800 du's before building permits issued for: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West Circulation Phasing: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for any component of GPA 85-1(B), all dedications from The Irvine Company necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue dedications and completion bonding and before instal- lation of Pelican Hill Road: A, Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza C. Big Canyon/MacArthur Blvd. D. Newporter North E. PCH/Jamboree F. Newport Village 3. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements (as described below): A. Block 600 B. Avocado/MacArthur Blvd. C. Corporate Plaza 4. Certificate of occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of Pelican Hill Road- - Block 600 5. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: I I I u I 1 I C I r I 'V I TO: City Council - 7. 397 A. Block 800 ' B. Corporate Plaza West C. Bayview Landing Other Requirements: 1. A landscape program for MacArthur Boulevard shall be ' reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA 85-1(B). The landscaping shall be installed concurrent with MacArthur Boulevard improve- ments. 2. That the full dedications for 6-lane MacArthur be required. 3. That MacArthur Boulevard be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in the En- vironmental Impact Report. 4. That the two outside through lanes be constructed so that any additional lanes would occur towards the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive. 5. That prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown ' Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum, be met: a. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road. ' b. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. C. An average weekday volume -to -capacity ratio of 1.15 on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor view Drive. d. A decision has been made regarding the con- struction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first. ' A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. TO- 398 'City Council - 8. 6. All mitigation measures outlined consistent with the approved project in the Final EIR shall be required. 7. The Irvine Company shall aggressively pursue all necessary approvals and construction of San Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road. 8. A Development Agreement and overall Planned Community Development Plan for Newport Center shall be prepared and approved concurrent with or prior to any further discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the development ' allowed by this General Plan Amendment. 9. The initial construction of Pelican Hill Road shall be , a minimum of four lanes. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT I NEWPORT CENTER, BAYVItW LANDING , Newport Center (Maps 37, 48, 49). Approximately one-third of the Newport Center site falls within the Coastal Zone. Most of the area is occupied by the Irvine Coast Country ' Club, shown as "Recreational and Environmental open Space" on the Land Use Plan. The Marriott Hotel site is designated for "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" ' uses to reflect the hotel use on the site. Permitted office uses on the Corporate Plaza West and Chamber of Commerce sites are shown by the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" designation and residential use is shown on the Sea Island site by the "Medium -Density Residen- tial designation. The PCH/Jamboree and PCH Frontage Site is designated for "High -Density Residential" allowing 284 du's. Bayyiew Landing (Maps 37, 38). This site, adjacent to the Newport Dunes site, is designated for "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" on the upper portion of the site for public recreation uses, with a view park and a bike path. The lower portion of the site is designated for "Retail and Service Commercial" use to allow visitor -serving commercial and restaurant use. The structures may be constructed on the slope area, but no portion of any struc- ture may be higher than the upper level of the site. Structures shall be sited and designed to provide for views of Upper Newport Bay and the Newport Dunes. I M1 ' TO: City Council - 9. ' PROPERTIES UPPER NEWPORT BAY AND ADJACENT Newporter North (Maps 38, 60). This site, located on Jamboree Road northerly of the Newporter Inn, is designated for "High -Density Residential" with a maximum of 490 du's. The structures shall be clustered to accommodate archae- 1 ological sites and marsh sites. A public bikeway/walkway is proposed for this site. Any development of this site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. Westbay (Maps 29, 30). The Westbay site is a large vacant parcel adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve ' at Irvine Avenue. This site is designated for "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" uses, to permit a regional park. Also permitted is a natural history museum with possible joint use as an interpretive center for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. A public bikeway/walkway is shown for the Westbay site, but careful consideration shall be given at the time it is ' developed to the environmentally sensitive nature of the site in locating the accessway. Any development which occurs shall be located in order to preserve sensitive habitat areas located on the site. Views from Irvine Avenue shall be maximized. ' Any development of this site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. Environmental Significance I I I Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and Council Policy K-3, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project. Based upon information contained in the environmental document, the project will result in significant impacts in the areas of land use, aesthetics, transportation and circulation, air quality, energy, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. A copy of the Environmental Impact Report was previously distributed to the City Council, and it is requested that the document be brought to the public hearing. The EIR has been in public review since April 14, 1986. The mandatory 45-day review period closed on May 29, 1986. All comments received to date, with the City's responses, are contained in Attachment No. 1 to the Draft EIR (attached). Comments have been received from the following agencies, organizations and persons: 400 T0: City Council - 10. ' Native American Heritage Commission California Coastal Commission Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger for Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) California Regional Water Quality Control Board ' The Irvine Company SPON Newport Heights Community Association Richard A. Nichols County of Orange California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Transportation Newport Beach Quality of Life Advisory Committee Discussion ' The buiidout of Newport Center has been an issue of on -going concern to the City of Newport Beach since 1977, with the adoption of Resolu- tion 9009. Resolution 9009 was the first action taken on the part of the City to limit development in Newport Center on a comprehensive basis. In 1978, the City adopted General Plan Amendment 78-2, which reduced the allocations provided for in Resolution 9009 by 549,600 sq.ft. of office, 51,000 sq.ft. of commercial, and 12,000 sq.ft. of institutional. GPA 79-1 further reduced development limits by 763,744 sq.ft. of office and 650 theater seats. GPA 79-1 added 166 residen- ' tial dwelling units to Newport Center. General Plan Amendment 80-3 Was the first comprehensive proposal made by The Irvine Company for Newport Center. As approved, GPA 80-3 would have increased office development by 713,750 sq.ft. and hotel develop- ment by 465 hotel rooms. Commercial development would have been reduced by 38,750 sq.ft. Residential development remained approxi- mately the same, but was allocated in a different manner: 589 units plus 225,060 sq.ft. GPA 80-3 was rescinded by the City Council at the request of The Irvine Company in 1982. Since 1982, there have been a number of general plan amendments for individual sites. GPA 81-3 increased allowed hotel development on the , Marriott Hotel site by 234 rooms to a total of 611 hotel rooms. GPA 81-2 increased allowed office development in Block 400 (Rhodes) by 80,000 sq.ft. to 380,000 sq.ft. GPA 82-2(A) added 325 hotel rooms to Block 600 allowing construction of the Four Seasons Hotel. These three amendments were all processed in response to development pro- posals from the private sector. As part of the Housing Element implementation program, the City processed General Plan Amendment 83-1(E), which added 428 residential units to Newport Center. This amendment established a program of ' incentives to development of affordable housing units. Two subsequent amendments made small changes in Newport Center devel- opment limits. GPA 83-2(C) (Villa Point) reduced residential develop- ment by 24 units and GPA 85-3 increased allowed office development in Block 700-Pacific Mutual, by 9,500 sq.ft. 401 TO: City Council - 11. ' It is evident from this chronology that, since the approval of GPA 80-3 was rescinded, "components" of a Newport Center buildout program tend to be processed on an individual site development basis. This is not the most desirable way to address this project from the City's viewpoint, since it does not allow for land use patterns, land use intensity, and development effects to be evaluated on a comprehensive basis. Comprehensive planning allows for analysis and project re- quirements and mitigation measures commensurate with the cumulative effects engendered from the project approved. With this fact in mind, the City Council and City staff have worked with The Irvine Company to bring a buildout plan for Newport Center back before the City. ' Analysis The staff reports prepared for the three Planning Commission meetings with the accompanying minutes are contained in Attachment No. 1 to the ' draft EIR and are attached to this report for the information and review of the City Council. These reports describe and analyze the original request of The Irvine Company, the staff recommendation, the applicant's response and the second staff recommendation. This report will present a complete description of the Planning Commission recommendation with some additional staff analysis, comments and recommendations. In the interval between the Planning Commission ' action and this writing, The Irvine Company has made additional responses to the recommended project. These are also analyzed by staff with supplemental recommendations. by the A statistical profile of the various projects considered Planning Commission is provided on Table 1. In considering the proposed project, the Planning Commission considered the environmental effects of the project; the public benefits which could result from the project; land use compatibility; the goals and objectives of the City's Land Use, Recreation and Open space, Circulation, and Housing ' Elements, and the provisions of the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. ' The project is extremely complex, involving eleven development site and a proposals, two non -development oriented land use proposals, major component of the circulation system. The Commission recommenda- tion also included provisions for the phasing of residential develop- ment with commercial development, the provision of affordable housing in the residential developments, the phasing of circulation system improvements with the development, and some miscellaneous require- ments. In order to minimize repetition of the Planning Commission reports, staff will focus analysis of the Planning Commission rec- ommendation on those areas which differ from the original project requested by The Irvine Company. Please refer to the Planning Commis- sion reports for analysis of those site proposals on which the Plan- ning Commission recommended approval of the original Irvine Company request. In each of the following sections, staff will also indicate The Irvine Company's position of the project changes. I 402 TO- City Council - 12. 1 TABLE 1 - Newport Center Project Comparisions ' ---------r--r--------rr-r---Yr-r-rr-rr-----r----------r---Y------ -----wrr-------------- ' ILocation I TIC Request IStaff Rec.1 I TIC Response)Staff Rec.2 1P.C.Action I 1 KiKaaK**WWm-I KiaaKa�aasK� aKaKCasxaxa� saxa�s�raasa) [Fashion Island I 128,000 (C)1 16S,000 (C)[ 1S8t000 (C)1 188,000 (01 188,000 (C)1 1 I 0 (T)i 1,350 (T)I_r2y500Y(T)1__-2,500-(T)1 2,500 (T)I _ r I --------------------- -I-----r-------I-----------I -I w -I-----------I (Block 600 1 300,000 (0)[300,000 (0)1 300,000 (0)1 3000000 (0)I3004000 (0)I [Civic Plaza ----------- Expansion [ 50,000 (0)l 50,000-(0 l ^509000 (0)I 50,000Y(0)I r50,000w(0)I ' or I or I or I 65,000 (I)I 65,000 (I)1 65,000 (I)I [ I (1,350)(T)) (1,350)(T)I (1,350)(T)[ (1,350)(T)1 (1,350)(T)[ , I---------------------- I ------------- I-------r-Y--i----------- -I------------ I ------------I 1 Block 800 1 4400000 (0)I 300*000 (0)[ 440,000 (0)1 300,000 (0)[ 440,000 (0)I [ I (245)(R)[ (245)(R)1 (245)(R)I (245)(R)1 (245)(R)I I---------------------- I ------------ -i------------ Ir -----------I - -----------I ------------I I PCH/Jamboree 1 130 (R)I 130 (R)I 130 (R)1 130 (R)1 130 (R)I I----------------------I-------------I----------- -I ------------ I ------------ I ------------I 1Corporate Plaza West 1 100,000 (0)I 100,000 (0)[ 100,000 (0)I 100,000 (0)[ 100,000 (0)I I----------------------I ------------- ------------I------------i------------I------------I Newport Village 1 345#000 (0)1 0 (0)1 0 (0)1 0 (0)1 0 (0)1 590250 (C)I (750)(C)I (750)(C)I (750)(C)I (750)(C)1 ' I I (360)(R)I 200 (R)[ 200 (R)I 200 (R)1 200 (R)I I---------------------- I ------------- I ------------ I ------------ I ------------ Ir-Y---------I Avocado/MacArthur 1 44,000 (0)[ 44,000 (0)I 44,000 (0)[ 44,000 (0)[ 44,000 (0)I 0 (C)1 0 (C)1 10,000 (C)1 10,000 (C)I 15,000 (C)I I---------------------- I ------------- I ------------ I -----------I------------I-----------I [Big Canyon/MacArthur 1 80 (R)1 80 (R)[ 80 (R)1 80 (R)1 80 (R)1 I----------------------I ------------- ----------- ------------I------------I------------I 1Bayview Landing 1 60,000 (C)I 200000 (C)1 35,000 (C)[ 25,000 (C)[ 25,000 (C)I I----------------------I -------------Ir -----------I -r-rr-------I - -----------I - -----------I I Newporter North 1 278 (R)I 278 (R)1 278 (R)[ 278 (R)1 278 (R)I r r _r r _- r --i ---i -Y Y YYrr - wr_rr--I --- r _ -I [Corporate Plaza [ 0 (C)[ 0 (C)I 80,000 (C)i 800000 (C)1 80,000 (C)I 1 I 0 (0)[ 0 (0)I 4,800 (0)I 4,800 (o)I 0 (0)1' [-rY-------------------I------------ -I----------- -I ----------- I------------I------------I I Flosting (5)(R)I (150)(R)I (150)(R)) (150)(R)1 (150)(R)1 1 -1 -I------------I------------I------------I------------I ------------------ ------------ I Westbay 1 0 (R)1 (40)(R)1 0 (R)[ (40)(R)1 (40)(R)I a:aa:a:aaaxsasssasfessal KsasassaK:saa1 KsaKsaaKKa,sa1 KiasaasahK:1,( aaissasKKasaa[ asraxasaxsxq I TOTALS 1 10279,000 (0)1 7940000 (0)i 938,800 (0)I 798,800 (0)1 934,000 (0)I 1 1 947,250 (C)1 1870250 (C)I 312,250 (C)[ 302,250 (01 3079250 (C)I.' I I (1,350)(T)I 0 (T)1 1,150 (T)1 1,150 (T)I 1,150 (T)I (122)(R)' 253 (R)f or3 (R)i or1 or 3 (R)3 (R)I 1 888,800 (0)I 748,800 (0)1 884,000 (0)1 ( 0 (I)I 0 (I)[ 65,000 (I)1 65,000 (I)1 65,000 (I)I ------------------r----r-----------------------------------------------------------------r I I 403 TO: City Council - 13. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the development as originally requested for the following sites: Block 600: 300,000 sq.ft. of office Block 500: 440,000 sq.ft. of office PCH/Jamboree: 130 dwelling units, residential Corporate Plaza West: 100,000 sq.ft. of office Big Canyon/MacArthur: 80 dwelling units Newporter North: 278 dwelling units, residential (+212 du's in existing G.P.) The Planning Commission recommendation for the following sites differs ' from the original project request: Fashion Island. The original Irvine Company request for this site was to allow additional retail and restaurant commercial development in 1 Fashion Island of 128,000 sq.ft. The staff recommended that this area be given an additional land use allocation of 40,000 sq.ft. In response to this proposal, The Irvine Company suggested that the increase be set at 60,000 sq.ft., or a total of 188,000 sq.ft. The indicated that the additional Irvine Company, in making this request, development was not needed for the "Fashion Island Renaissance" program, but would allow for expansions of the anchor tenants in the shopping mall. Since The Irvine Company indicated a willingness to commit the additional 60,000 sq.ft. for major tenants' use, staff recommended and the Planning Commission approved the requested change. ' It was the position of the staff and the Planning Commission that the improvements to Fashion Island constitute a significant community benefit, since the shopping area is primarily used by local residents and employees. Additionally, a successful retail shopping center results in significant revenues to the City. The Irvine Company is in agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Civic Plaza Expansion. The original Irvine Company request for the Civic Plaza Expansion site would have allowed 50,000 sq.ft. for office use and art museum expansion. This development would have been in ' addition to the 14,000 sq.ft. of institutional use allocated in the existing General Plan for library and art museum expansion. It was originally estimated that 36,000 sq.ft. of the requested 50,000 sq.ft. would be used for expansion of the Newport Harbor Art Museum. Over ' the past six months, the plans of the art museum have become more definitive, and it is now anticipated that the entire request will be used by the art museum and for expansion of the Newport Beach City Library. In fact, the expansion hoped for requires more than the original development request of The Irvine Company. Therefore, The Irvine Company proposed that if the entire Civic Plaza Expansion is used by these two institutional uses, that an additional 65,000 sq.ft. be allowed in this area (15,000 sq.ft. more than the original re- quest) . Staff recommended and the Planning commission approved this request, and has allowed for this increase as an alternate in the recommendation to the City Council. The Irvine Company has indicated agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 1 404 TO: City Council - 14. Newport Village. The original request of The Irvine Company would have allowed an additional 345,000 sq.ft. of office and 59,250 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant development on the Newport Village site. If approved, the request would have eliminated 360 residential dwelling units currently designated for the site in the existing General Plan. The development concept would have combined this site with the exist- ing Corporate Plaza Planned Community, and the development would have been in addition to the 750 sq.ft. of retail use and 101,174 sq.ft. of office use allocated to the Newport Village and Corporate Plaza sites in the existing General Plan. The analysis of the proposed project prepared for the Planning Commission by staff focused heavily on the commercial/residential balance of the proposed project, and the goals and policies contained in the City's Housing Element. At the conclu- sion of the analysis, the staff recommended the Newport Village site to be maintained as a residential site, with an expansion of residen- tially designated acreage to 33 acres from the previously designated 18 acres. This would eliminate the retail designation from 15 acres in Newport Village. The residential development would be limited to a maximum of 560 dwelling units, or an estimated density of 25 dwelling units per buildable acre. The response of The Irvine Company to this recommendation was one of qualified acceptance, but further requested that the Corporate Plaza area be considered for an increase of 84,800 sq.ft., of which 80,000 sq.ft. would be used for an athletic/health club. If approved, this request would reestablish the square footage limitation in the General Plan provided for in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District. In response to the request, staff further recommended to the Planning Commission approval of this request, in that the site plan included in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Text was designed to accommodate the requested development,, and because an athletic club would serve as a community amenity while deflecting some of the anticipated traffic of the overall development away from the peak hour. The Planning Commission concurred with the request to establish the athletic club, but did not allow the addi- tional 4,800 sq.ft. of office development in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community requested by the Irvine Company. The Irvine Company has indicated in their most recent communication that they are in agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Avocado/MacArthur. The Irvine Company requested approval of 44,000 sq.ft. of office development which would be in addition to the orange County Transit District facility already planned for the site. Staff had recommended to the Planning Commission approval of this request, indicating that the proposed project was in an area where higher intensity projects were already in existence. In response to requests made of The Irvine Company during their public relations program, a further request was made to allow a 10,000 sq.ft. day care center in addition to the development originally proposed. Staff studied this request and recommended approval of the proposal to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission further discussed the proposal and concluded that the day care center may need to expand beyond that requested at sometime in the future, and recommended that the develop- ment of Avocado/MacArthur be set at 44,000 sq.ft. Of office develop- ment, 15,000 sq.ft. for a day care facility and the OCTD transit 405 TO: City Council - 15. facility. The Irvine Company has indicated their concurrence with the Planning Commission recommendation. ' Bayview Landing. The original request of The Irvine Company for the Bayview Landing site was for 60,000 sq.ft. of retail commercial accommodating development of approximately six restaurant facilities. Based upon information contained in the Environmental Impact Report in the areas of aesthetics, land use, geological constraints, site access ' and traffic circulation, staff recommended to the Planning Commission a significant reduction of the development proposal to a maximum of 20,000 sq.ft. As part of the staff proposal, development would be precluded from the upper level of the site (at the corner of Jamboree Road at East Coast Highway), but would be allowed on the lower level of the site (adjacent to Back Bay Drive). The upper site level would be for view park and bicycle and pedestrian trails and staging areas as currently provided for in the General Plan. The Irvine Company concurred with some of the concerns of staff regarding site access, but still indicated that the site could accommodate more development than the staff recommendation while providing for the public uses proposed. A development of 35,000 sq.ft. was requested by The Irvine Company. Staff did further research of the typical size of restaurant facilities, and made a further recommendation which would allow 25,000 1 sq.ft. for three restaurant facilities, one of which could be for the proposed teen center. Development would still be precluded from the upper site level, but would be allowed on the slope area (subject to Coastal Commission approval). At the conclusion of public testimony, the Planning Commission discussed the project and adopted the second staff recommendation. The Irvine Company has indicated in their most recent communication disagreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The Irvine Company maintains their second request of 35,000 sq.ft. to allow a total of four restaurant facil- ities, including two on the upper level of the site. It is also indicated that the structures will be sited and designed to provide views of Upper Newport Bay and that a view park with public parking facilities will be provided at the developer's expense. ' It is the position of staff that vehicular access to the upper level of the site may not be advisable, in that the location of driveways would be very close to the intersection of Jamboree Road and East ' Coast Highway and may require construction of large retaining struc- tures. in any event, access to the upper portion of the site can be via right -turns in -and -out only, which makes the access situation limited at best. Most important, however, is the provision of the significant public amenity of views to Upper Newport Bay and the Newport Dunes area both from and across the site. When considered in the context of the overall Newport Center plan, the preservation of this open space is a reasonable request. Staff therefore recommends that the City Council sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission in regards to the Bayview Landing site. ' Westbay. The Westbay site was not part of The Irvine Company request for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The site has, since the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1, been tied to Newport Center for planning purposes. The allowed development of Westbay was limited I TO: City Council - 16. 406 1 to four dwelling units per buildable acre in that action, with 75% of the units transferred to Newport Center. This site provided the predominant portion of the "floating" residential units in the Center. one of the goals of staff and the Planning Commission in the consideration of the build -out plan for Newport Center was the resolution of the amount and location of residential development in the area. The plan recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission does not contain any "floating," "transfer" or "matching" units, as called out in the existing General Plan. As such, the development of the Westbay site is part of the consideration of the , Newport Center plan, because the deletion of the transfer units is an automatic reduction in development rights attributable to Westbay. As previously indicated in the discussion of Hayview ]Landing, it is , appropriate to consider community open space goals when addressing a project of the magnitude of the one under consideration. It should be noted that the issue of dedication has not been raised by the City, in that the recommendation of the Planning Commission is a redesignation to the "Recreational and Environmental open Space" land use category, but does not require dedication of any land at this time. It is the position of staff that the redesignation of the Westbay site in partial consideration for the increased development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites is appropriate and recommends that the City Council sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission. ' San Diego Creek North. The consideration of the San Diego Creek North site was not included in the development requested by The Irvine Company. The Environmental Impact Report indicated that the project ' would have a significant effect on the provision of some public services, including the provision of fire protection and paramedic services. The increased development in Newport Center was projected to increase the demand for Fire Department services to the extent that an adverse effect could be anticipated in the level of service in the service area of the Newport Center Station. The City currently has a fire station reservation designated in the North Ford Planned Community. The Fire Department has indicated that there is a preferred location for an additional fire station, on the San Diego Creek North site. The Planning Commission has, therefore, recommended that a five-year fire station reservation be shown on that site. This will allow the City flexibility in determining the most desirable location for this future facility. once the final location is determined, the second fire station reservation will be deleted. The Irvine Company is in agreement with this recommendation. Analysis of Planning Commission Land Use Recommendations The action of the Planning Commission, if sustained by the City Council, would result in a project of a similar scale and nature to that proposed by The Irvine Company. For the benefit of the City Council, supplemental analysis of the project in the areas of land use ' compatibility, land use intensity and traffic and circulation is provided. I 407 TO: City Council - 17. I r I I I I I I 1 I Land Use Compatibility. Newport Center and the peripheral sites lie in a developed urban environment. Both within and surrounding the project areas, the land uses are mixed and include virtually all of the land uses included in the recommendation. The Planning Com- mission's proposal is generally in keeping with the original concept plan for Newport Center, with the exception that a higher portion of residential land uses are to be accommodated in the area. The re- quirement that one of the major commercial and office development sites proposed by The Irvine Company be residential (Newport Village) substantially addressed staff concerns over the mix of commercial and residential development in the Newport Center build -out plan. Land Use Intensity. in terms of intensity of development, the recom- mended project is in keeping with intensity limits in the City and prior actions of the Planning Commission and City Council. When calculated for commercial sites only, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted by the existing General Plan its 0.41 FAR, and as recommended by the Planning Commission is 0.52 FAR. When calculated for commer- cial and residential sites combined, the Floor Area Ratio permitted by the existing General Plan is 0.41 FAR, and as proposed by the Planning Commission is 0.47 FAR. When the land area occupied by the recreation uses are included, the Floor Area Ratios reduce to 0.30 FAR existing and 0.34 proposed. These compare to the two other major commercial Planned Communities: Newport Place = 0.39 FAR permitted; Koll Center Newport = 0.525 FAR permitted. The older commercial areas allow significantly higher intensity ranges: Campus Drive at 0.5; Mariner's Mile and Cannery Village at 1.0; and other older commercial areas at 2.0 to 3.0 FAR. For the purposes of projecting ultimate buildout of the older commercial areas, the City generally uses intensity ratios of 0.8 and 1.25 FAR. Traffic and Circulation. For the information of the City Council, staff has prepared Table 2 illustrating the Average Daily Trip gen- eration characteristics of the various "projects" considered by the Planning Commission. As indicated by the table, the Planning Commis- sion recommendation will result in a reduction of an estimated 995 daily trips from the original project proposed by The Irvine Company. This trip reduction is, however, considered to be a conservative estimate, in that no calculation has been made to estimate the double counting of trips for the day care center and the athletic club. The nature of these uses in a Newport Center location can be expected to generate significantly less external trips that would be expected as "stand-alone" uses. The revised project can also be expected to effect intersections in the immediate vicinity of the Newport Village site in a somewhat different manner than that portrayed in the EIR. This is due to the 1Assumes 15 sq.ft. per theater seat, 1000 sq.ft. per hotel room. Existing General Plan residential calculated at 1200 sq.ft. per d.u.; proposed at 1000 sq.ft. per d.u. TO - City Council - 18. EW. I fact that a residential use in this area has different directionality characteristics and a lower traffic generation rate than the office and retail use originally proposed by The Irvine Company. Additional information was developed for the Planning Commission in order to provide them with information on the impact of the land use changes recommended by staff. A report prepared by the City's consulting traffic engineer, Basmaciyan-Darnellt Inc., indicated that minor increases to the expected ICU values at MacArthur and San Miguel and at MacArthur and Coast Highway could be expected as a result of the change. All other intersections would be expected to remain unchanged or be reduced as a result of the recommendation. TABLE 2 - Newport Center Average Daily Trips lsisrsiwws:w:iwwwiwas:wrrawuwriwwwwrrrrrrraww:rwrrraaraRwwwrarisnrwrsss===as J Orig. Staff J TIC i1 J Staff I Png.Com.1 Tic #2 1 J Location J Project I Rec N3 1 Response) Rao N2 1 Action J Response) araaasawwlsaarilwzrwwrJ rawwlwft, awwawrwf rarwRrlii wraRwiw� )Fashion Island 4,99E 1 7,092 1 6,792 1 6,79E 1 6,792 i 6,792 1 I----------------------i--------J--------i --------I--------I -------- 1--------I J Block 600 J 5,900 3,900 30900 ( 3,900 J 3,900 ( 3,900 J 1----------------------1--------I --------I --------I --------I --------I --------I )Civic Plaza Expansion 1,334 1,334 2,080 2,080 E0080 2,080 J ------- ------- JBlock 800 $0790 3,900 5,720 3,900 5t720 5,720 I----------------------I --------I --------I --------I --------J --------------1 PCH/Jamboree J 845 1 $45 J 845 845 1 845 845 I-----------------------I-------I --------I --------I - -------I - -------� --------J )Corporate Plaza Wert 11,300 J 1,300 1t300 J1,300 It= J 1,300 1---------------------a------- i - ------ - - - a-------�-------�--------i-------i I Newport Village J 7,410 3,640 J 3,640 J 3,640 3,640 3,640 )Avocado/MacArthur - 1 - 572 ---572----947 `--947 1,322-� 1,322-� ----------------------i--------I---------------I--------I---------------- I Big Canyon/MacArthur 520 ( 520 020 5E0 520 520 --------------------- --------I - - ------..�-------I-------I--------I-------- l Newporter North 3,185 J 3,185 atlas 3,185 3,185 3,185 -------------------- -- ----- ------ --------J ---------------� J Bayview Landing 4,500 1,500 2,625 J 1,875 (� 1,875 J 2,625 J---------------------- i -------- J --------J-------- J -------a--------i --------i J Corporate Plaza 0 0 J E0166 2,166 2,104 2,104 wririwwrwralRRwirwiwi� Rwrwrwft� iwrrwrrrJ rwrwrrl,i =lwawiii{ !a=Saab CS--L'--� J TOTAL ADT 34,278 1 E7t788 1 33t720 1 31,150 J 33,283 11� 34t033 awzrzsrrirrsr:wlrrrrawawwrlrrrrriiwilrrlawRiawwwrrls:rriRrswsisilrilrzszazsa=s r7 i 1 I I I 1 I 1 r C� I 1 409 ' TO: City Council - 19. Affordable Housing The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council an affordable housing program for the residential portion of the project based upon the housing impact of the overall project. Thirty percent of the total new residential units to be in an affordable category plus the final commitment of the remaining "pool" units in the Baywood expan- sion was required. Two thirds, of the affordable units were required to be for County Low Income families and one third for City Very Low income families (at HUD "Fair Market Rents"). The affordability term to the was specified at twenty years. In' their communications Planning Commission, The Irvine Company indicated concern with the proposed program, but had no specific response. The most recent communication received from The Irvine Company gives a specific response to the action of the Planning Commission. The concern of The Irvine Company is in three areas: the percentage of affordable units required, the affordability criteria in the event Mortgage Revenue Bond financing is not available, and the term of affordability. These concerns are discussed individually below. 1 Number of Affordable Units. The recommendation of the Planning Commission would result in thirty percent (30%) of the total units constructed plus 29 Baywood units to be affordable. The Irvine ' Company has indicated that this requirement is in excess of the 30% guideline contained in the Housing Element. They have requested that the Baywood affordable units should be allowed to be credited to the 1 provision of affordable housing for the Newport Center residential. Staff has no objection to this request so long as the affordability criteria is as specified for the Newport Center General Plan Amend- ' ment. Affordability Criteria. The Irvine Company has indicated a general agreement with the affordability criteria outlined for those projects which are able to utilize the Mortgage Revenue Bond financing program. The Irvine Company has pointed out, however, that no Mortgage Revenue Bond commitment has been obtained for the Newport Village site, since The Irvine Company was planning commercial development on that site. The Irvine Company has requested an alternate affordability profile for those projects which do not make use of mortgage revenue bonds. This criteria would be as follows: 33.3% County Median Income* 33.3% County Low Income* 33.4% City Very Low Income* (rents at HUD "Fair Market Rent") *per Housing Element When staff proposed the affordability criteria, the recommendation was based on an assumption that the Mortgage Revenue Bond program would be available to all projects except the Big Canyon/MacArthur project, which was expected to not include affordable units. Staff concurs ' with The Irvine Company that the affordability mix should be adjusted for any other project which is unable to make use of the Mortgage T0: City Council - 20. 410 1 Revenue Bond program. The affordability mix suggested has been reviewed and is consistent with the provisions of the City's Housing Element. It is, therefore, recommended that an additional affordabil- ity mix be accommodated in the affordable housing program for non -bond -financed projects (other than Big Canyon/MacArthur) as suggested by The Irvine Company. An additional concern of The Irvine Company was expressed in regards to the number of HUD Fair Market Rent units which may occur in any project. The Irvine Company has requested the ability to provide these units on sites other than those in Newport Center and the peripheral sites. This could result in some affordable units in some of the older, non -affordable apartment projects, such as Mariners' Square, Bayport, and Baywood. Staff supports the concept of spreading the affordable housing throughout the community and would recommend approval of this request. Term of Affordability. The Irvine Company has indicated that a minumum ten year term of affordability with a maximum of twenty years is acceptable, provided favorable financing is available at the time , of refinancing 10 to 12 years out. Apartment projects, even Mortgage Revenue Bond projects, are not able to obtain a letter of credit to secure the financing for terms longer than 10 years. Staff maintains the recommendation that 20 years be the term of affordability. In , order to accommodate concerns of The Irvine Company, the City Council may wish to consider an additional provision allowing reevaluation of the term of affordability at the time of refinancing. This provision , would require affordability provisions to continue so long as reasonable financing for the original loan amount to support the rents required by this General Plan Amendment is available, Additional Housing Program Considerations. The residential projects associated with the project in the Coastal Zone will be required to obtain Coastal Residential Development Permits. These permits are ' required pursuant to Section 65590 of the Government Code and Council Policy P-1, and are related to the provision of low and moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone. The processing of a Coastal , Residential Development Permit will occur at the time of consideration of any Tentative Tract Map. Associated with this approval is a substantial permit fee, which is applied on a unit basis. Given the number of units proposed in the Coastal Zone, this fee could be substantial (i$193,500). The precise nature of the residential development is not known at this time. Consistent with the provisions of the City's Housing Element, the City may wish to waive these fees if the Coastal sites support a , high ratio of affordable housing. Staff recommends the City Council include a provision which will allow the City to consider a waiver of all or a portion of Coastal Residential Development Permit Fees at the time of approval of the Tentative Tract Maps. I I I TO: City Council - 21. 411 ' Land Use Phasing ' The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council a very aggres- sive land use phasing program which essentially required that 800 units be under construction prior to the issuance of occupancy permits ' for the Block 600 project, which is an early phase project. Addition- ally, these units were to have certificates of occupancy prior to the issuance of building permits for the Block 800 and Corporate Plaza ' west projects. The Irvine Company indicated to the Planning Commis- sion disagreement with the program, but offered no alternate program. The letter submitted by The Irvine Company proposes an alternate land use phasing program, as follows: 1. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the block 600 ' office project, the developer will file for tentative tract maps and all other necessary zoning and environmental approvals for at least 400 units. ' 2. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the Block 800 office project, the developer will file for tentative tract maps, and all other necessary zoning and environmental approvals for an additional 400 units. 3. Special uses such as the art museum/library expansion, day care ' facility, teen center, and health club should be exempt from any residential phasing requirements. Fashion Island should be exempt from residential phasing requirements. The proposal of The Irvine Company for residential/commercial phasing essentially amounts to no phasing requirements, since the filing of tentative map and related approvals does not constitute any commitment ' to construct. The proposal is considered unacceptable by staff. Staff is, however, sympathetic to the concern of The Irvine Company regarding requiring a high number of dwelling units to become avail- able within a relatively short period of time. Additionally, it appears that The Irvine Company did not fully understand the phasing proposed by the Planning Commission, since Fashion Island and the art museum/library were not tied to any residential phasing requirements. An alternate phasing program has been prepared by staff which will also allow the teen center and the health club to proceed prior to the construction of residential units. The alternate phasing program the City Council may wish to consider is as follows: 1. No residential development shall be required to be under con- struction prior to the issuance of building permits for the following sites: A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza Expansion C. Block 600 D. Bayview Landing E. Avocado/MacArthur F. Corporate Plaza TO. -City Council - 22. 412 , 2. 400 units must have building permits issued and show substantial progress in construction (foundations plus framing) before: A. The issuance of a certificate of occupancy fort I. Block 600 B. The issuance of building permits for. - I. Block 800 ii. Corporate Plaza West , 3. 400 units must have certificates of occupancy issued and 400 additional units must have building permits issued and show substantial progress in construction before the issuance of certificates of occupancy fors A. Block 800 , B. Corporate Plaza West Circulation Phasing , The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council a circulation system phasing program which ties various components of the project to construction of several major arterial roadways. The roads phased , with the construction of the Newport Center project are Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Pelican Hill Road (from Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard), and San Joaquin Hills Road (from ' Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road). With the exception of the segment of MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and the extension of the centerline of Crown Drive, improvements in the City of Newport Beach will complete arterial roadways to the full Master Plan configuration as called out in the City's Circulation Element. In deferring the completion of MacArthur Boulevard in the above described segment, the Planning Commission set forth specific criteria ' which must be met prior to its completion to full master plan width. This item is discussed by staff in detail in the "other Requirements" section later in this report. ' The Irvine Company has indicated in their most recent letter of response, disagreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commis- sioh in regards to the phasing of circulation system improvements with various components of the project. They have suggested an alternate phasing program, as follows; 1. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA 85-1(B), all dedications from The Irvine Company , necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway, Jamboree , Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue dedications and completion bonding and before installation of Pelican Hill Road: ' 413 TO: City Council - 23. A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza Expansion ' C. Big Canyon/MacArthur D. Newporter North E. PCH/Jamboree F. Newport Village ' G. Bayview Landing (move up from Phase 5) H. Avocado/MacArthur (move up from Phase 3) I. Corporate Plaza (move up from Phase 3) 3. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and ' MacArthur Boulevard improvements (as described below): A. Block 600 B. Block 800 (move up from Phase 5) C. Corporate Plaza West (move up from Phase 5) Also suggested is the deferral of completion of MacArthur Boule- ' vard from San Joaquin Hills Road to Bonita Canyon until Phase 4 because Pelican Hill Road will provide significant relief_ to 4. Certificates of occupancy may not be issued for the following projects until the completion of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur ' Boulevard improvements: A. Block 600 B. Block 800 (move up from Phase 5) C. Corporate Plaza West (move up from Phase 5) 5----Bnf}df ag-br-4rad4a4-pernii4s'-for-the--f o-�laxt}ng-P�e•} eeta--n�a5`-bc fsened-txflem--ee�nnea+ee�eat-e�-�oncbreekibrr-e£-�cxzr-}enee-wF-6en ' 3eegain-Hi}}e-Rend-te-Pe}seen-Hi}}-Read: ' A- --- Beek-888 B---- eerperete-P}eea-Weet e- --- BayView-Sanding The request of The Irvine Company as outlined above and when combined with the Planning Commission's deferral of MacArthur Boulevard im- provements adjacent to Harbor View Hills results in virtually no major arterial improvements completed until the very last phase of the ' Newport Center project, and the removal of the construction of San Joaquin Hills Road between Spyglass Hill Road and Pelican Hill Road from the phasing program altogether. This is inconsistent with the main reason and goal of the City in considering significant develop- ment increases in Newport Center. Staff is, therefore, not in support of the proposed circulation system phasing program proposed by The Irvine Company. The Planning Commission, in making its recommendation ' to the City Council, attempted to pace the major phases of the project with major improvements using the anticipated construction phasing provided by The Irvine Company. The Irvine Company's response does, however, point out an omission in the Circulation phasing program for the completion of MacArthur Boulevard improvements. it also may be TO: city Council - 24. 414 appropriate to allow the day care center on Avocado/MacArthur to proceed in the earliest phase. Since the health club on Corporate Plaza and the teen center proposed as part of the Bayview Landing development are more intense land uses, these may be more appropriate- ly placed in an intermediate phase. Staff has prepared the following proposed revision to the recommended circulation phasing program, adding specific phasing for MacArthur Boulevard improvements and making some clarifications in the proposed language, for the consid- eration of the City Councils 1. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA 85-1(B), all dedicat ons necessary for com- pletion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highways Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue dedications and completion bonding and before installation of Pelican Hill Road. A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza Expansion C. Big Canyon/MacArthur D. Newporter North E. PCH/Jamboree F. Newport Village G. Day Care Center - Avocado/MacArthur 3. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements from San Miguel Road to (San Diego Creek)4as-deser4bed-belew}s T, A. Block 600 B. Avocado/MacArthur C. Corporate Plaza D. Bayview Landing 4. Certificate of occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road: - Block 600 5. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Roads A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West er--- Barvfew-handing I� J F1 L I 11 I ' T0: City Council - 25. 415 11 I I I L Other Requirements In recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment for Newport Center and the peripheral sites, the Planning Commission applied a number of supplemental requirements which did not fit into any of the other categories. Most of these criteria have met with the acceptance of The Irvine Company, except for the indication that the initial construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road is more than what they wish to commit to. It was the specific recommendation of the Planning Commission that the initial construction of Pelican Hill Road be four lanes. MacArthur Boulevard Improvement Criteria_. In recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission specifically addressed the timing of the improvement of MacArthur Boulevard to full master plan configuration between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. in making this recommendation, the Planning Commission was responding to the expressed concerns of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Asso- ciation. Many people from this group expressed the opinion that the full master plan improvement was premature until the completion of the remainder of the regional circulation system, most particularly Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road. it was the position of staff that all information indicated that a full six lane MacArthur Boulevard was a necessary improvement and should be mandated of The Irvine Company as part of any approval for Newport Center. However, the staff prepared alternate language for the consideration of the Planning Commission setting forth criteria for the full widening of MacArthur Boulevard. An important consideration of staff was preserving the ability to make necessary intersection improvements along MacArthur Boulevard at Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. When these improvements are made, the provision of all neces- sary taper lanes will result in six lanes along MacArthur Boulevard except in the segment between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive. At the suggestion of the staff, language was adopted by the Planning Commission specifying that the four lane segment was in that location. At their meeting of June 5, 1986, the Planning Commission discussed the wording adopted in the final Resolution on this matter. At the conclusion of discussion, staff was directed to clarify the intent of the Planning Commission in adopting this language, as follows: 416 ,T0: City Council - 26. 5. That prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor -View -Drive Coast Highway and -a pre�ertgal4ea-of--hhe-eeakerbinr-ei-£rewa-fx�ve San Miguel Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum be met: a. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial configura- tion (6-lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the inter- section of San Joaquin Hills Road. b. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided), easterly of Spyglass Hill Road and connection to Pelican Hill Road. An average weekday volume -to -capacity ratio of 1.15 on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor view Drive. A decision has been made regarding the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first. A public hearing shall and the City Council to the desirability of the be conducted by the verify satisfaction roadway widening. Planning Commission of all criteria and The adoption of this language does not change the effect of that which was adopted by the Planning Commission in their Resolution on the General Plan Amendment. It is the opinion of staff, however, that the proposed language may tend to confuse the layman and make it more difficult for the individual to understand what improvements are actually permitted. The language originally adopted is very clear and will lead to no doubts as to the segment of MacArthur Boulevard which will remain a four lane road in the short-term future. In reviewing the action taken by the Planning Commission, staff has a concern with one of the criteria for the widening of MacArthur Boule- vard. Criteria "b" requires completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to six lanes easterly of Spyglass Hill Road prior to the completion of MacArthur Boulevard. This road is not in the City of Newport Beach and may never be completed to the full master plan width. In fact, current traffic volume projections show this road as barely exceeding volumes needed for a four lane road. Staff would therefore recommend some qualifying language for this criteria similar to that in criteria "d", as follows: L LJ L� 1 I 1 T0: City Council - 27. 417 "b. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass Hill Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road: or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first." Staff would also suggest that the 'Other Requirements", numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5, all related to MacArthur Boulevard improvements, should be consolidated into a single statement and made internally consistent. Language recommended by staff is as follows: 112. MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive shall be subject to the following in conjunction with the Circulation Phasing requirements: A. Full dedication for 6-lane MacArthur Boulevard is required. B. MacArthur Boulevard shall be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in ' the Environmental impact Report prepared for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). ' C. Two outside through lanes in each direction on MacArthur Boulevard shall be constructed so that additional lanes constructed, when required by the City, will occur towards the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive. ' D. That prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the ' centerline of Crown Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum shall be met: i. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the intersection of San ' Joaquin Hills Road. ii. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided) ' easterly of Spyglass Hill Road, and con- nection to Pelican Hill Road; or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first. iii. An average weekday volume -to -capacity ratio of 1.15 on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicini- ty of Harbor View Drive. iv. A decision has been made regarding the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Trans- portation Corridor or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first. T0: City Council - 28. 418 ' A public hearing shall be conducted by the Plan- ' ning Commission and the City Council to verify , satisfaction of all criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening." Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director 8y PATRICIA L. TEMPLE ' Environmental Coordinator GPAB51/jm , Attachments for City Council only: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1139 , 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1140 3. June 16, 1986 letter from The Irvine Company 4. Attachment No. 1 to DEIR, includes: ' a. Public Review Record b. Comments and Responses c. Planning Commission Staff Reports , d. Planning Commission Minutes I I 11 1 419 ' RESOLUTION NO. 1139 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED, AND, IN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SAID AMENDMENTS, ' RECOMMEND THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROJECT BE CERTIFIED AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B)). J J i� II II II II WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Land Use, Recreation and Open Space, and Circulation Elements have been prepared] and WHEREAS, said elements of the General Plan set forth objec- tives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider certain amendments to the above referenced elements of the Newport Beach General Plant and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to address the com- pletion of Newport Center in a comprehensive manner, enabling the phasing of the project with significant improvements to the local and regional circulation system; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide for a balance of employment and housing in the consideration of mixed use developments; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has, in the General Plan Housing Element, established policies to increase the production of housing in the community and to provide affordable housing oppor- tunities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Section 65913 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to provide a balanced community, with a variety of housing types and designs and housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community; and m II 420 WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to preserve and increase affordable housing for low and moderate intone householder and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to eliminate Con- straints to housing production and increase allowed density, wherever possible; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide incentives to the building industry to facilitate the provision of housing for low and moderate income houmeholdel and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beath recognizes the unique opportunity to provide housing opportunities in conjunction with commercial development in and around Newport Centers and WHEREAS, residential development in and around Newport center will promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital statue, ancestry, national origin or color; and WHEREAS, approval of the project, with all related land use provisions, circulation system improvements and phasing, will provide for a balance between the planned land uses in the City and the circulation system; and WHEPEAS, implementation of the project will provide the City with a significant annual revenue benefit; and WHEREAS, construction of the project will be phased with major circulation system improvements, including the construction of Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, the completion of Jamboree Road and improvements to MacArthur Boulevard; And WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environ- mental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State SIR Guidelinea; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the SIR in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Newport Beach Gsaeral Plans NOW, THSREPORE, DE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Batch that amendment$ to the General Plan with related provisions and requirements es described herein are recommend- ed for approval to the City Counoil. Z 3b 1 421 Land Use Element: Adopt and include in the Land Use Element the development limitations for each block in Newport Center as specified on the "Newport Center Development Limits" chart, attached hereon as "Exhibit 1." Amend the Land Use Element and Map to provide for the following increases in development in Newport Center. 1. Fashion Island: Add 1889000 sq.ft. for general and regional retail commercial uses and 2,500 theater seats. Total allowed development in Fashion Island is 1,429,250 sq.ft. and 2,500 theater seats. ' 2. Block 600: Add 300,000 sq.ft. for general office development. Total allowed development in Block 600 is 1,100,000 sq.ft. and 325 hotel rooms. ' 3. Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 50,000 sq.ft. for office or institutional use, or a total of 284,706 sq.ft. of office and 48,000 sq.ft. of institution. An additional 15,000 sq.ft. of institutional may be allowed subject to use of all of the above described SO,ODO sq.ft. for institutional uses. Institutional uses include Art Museum, Natural History Museum, and library uses. In this scenario, total development is 234,706 sq.ft. of office and 113,000 sq.ft. of institutional uses. ' 4. Block BOO: Change the land use designation from "Multi -Family Residential" to "Administrative, Profes- sional and Financial Commercial." Add 440,000 square feet for office development in Block 800, or a total of ' 693,100 sq.ft. in Block 800. S. PCH/tamboree: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change the land use designation for Villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Res- idential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. G. Corporate Plaza West: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial with Alternate Land Use" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 100,000 sq.ft, for office development for a total of 123,400 sq.ft. 7. Newport Village: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 560 dwelling units. Add ' 80,000 sq.ft. to Corporate Plaza, or a total of 445,200 sq.ft. 80,000 sq.ft. can be constructed only if for an athletic/health club. ' S. Avocado/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Profession- al and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental, Educa- tional and Institutional Facilities." 44,000 sq.ft. of ' office uses are permitted with a transit facility and 15,000 sq.ft. for a day care facility. 9. Big Canyon/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Multi -Family Residential," at a maximum of 80 dwelling units. 10. Bayview Landing: Change the land use designation on the lower portion of the site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with an alternate of "Low Density Residential" to "Retail and Service :W1= 3t 422 ' Commercial." Allow 25,000 sq.ft, for restaurant or visitor serving commercial user three restaurant ' facilities may be constructed, one of which may be used as a Teen Center. All access for commercial use shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Public works Departments. Structures shall not be higher than the upper pad level, and shall be sited and , designed so as to provide for views of upper Newport Say and Newport Dunes. 11. Newporter NOrtht Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -family Residential" at a maximum of 490 dwelling units. significant cultural resources which exist on the site shall be preserved in a manner acceptable to the City, with development clustered in other areas. , 12. westbayt Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" in partial consideration for increased ' development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites. 13. San Diego Creek Mortht Add a 2.5 acre fire Station reservation to the site. The reservation shall be in ' effect for a period of 5 years. Recreation and Open Space Elements ' 1. Bayview Landings maintain the existing "Recreational and Environmental open space" designation, but preclude development from the upper level. ' 2. Newporter Norths Maintain existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but add unmapped environmentally sensitive area designation for preser- vation of significant on -site cultural resources. 3. weathay, Designate the site for regional park facil- ities with unmapped environmentally sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history t facility may be allowed on the site subject to approval of the City. Circulation Elements , 1. Delete Avocado Avenue/Machrthur Boulevard Primary Couplet designation; designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (si)t lanes, divided); designate Avocado ' Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (e lanes) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. This circulation element revision is subject to ap- proval of the County of orange. 2. Recommend to the City Council initiation of an amend- ment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General plan to designate MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Routs 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial (8 lanes, divided). Further, rocoemend to the City Council that final action on this amendment be taken concurrent with the , action on GPA 85-1(5). 4- 3 1 I 423 ' Affordable Housing: Based upon the granting of additional commercial develop- ment, increased density for residential development, and governmental financial assistance such as Mortgage Revenue ' Bonds, the following program is required: 1. Thirty percent (30%) of the total dwelling units constructed on all sites shall be affordable to low and moderate income families. 2. The affordability mix shall be a follows 66.7% County Low Income* ' 33.3% City Very Low Income* (with rents not to exceed HUD Section 8 "Fair Market Rents") *per Housing Element 3. Preference shall be given to Section 8 Certificate holders for the "City Very -Low Income" units. 4. The term of affordability shall be 20 years from the date of initial occupancy. S. The affordable units may be located on any site, however they shall be phased proportional to the market rate residential units. 6. Additionally, the 29 remaining "pool" affordable units in the Haywood expansion shall be committed for a period of 20 years, with 80% at County median and 20% at County low income. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for any develop- ' ment permitted by GPA 85-1(B), the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City guaranteeing the provision of the affordable units. This agreement may be included within the ' development agreement. Land Use Phasing: ' Phase I - No residential (PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village, required for: Newporter North, Big Canyon) units A. Fashion Island Expansion B. Civic Plaza Expansion Phase IIa - 400 units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction (foundations plus some framing) before building permit issuance ' for: A. Block 600 B. Bayview Landing C. Avocado/MacArthur D. Corporate Plaza Phase IIb - 400 additional units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction before iasuance of occupancy permits for: A. Block 600 -5- 33 I 424 ' Phase 321 - completion and Certificate of occupancy for 800 do's before building permit* issued fort ' A. Block Boo B. corporate Plaza Nast , circulation Phasinit 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for any ' component of GPA 85-10), all dedications from The Irvine Company necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made, 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway, Jaeboree aced, MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue dedications and completion bonding and before instal- lation of Pelican Kill Road, , A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza c. Big Canyon/MacArthur Blvd. D. Newporter North E. PCH/Jamboree P, Newport village 3. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon coaamncesmat of construction of , Pelican Hill Koad and MacArthur Boulevard improvements (as described below)t A. Block 600 , B. Avocado/MacArthur Blvd. C. Corporate Plaza e. Certificate of occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of Pelican Hill ' Roads - Block 600 1 S. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon cotmencement of construction of four lanes of Ban Joaquin Hills Mad to Pelican Hill Roadt A. Block 800 ' B. corporate Plaza Nast c. Bayview Landing ' other Betbuirementat 1. A landscape program for MacArthur Boulevard shall be reviewed And approved by the city Council prior to , issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA BS-i(B). ft* Iandmcaping shell be installed concurrent with MacArthur Boulevard improve- ments. 2. That the full dedications for 6-1ane MacArthur be required. 3. That MacArthur Boulevard be ieptoved to lower the grade described in the En- , and move the road westerly, as vironmental Impact Bsport. e. That the two outside through lanes be constructed so that any additional lanes would occur towards the ' canterline of the roadway, between Harbor View orive and the prolongation of the centstlins of Cram Drive. j 425 5. That prior to construction of through lanes in excess ' of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum, be met: a. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road. ' b. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Major divided) easterly Arterial configuration (6-lanes, of Spyglass Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. ' C. An average weekday volume -to -capacity ratio of 1.15 on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive. ' d. A decision has been made regarding the con- Hills Transportation struction of the San Joaquin Corridor, or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first. ' A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning the City Council to verify satisfaction Commission and of all criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. 6. All mitigation measures outlined consistent with the be required. approved project in the Final EIR shall 7. The Irvine Company shall aggressively pursue all necessary approvals and construction of San Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road. S. A Development Agreement and overall Planned Community ' Development Plan for Newport Center shall be prepared and approved concurrent with or prior to any further discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the development allowed by this General Plan Amendment. 9. The initial construction of Pelican Hill Road shall be a minimum of four lanes. 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning commission recom- mends acceptance and certification of the Environmental Impact Report. ADOPTED this day of , 1986, by the following vote, to wit: ' 7 3l' 426 AYES Mom Ant" EY CHAIM" BY SECRETARY RES02/jm 427 _ .s=s......s.....s.. 3i cl ' ILocation I Allowable e=cove=cecvvicev ..a=� vee=.cx l.v.............I IBlocc 0-1orporate Plaza I 445,200 (0)I I______________________________ I --------------- I (Block 100-Gateway Plaza 1 165,000 (0)I I -______________I 7 I______________________________ (Block 200-Design Plaza I 150,000 (0)l I I'-'�--'-"--""-"""""-'- I --------------- :Block 300 1 80,000 (0)I I 2,400 M l 7 1 . • . . I------------------------------ 1________.a____-1, Mock 400-Medical Plaza 1 380,000 (0)l I------------------------------ ( — -I 18lock SOO "'- I323, 550 (0)1- ' (------------------------------ I--------------- I (Block 600 1 1,100,000 (0); l IBlock 700-Pacific Mutual 1 290,800 (0)1 IBlock 800 1 693,100 (0)l ' I 8 (C)1 ---- 18locka 700/800-Civic Plaza 1 284,706 (0)l 1 1 48,000 (I)I 1 1 234,706 (0)l 1 1 113,000 (I)1 ...._------- I _------------- I— _ ._. . . . . ..... ... . I----------- — ------- 18lock 900-Marriott Hotel 1 611 (H)I I Granville Apartaental 67 (R)I I _. __ 1 10,000 (0)1 I I------------------------------ I --------------- (Avocado/MacArthur 1 44,000 (0)1 I . _.___ __1 16,000 (C)I— I ---------------- I I---------------------------- (Newport Village I 560 (R)l _.,,.------ I ------- ...------ I_....._ ._ - I --------------------- (Corporate Plaza West 1 123,400 (0)1 I------------------------------ I --------------- I ' I Villa Point (I I ---------------I ' i___________ -------------------I (Fashion Inland 1 1,429,250 (C)I .... 1 2,500 (T).1 1--------------- I 1------------------------------ ISea Island 1 132 (R)1 I__-____________,1 I------------------------------ IMiscellaneous I 1 ) I Institutional I S8,10o (I)1 ' I Golf -IS holes -1 (- I Automotive-5 acres I I I Tennis-24 courts i I 1.=-=ccvccv=.cocas.ecve..o.evecl=..sa�n.s.sc=syl (TOTALS 1 4,089.7S6 (0)I 1 1 1,452,250 (C)I I 1 4,900 Ml 1 (H) 1 I 1,043 043 (R)l ' 1 106.100 (I)l =..-ccc..c-ec. cccccxc.eccacc ccecse.c ccev.sccce=: 9 �1 1 428 , RESOLUTION NO, 1140 ' A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY of SENPOAT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT no. 9 TO THE CITY oP NEWPORT MACH ' LOCAL COASTAL PNOGAAH, LAND USE PLAN AND MAPS No. 29, 30, 31, 38, 49, and 60 AND RELATED TEAT IN CONJUNCTION NITS THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(2). ' wHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 taquires the City of Newport Bosch to prepare a local coastal program; and , WNEHEAS, as a part of the development and implomentation of the Coastal Act, the City establishod a Local Coastal Program Advisory ' committee, which hold 29 public meetings to develop the goals, objec- tives, and policies of the City's Local coastal 4rogram; and , WHEREAS, the Planning Commission Of the City of Newport Beach considered the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan at three , public hearings prior to recommending the approval and adoption to the City Council) and WHEREAS, two public hearings were held by the California coastal Commission in conjunction with the certification of the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan; and ' WHEREAS, said Land Us* Plan sets forth the objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development in the coastal zone in the City of Newport Maaeh; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has , initiated General Plan Amendment 85-1(B); and WHEREAS, the Planning Coemissioh ham held A duly noticed ' public hearing to cons or this amendment to the Local Coastal Pro- gram, Land Use Plan; and ' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in considering this amendment to the Local Coastal Program, has determined that this amendment is consistent with all of the stated goals and policies of the California Coastal Act, the City of Newport Reach General Plan, and the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. ' NON, THEREFORE BE IT ABSOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that the Local Coastal Program, Land Use 1 Maj Plan and Maps No, 29, 30, 37, 38, 48, and 60, be recommended for approval to the City Council as set forth in Exhibit "A". ADOPTED this day of , 1986, by the following vote, to Witt BY CHAIRMAN BY SECRETARY RES02/jm Attachment: Exhibit. "A" AYES NOES ABSENT - 2 - 3q 430 t LzxlalT "A" NEWPORT CENTER, BAYVIEW LANDING ' Newport Canter (Maps 37, 44, 49). Approximately one-third of the ' Rewport center site falls within the Coastal Lone. Most of the area is occupied by the Irvine Coast Country Club# shown as "Recreational and EnviromentAl Open SPAcee On the Land Use Plan. The Marriott Hotel site is designated for "Adminiatrative, Professional and Finan- cial Commercial" uses to reflect the hotel use on the site. Permitted office uses on the Corporate Plata West end Chamber of commerce sites are shown by the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commer- cial" designation and residentisl use is shown on the Sea Island site by the "Medium -Density Residahtial designation. The PCx/Jamboree and , PCR Frontage Site is designated for *"-DsAsity Residential" allow- ing 284 do's. Ba view�Landding (maps 37, 36). This site, adjacent to the Newport Dunes site, it designated for "Recreational and Environmental open �. Space" on the upper portion of the site Ter public recreation uses, with a view park and a bike path. The lower portion of the site is designated for "Retail and Service Commercial" use to allow visi- tor -serving commercial and restaurant use. The structures may be constructed on the slope are►, but no portion of any structure may be , higher than the upper level of the site. Structures shall be sited and designed to provide for views of Upper Newport Bay and the Newport Dunes. ' UPPER NEWPORT BAY AND ADJACNNT PROPERTIE6 Newporter North (Maps 38) 60). This sits, located on Jamboree Road northerly of the Newportar Inn, is designated for "High -Density Residential" with a maximum of 490 do's. The structures shall be clustered to accommodate orehseclogieal sites and marsh sites. A public bikeway/walkway is proposed for this site. Any development of this site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(&) on this site. westba (Maps 20, 30). The wastbey site is a large vacant parcel adjacent to the Upper Newport say Ecological Reserve it Irvine Avenue. t This site is designated for "Recreational And Environmental Open Space" uses, to permit a regional park. Also permitted is a natural history museum with possible joint use as an interpretive center for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. A public bikeway/walkway is shown for the weatbay site, but careful consideration shall be given at the time it is developed to the environmentally sensitive nature of the site in locating the t Accessway. Any development which OcOW1 shall be located in order to preserve sensitive habitat areas located On the site. Views from Irvine Avenue shall be smNimiaad. Any development of this site shall be sited and designed to adequately ' protect and buffer the environmentally reasitivs Ares (s) on this site. GPA86I I 1 1 U 1 1 1 1 C 431 14 THE IRVINE COMPANY June 16, 1986 Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: Newport Center General Plan Amendment 85-1b Mayor Maurer and Council Members: �(;ECEIVED Plannrg Onppt Inner, JUN161986 �" CITY of NEWPORT BEACH, CALff. We are pleased to be able to present to you our plans for completing Newport Center. In the past year since the plan was originally submitted to the City, we have discussed our planning concept with many individuals, neighborhood associations, business groups and civic organizations. As a result of this dialogue, our proposal has evolved. In addition to our original goal of providing a balance of business, retail and residential opportunities in Newport Center, the plan also includes a variety of special uses and amenities which people in the community have said they would like to see here: such as day care, a health club, possible expansion of the art museum and library, possible new community facilities such as a teen center and community meeting facility, plus additional dining and entertainment opportunities 1 We generally believe the plan as recommended by the Planning Commission for approval achieves an appropriate balance between land use and transportation needs, and is responsive to the needs of the local business and residential community. i 1 n 1 u 1 LJ Before discussing our specific responses to the Planning Commission's recommendations, it may be useful to summarize our overall planning objectives. Planning Objectives Newport Center is now twenty years old and we believe it is critical at this stage to reassess and reconfirm future directions for Newport Center as a business, retail, residential, cultural and recreational focal point in the Newport Beach community. Our planning objectives for Newport Center include the following: Make Newport Center more of a community focal point by providing greater variety of goods, services, activities and residential opportunities in an exciting architectural setting. o Resolve long-term planning, transportation, and housing issues for Newport Center and peripheral sites. 1 550 Newport Center Drive, PO. Box 1, Newport Beach, California 92658-8904 • (714) 720-2000 4 432 -2- Complete the undeveloped parcels in and around Newport Center and upgrade existing uses so as to insure the long-term vitality and economic viability of the Center. o Provide for a continuing strong balance of mutually -supportive land uses and activities including residential, office, retail, recreational, and cultural. o Improve transportation, by completing the City's arterial system in the Newport Center area, by contributing to regional transportation solutions through the construction of Pelican Hill Road, and by implementing transportation system management techniques. Of the 13 parcels under consideration, we agree with the Planning Commission recommendation on all but 2 -- Beyview Landing and Westbay. number of significant modifications to our original proposal were recommended by the Planning Commission including a conversion of the Newport Village site from office and retail to multi -family residential, additional theatre seats in Fashion Island, and a significant reduction proposed restaurant use on the Bayview Landing site. Our company is in substantial agreement with the Planning Commission's recommendations on land use, with only a few exceptions as noted below. A of With respect to requirements for affordable housing and phasing of development recommended by the Planning Commission, specific comments are discussed below, and are summarized in an attachment. In recognition of the City's housing goals, we support the Planning Commission's recommendation to designate the Newport Village site for multi -family residential use with up to $60 dwelling units. This modification to our original request will reduce the overall amount of office space proposed by 346,000 sq. ft. or approximately 30%. While we will do our best to meet the City's desire for residential use on this site, we want you to be aware that the ability of the site to accommodate 560 dwellings has not been confirmed. A more precise number cannot be determined until site planning and engineering studies are completed to define the project. MrIS ,. ,- , in The Bayview Landing site, near Jamboree and Coast Highway, is a 20 acre parcel which features significant view opportunities from the upper level of the property. Because of its location in proximity to the Upper Bay, the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park and the Newporter Resort, we believe this site is highly desirable for restaurant use. Our original proposal was for 60,000 sq, ft. with up to 6 separate restaurant operations, including 3 sites on the upper pad. We subsequently refined our planning, and requested Planning Commission consideration of 35,000 sq. ft. for 4 restaurant sites, including 2 restaurants on the upper level in combination with a 1-2 acre public view park, The Planning Commission voted to recommend 25,000 sq. ft. total with no restaurant uses to be located on the upper level. 433 ' -3- ' We believe the City's goal for view preservation, public access, and a new view park can be accommodated in conjunction with our development plans. Restaurant uses on the upper level of the site will be located and ' designed so as to preserve the existing views of the bay. And we will construct a view park at our expanse. Permitting restaurant use on the upper level will permit a greater number of people to take advantage of ' the views being preserved. We request City consideration for a total of 35,000 sq. ft. which would permit 2 restaurants on the upper level and 2 restaurants on the lower level, including the proposed teen center. Affordable Housing Requirements ' The Planning Commission recommended that 30% of all dwelling units constructed be affordable to lower income households. We agree with the 30% criterion as being consistent with the guidelines in your Housing Element (Pages 156-157). It was further recommended that the mix of affordable units be restricted ' to 66.7% "County Low Income" and 33.3% "City Very Low income" set at HUD "fair market" rents. We agree with this formula as it pertains to projects financed with government assisted Mortgage Revenue Bonds. Villa ' Point and Newporter North have bond financing commitments available. For projects which may need to be constructed through non -governmental assisted, conventional financing we believe a different formula for the mix of low and moderate income units is appropriate due to the significantly higher cost of conventional financing. Newport Village and Big Canyon/MacArthur would likely be financed through conventional means. The overall requirement would still be for 30% of all units constructed to ' be affordable. A suggested affordability mix for conventional financing is presented in the attachment, page 5. With respect to the term of affordability the Housing Element calls for a minimum of 10 years. All of our company's previous affordable housing obligations have been approved by the City at 10 years. The Planning Commission recommended a term of affordability of 20 years, irrespective ' of the type of financing available. We can accept a longer term of affordability -- up to 20 years -- provided that some provision can be built into the future development agreement which gives our company some ' relief from this requirement in the event that favorable financing is not available at the time of refinancing, usually 10 to 12 years from initial construction. Some form of arbitration could apply in the event that ' interest rates or economic conditions have changed such that extending the term of affordability beyond the initial 10 to 12 year period would impose unreasonable economic hardship. It should be pointed out that the normal term of affordability required by the County for a Mortgage Revenue Bond ' project is 10 years. With respect to the 68-unit Baywood Expansion project, which we voluntarily restricted to low and moderate income households since the project opened 2 years ago, the Planning Commission recommended that the existing 29 uncommitted affordable units be restricted for 20 years, with p 434 ' -4- our company not receiving affordable housing credit toward our requirement ' in Newport Center. We believe that these Baywood affordable units should be credited toward our 30% requirement for residential projects under the General Plan Amendment. ' We are committed to working with the City to provide affordable housing consistent with the requirements of the Housing Element. These requirements need to be reasonable and feasible in the spirit of cooperation and public/ private partnership suggested in the Housing Element. In determining affordable housing requirements the City should also recognize the extraordinarily high development costs associated with ' a project like Newport Center in terms of off -site transportation improvements, park and open space requirements, and governmental fees. Phasing of Residential Development ' The Planning Commission recommended a very restrictive set of phasing conditions which require extensive residential construction prior to ' issuance of "ildina permits for various office and commercial projects, other than Fashion Island As a general comment we question the need for such restrictions in that it is our intent and desire to construct the residential units, including the affordable units, in an expeditious , manner. Also, the development agreement can be structured to assure completion of the residential sites prior to completion of the office and commercial sites. , If the City Council feels that some form of residential phasing is needed, we would like to suggest an alternative to the Planning Commission ' proposal. We are agreeable to completing all necessary site planning and engineering studies, and filing applications for tentative tract maps for at least 400 units prior to the issuance of accuoancv permits for the ' Block 600 office development. And we will complete site planning and engineering studies and file applications for tentative tract maps for an additional 400 units prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the Block 800 office development. This phasing would allow us to complete the extensive site planning and governmental processing (including two projects needing Coastal Commission permits) in a more reasonable time frame in relation to the office projects. The office projects are ' generally outside the coastal zone and require less time for site planning and permit processing because basic infrastructure is already in place to serve them. ' Phasing of Transportation Improvements White we agree with the intent of the Planning Commission recommendation ' to achieve the earliest possible implementation of the major road improvements provided by the Newport Center plan, such a phasing plan must be realistic and permit a reasonable level of development to proceed in ' conjunction with such major infrastructure costs. We recognize the construction of Pelican Hill Road and the ultimate extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road will provide significant traffic t relief to Coast Highway through Corona del Mar and to MacArthur Boulevard, and intend we to proceed as expeditiously as possible. 435 ' -5- With respect to the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road, it was recommended that building permits not be issued for Block 800, Corporate Plaza West and Bayview Landing until start of construction of the San Joaquin Hills Road extension to Pelican Hill Road. Our company is committed to constructing this improvement at the earliest feasible time, subject to all necessary governmental approvals. However, we do not believe there is any traffic engineering basis for directly tying this improvement to any specific project in Newport Center. The development agreement can be worded to guarantee construction of this long term ' regional improvement prior to completion of Newport Center. More specific commments on transportation phasing are attached. Dedication of Westbay Site The Planning Commission's recommendation for dedication of the Westbay ' site does not seem justified as part of the Newport Center GPA. Issues regarding the ultimate use of the Westbay parcel should be resolved through future discussion with the City and County over the feasibility of establishing an Upper Bay Regional Park. The Newport Center plan incorporates significant public park, open space and landscaping amenities. Newport Center as a business center is unique ' in that it features an 18-hole golf course as a permanent open space feature. There has been and will always be a major commitment to roadway landscaping and up -graded landscaped edge treatment throughout Newport ' Center and on the peripheral sites. A major neighborhood park to serve both commercial and residential uses will be improved at the Newport Village site, plus there will be extensive view parks, public trails, and preservation of habitat areas and natural bluffs on the Bayview Landing and Newporter North sites. There is also an opportunity for creation of a major landscaped parkway on the MacArthur Blvd. freeway reservation sites between San Joaquin Hills Road and Ford Road. ' Conclusion A summary of our comments regarding the Planning Commission's recommendations is attached. We greatly appreciate the substantial effort and thoughtful analysis devoted to this significant planning project by the Planning Commission, your staff, the City's environmental consultants, and the community. ' Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Monica Florian Vice President Policy Management and Entitlement ' MF:lk ' Attachment ��I IRVINE COMPANY COMMENTS REGARDING NEWPORT CENTER GPA 85-lb Planning Commission Recommendation Land Use Element: Adopt and include in the Land Use Element the development limitations for each block in Newport Center as specified on the *Newport Center Development Limits" chart. Amend the Land Use Element and Nap to provide for the following increases in development in Newport Center. 1. Fashion Island: Add 1880000 sq.ft. for general and regional retail commercial uses and 2,500 theatre seats. Total allowed development in Fashion Island is 11429,250 sq.ft. and 2,500 theater seats. 2. Block 600: Add 300,000 sq.ft, for general office development. Total allowed development in Block 600 of 1,1001000 sq.ft. and 325 hotel rooms. 3. Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 500,000 sq.ft. for office or institutional use, or a total of 284,706 sq.ft. of office and 48,000 sq.ft. institutional. An additional 15,000 sq.ft. of institutional may be allowed subject to use of all of the above described 501000 sq.ft. for institutional uses. Institutional uses include Art Museum, Natural History Museum, and library uses. In this scenario, total development is 234,706 sq.ft. of office and 113,000 sq.ft. of institutional uses. Irvine Company Comments Agree. Agree. Agree. 4. Block 800: Change the land use designation from "Multi- Agree. Family Residential" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 440,000 sq.ft. for office development in Block 800, or a total of 693,100 sq.ft. in Block 800. 6/16/86 J- to rn -41 m m � m �� �� M M M' M r -2 Planning Commission Recommendation �iM i M M Mm Irvine Company Comments 5. PCH/Jamboree: Change the land use designation from Agree. "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi- Family.Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change the land use designation for Villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. 6. Corporate Plaza West: Change the land use designation Agree. from "Retail and Service Commercial with Alternate Land Use" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 100,000 sq.ft. for office develop- ment for a total of 123,400 sq.ft. 7. Newport Village: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 560 dwelling units. Add 80,000 sq.ft. to Corporate Plaza, or a total of 445,200 sq.ft. 80,000 sq.ft. can be constructed only if for an athletic/health club. 8. Avocado/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities." 44,000 sq.ft. of office uses are permitted with a transit facility and 15,000 sq.ft. for a day care facility. 9. Big Canyon/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Multi -Family Residential," at a maximum of 80 dwelling units. Agree. Agree. Agree. 41 w -3- anninct Commission Recommendation 10. Bayview Landing: Change the land use designation on the lower portion of the site from "Recreational and Environmental open Space" with an alternate of "Low Density Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial." Allow 25,000 sq.ft. for restaurant or visitor serving commercial uses; three restaurant facilities may be constructed, one of which may be used as a Teen Center. All access for commercial use shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission and Public Works Departments. Structures shall not be higher than the upper pad level, and shall be sited and designed so as to provide for views of Upper Newport Bay and Newport Dunes. 11. Newporter North: Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "multi -Family Residential" at a maximum of 440 dwelling units. Significant cultural resources which exist on the site shall be preserved in a manner acceptable to the City, with development clustered in other areas. 12. Westbay: Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental open Space" in partial consideration for increased development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites. 13. San Diego Creek North: Add a 2.5 acre Fire Station reservation to the site. The reservation shall be in effect for a period of 5 years. Irvine Company Comments We request a total of 351,000 sq.ft. with a total of four restaurant facilities allowed, including 2 restaurants permitted on the upper level of the site. Structures will be sited and designed to provide views of Upper Newport Bay and a view park with public parking facili- ties will be provided at the developer's expense. Agree. Disagree. We believe the Westbay dedication issue is not related to Newport Center and should be resolved through discussion with the City and County and our company. Substantial open space and public park amenities are already provided in the Newport Center plan. Agree. � M M M Ii M� M � M M M M am M W M M -4- Planning Commission Recommendation Recreation and Open Space Element 1. Bayview Landing: Maintain the existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but preclude development from the upper level. 2. Newporter North: Maintain the existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but add unmapped environ- mentally sensitive area designation for preservation of significant on -site cultural resources. 3. Westbay: Designate the site for regional park facilities with unmapped environ- mentally sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history facility may be allowed on the site subject to approval of the City. Circulation Element: 1. Delete Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard primary Couplet designation; designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six lanes, divided); designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (4 lanes) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. This circulation element revision is subject to approval of the County of Orange. Irvine Company Comments See comment for Item 410 above. Agree. See comment for Item #12 above. Agree. -5- Planning Commission Recommendation 2. Recommend to the City Council initiation of an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to designate MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial (8 lanes, divided). Further, recommended to the City Council that final action on this amendment be taken concurrent with the action on GPA 85-1(B). Affordable Housinc: Based upon the granting of additional commercial development, increased density for residential development, and governmental financial assistance such as Mortgage Revenue Bonds, the following program is required: 1. Thirty percent (30;) of the total dwelling units constructed on all sites shall be affordable to low and moderate income families. 2. The affordability mix shall be as follows: 66.7% County LOW Income* 33.3% City Very Low Income* (with rents not to exceed HUD Section 8 "Fair Market Rents") * Per Housing Element Irvine Company Comments Agree, although there is no reason for concurrent action on the 2 GPA's since project traffic from Newport Center does not cause the need to re- designate MacArthur Boulevard. Agree. Be agree with this affordability mix formula as being appropriate for residential projects constructed strutted with County Mortgage Revenue Bond financing. For residential projects constructed using con- ventional financing the following affordability mix should apply: 33.3% County Median Income 33.3% County Low Income 33.3% City Very Low Income 4 0 � t r m� M r M M M am M M M M M M M M� M M M M M M Planning Commission Recommendation ter■ M r mom -6- � M M M W Irvine Company Comments 3._ Preference shall be given to Section 8 Agree, with the qualification that preference to Certificate holders for the "City Very- certificate holders will be for a 10 day period Low income" units. after which units will be rented on a first come, first served basis. Units allocated to Section 8 Certificate holders may be within any of the residential projects under GPA 85-lb or in any existing residential project in Newport Beach at the developer's option. 4. The term of affordability shall be 20 years Term of affordability should be a minimum of 10 from the date of initial occupancy. years, with a maximum of 20 years provided favorable financing is available at the time of re -financing 10 to 12 years out. 5. The affordable units may be located on any Agree. site, however they shall be phased propor- tional to the market rate residential units. 6. Additionally, the 29 remaining "pool" We should get affordable housing credit for affordable units in the Baywood expansion these Baywood units as part of the overall 30% shall be committed for a period of 20 years, affordable requirement. with 80% at County median and 20% at County low income. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for Agree. any development permitted by GPA 85-1(B), the applicant shall enter into an afford- able housing agreement with the City guaranteeing the provision of the afford- able units. This agreement may be included within the development agreement. Land Use Phasing: Phase I - No residential (PCH/Jamboree, New- As a general comment, we do not believe it is port Village, Newporter North, Big necessary to tie issuance of building permits Canyon) units required for: for office and commercial projects to M V\ -7- Planning Commission Recommendation A. Fashion Island Expansion B. Civic Plaza Expansion Phase IIa - 400 units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction (foundations plus some framing) before building permit issuance for: A. Block 600 B. Bayview Landing C. Avocado/MacArthur D. Corporate Plaza Phase IIb - 400 additional units must have building permits issued and substan- tial progress in construction before issuance of occupancy permits for: A. Block 600 Phase III - Completion and Certificate of occupancy for 800 du's before building permits issued for: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West Circulation Phasing: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for any component of GPA 85-1(B), all dedications from The Irvine Company `ice ■r � r � r � � � Irvine Company Comments construction of residential units because we intend to construct the residential units in a timely manner and the development agreement will guarantee completion of the residential units. If some phasing formula is thought to be needed by the Council the following is suggested: o Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the Block 600 office project, the developer will file applications for tent- ative tract maps and all other necessary zoning and environmental approvals for at least 400 units. a Prior to the issuance of occupa permits for the Block 800 office project, the developer will file applications for tent- ative tract maps and all other necessary zoning and environmental approvals for an additional 400 units. o Fashion Island and special uses such as the art museum/library expansion, teen center, day care facility, and health club should be exempt from any residential phasing requirements. Agree. F F N M ON M M M M M Planning Commission Recommendation M M M M M necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. -8- 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway, Jamboree Rd., MacArthur Blvd., and Avocado Ave. dedications and completion bonding and before installation of Pelican Hill Rd.: A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza C. Big Canyon/MacArthur D. Newporter North E. PCH/Jamboree F. Newport Village 3. Building or grading permits projects may be issued upon construction of Pelican Hill MacArthur Blvd. improvements below): A. Block 600 B. Avocado/MacArthur C. Corporate Plaza M M M= M" M Irvine Company Comments Agree, provided the following sites are added to added to this list: G. Bayview Landing H. Avocado/MacArthur I. Corporate Plaza for the following Agree, provided that B. Avocado/MacArthur commencement of and C. Corporate Plaza are deleted, con - Rd. and sistent with our comment on #2 above, and that (as described Block 800 and Corporate Plaza West are added to the list as new items B. and C. 4. Certificate of Occupancy may no for the following project until completion of Pelican Hill Rd.: - Block 600 The requirement to complete MacArthur Blvd. from San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Bonita Canyon Rd. should be delayed until the last phase (Block 800) because Pelican Hill Rd. will provide significant relief to MacArthur Blvd. t be issued Agree, provided Block 800 and Corporate Plaza the West are added to list. am Planning Commission Recommendation Irvine Company Comments 5. Building or grading permits for the follow- Disagree. While San Joaquin Hills Rd. serves ing projects may be issued upon commencement Newport Center, it is not required for project of construction of four lanes of San traffic, but rather to help complete the Joaquin Hills Rd. to Pelican Hill Rd.: regional system. Therefore, we request no specific phasing requirement for the extension A. Block 800 of San Joaquin Hills Rd. We are committed to B. Corporate Plaza Hest building this improvement at the earliest C. Bayview Landing possible time subject to all necessary government approvals. The improvements required for the San Joaquin Hills Rd. extension should be limited to 4 lanes rather than 6 lanes recommended by the Planning commission. 1. A landscape program for MacArthur Blvd. Shall Agree. be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA 85-l(B). The landscaping shall be installed concurrent with MacArthur Blvd. improvements. 2. That the full dedications for 6-lane Agree. MacArthur be required. 3. That MacArthur Blvd. be improved to lower Agree. the grade and move the road westerly , as described in the Environmental Impact Report. 4. That the two outside through lanes be con- Agree. structed so that any additional lanes would occur towards the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Dr. and the Prolongation of the centerline of Crown Dr. r 41 r � M� M r M M M r M M M" I" Planning Commission Recommendation so M M No M 5. That prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Blvd. be- tween Harbor View Dr. and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown Dr., the following criteria, as a minimum, be met: A. Completion of Pelican Hill Rd. to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided) from Coast Highway to the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Rd. B. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided), easterly of Spyglass Rd., and connection to Pelican Hill Rd. C. An average weekday volume -to -capacity ratio of 1.15 on MacArthur Blvd. in the vicinity of Harbor View Dr. D. A decision has been made regarding the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. 6. All mitigation measures outlined consistent with the approved project in the Final EIR shall be required. -10- M M M r� M Irvine Company Comments Agree, subject to comments noted below. We suggest that MacArthur Blvd.including the full grading between PCH and San Joaquin Hills Rd. be constructed in conjunction with grading and construction for the Newport Village site. San Joaquin Hills Rd. should be constructed to 4 lanes maximum. Agree. U1 -11- Planning Commission Recommendation 7. The Irvine Company shall agressively pursue all necessary approvals and construction of San Joaquin Hills Rd. frox Spyglass Hill Rd. to Pelican Hill Rd. S. A Development Agreement and overall Planned Community Development Plan for Newport Center shall be prepared and approved concurrent with or prior to any further discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the development allowed by this General Plan Amendment. Irvine Company Comments Agree. Agree. 4. The initial construction of Pelican Hill Rd. Our commitment for Newport Center is to shall be a minimum of four lanes. provide 2 lanes beyond the number of lanes required to serve traffic generated by down coast development at any time up through completion of the b lane road. While we hope to open Pelican Hill Rd. with more than 2 lanes, that would be dependent upon having the ability to develop in the down coast area, which we do not now have. F 41 rn U\ " M r apt r r M 447 I I TO: ' FROM: SUBJECT: I City Council Meeting July 14, 1966 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Planning Department A. General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) D-1 Request to consider amendments to the Land• Use, Circu- lation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, so as to allow construction of an additional 1,275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, 248,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to delete the Avocado -MacArthur one -way -couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major arterial roadway, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. AND B. Amendment No. 9 to the City of Newport Beach Local ICoastal Program, Land Use Plan Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, and PCH/Jamboree sites. 1 I 11 P I AND C. General Plan Amendment 86-2(A) Request to consider an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to redesignate MacArthur Boulevard northerly of Ford Road. INITIATED BY: The City Of Newport Beach Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, take straw votes on the various components and requirements of the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan amendments, using the check list provided in the staff report, and take the following actions, incorporating by reference the results of the straw votes: I TO.,City Council -2. 448 , 1) Adopt Resolution No. , certifying as complete and adequate the Final Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B)t 2) Make the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Reporti 3) Find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, includ- ing the Final Environmental Impact Reports 4) with respect to the project, find that although the Final r Environmental Impact Report identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be incorporated into the General Plan, and all signif- icant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are accept- ablet 5) Adopt Resolution No. , approving General Plan Amendment 85-1(B), approving certain amendments to the Land Use, Recreation and Open Space and Circulation Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, 6) Adopt Resolution No. , approving Amendment No. 9 to the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, being amendments to Maps No. 29, 30, 37, 38, 48 and 60, and related text in connection with the approval and adoption of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). 7) Adopt Resolution No. , approving General Plan Amendment 86-2(A), approving a certain amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Background I On February 25, 1985, the City Council concurred with a recommendation of the Planning 85-1(B) for Commission and initiated General Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. On Plan Amendment March 20, April ' 24, and May 22, 1986, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments and the Environ- mental Impact Report. At the conclusion of public testimony, the , Planning Commission discussed the proposed project, the staff rec- ommendation, the response of The Irvine Company and the public testi- mony, then adopted Resolution No. 1139 and 1140 recommending approval I ' ' I T0: City Council -3. 449 ' of the project with modifications and acceptance of the environmental document. 1 On June 23, 1986, the City Council held a public hearing on the General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment. At the conclusion of public testimony, the City Council directed staff to provide additional information in a number of areas and continued the hearing to July 14, 1986. ' On June 9, 1986, the City Council concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and initiated General Plan Amendment 86-2(A) for MacArthur Boulevard northerly of Ford Road. On June 19, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the amendment to the City Council. ' Discussion ' During the course of the June 23, 1986 public hearing, several questions were raised by the City Council and members of the public. This report provides information in response to these questions by topic. Each question raised is responded to individually in Volume 6 of the draft EIR-Responses to Comments attached to this report. Bayview Landing ' The City Council requested clarification of the site developments constraints associated with the Bayview Landing site. The site, I located at the northwesterly corner of Jamboree Road and East Coast of the site at the corner Highway, is currently vacant. The portion previously was developed with a gasoline service station (Shell). The approximate 19 acre site is a dual level site, with upper the level on ' the corner of Jamboree and Coast Highway and the lower level adjacent to Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive currently provides the primary access to the site. In addition to the three dedicated public 1 roadways, the site has a common property line with the Newport Dunes Orange and Aquatic Park, a regional park owned by the County of operated by a private concessionaire. Uses provided on the Newport Dunes site include restaurants, recreational vehicle camping and day -use beach facilities. Under a development approved by the County, a 250 room hotel and additional food service facilities are anticipated to be constructed in the future. The original request of the Irvine Company for the Bayview Landing site was for 60,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial uses, specifically to allow up to six separate restaurant facilities. The environmental and which staff analysis indicated several site development constraints limited the development potential of the site in the opinion of the Planning Commission. These constraints include site access and the potential of high intensity land use in close proximity to the Jamboree Road/Coast Highway intersection. The Public Works Department has indicated that full access to the upper level is not feasible, and the provision of right turn in and out access, when possible, I TO: City Council -4. 456 ' presents operational and safety problems due to the probable weaving movement conflicts between traffic accessing the site and traffic utilizing the free right turn lanes which flow from southbound Jamboree to westbound Coast Highway. In making its recommendation, the Planning Commission allowed for economic use of the site of 25,000 sq. ft. on the lower pad level and on the slope while providing for public visual open space on the upper level. While not appropriate as ' an active recreational park site, facilities for recreational bicyclists and pedestrians are proposed. The site has potential as a view park which is limited only by the site access considerations discussed previously. Currently the views from the site provide a panorama to Upper Newport Bay. Were the site to be reduced in elevation, the same view could be afforded to motor- , ists on Coast Highway. This is an important consideration, since Coast Highway is part of the State's Scenic Highway system. ' The Irvine Company continues to request the ability to provide some restaurant facilities on the upper pad level and an increase in allowed development from that recommended by the Planning Commission. If four restaurant facilities were to be allowed on the site, staff would suggest the development be established at 32,000 sq. £t., (allowing 1 80000 sq. ft. per facility) and that any structure on the upper be sited and designed to minimize impacts to views across the site (after grading) from Coast Highway, making use of locations closer to Jamboree Road and structure designs as low as possible on the site. Site access should be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department at the time of Site Plan Review. r Day Care Center A question was raised as to whether the day care center was an allowed or a mandatory part of the recommended project. As proposed by the ' Planning Commission, the day care center was given a specific develop- ment allocation which can be used for no other use, but was not set into any mandatory land use phasing. If it is the desire of the City , Council to mandate the day care center, it should be placed in the Land Use Phasing program. it is the opinion of staff that the day care center is a commercial use which has exhibited a high level of interest. As such, it is probably a very marketable use which will occur as soon as site planning and design are completed. As indicated by staff in the City Council report for the June 23, 1986 meeting, this use should be placed in the pre -Pelican Hill Road Circulation Phasing program. This will insure that no major circulation system improvement program will inhibit the early construction of this use. Mandatory land use phasing programs for this use are considered unnecessary. Fiscal Benefits A fiscal benefit estimate using the City's Fiscal Impact Model has been provided by the City's Fiscal Consultant Natelson, Levander, & I 451 T0: City Council -5. ' Whitney. The Planning Commission land use recommendations would result in an estimated $907,000 of revenue in excess of expenditures. ' When compared to existing land use, the cost revenue benefit is estimated at $1,200,000. It should be noted that the fiscal consul- tant believes the City's model significantly understates prospective ' sales tax generation, which they feel could be 50% of 100% greater, or an additional surplus of $160,000 to $320,000 annually. Parks and Open Space As a comprehensive, multi -site General Plan Amendment, several rec- ommendations were made by the Planning Commission in regards to parks and recreational and environmental open space. These recommendations affect four sites directly, as follows: ' 1. Newport Village: In recommending a residential use of this site, the Planning Commission maintained the designation of an approxi- mate four acre neighborhood park which is currently called out on the park master plan (Recreation and Open Space Element). 2. Bayview Landing: As previously discussed in detail, the rec- ommendation of the Planning Commission would result in a view park and visual open space at the corner of Jamboree Road and Coast Highway. 3. Newporter North: As a site which would continue as a residential site, the approximate 4 acre park shown on the existing park master plan was maintained in the Planning Commission recommenda- tion. in addition, a cultural resource reserve designation was established for the significant cultural resources which exist on the site. This reserve will result in significant visual open space until such time as the resources are recovered. 4. Westbay: The Planning Commission recommended that the site be 1 redesignated from "Low Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" in partial consideration for the increased density and intensity of development on sites in and around Newport Center. On July 1, 1986, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation in regards to parks and open ' space. The P.B.& R. Commission unanimously endorsed the recommenda- tions in regards to the Recreation and Open Space Element (Report attached). Park Credits. On March 26, 1984, the City accepted dedication of 50 acres in the Mouth of Big Canyon and granted 5 acres of park dedica- tion credit to the Irvine Company. These credits were eligible for ' use by Newport Center Block 800 and Villa Point, Big Canyon Areas 10 and 16 and other similar sites determined by the City in similar proximity to the Mouth of Big Canyon. Upon acceptance of the Bonita I 452 'TO: City Council -6. Creek Park, two acres of park credits were also granted to the Irvine Company. Various projects have been approved by the City which have made use of ' these two park credit accounts, as follows: Mouth of Sig Canyons 5.0 acres Bonita Creek: 2.0 acres , Big Canyon 10 _24 CDM seniors .44 remainder Big Canyon Villas 4.76 remainder .90 Point del Mar 1.56 .48 remainder 3.86 remainder 1.08 Villa Point 1.73 remainder 2.13 ' A total of 3.21 acres of credit remain which may be used by Irvine Company projects. , The PCH/Jamboree and Big Canyon/MacArthur sites have no designated master plan park and are in areas eligible to use park dedication credits. These projects generate a need for 2.36 acres of park ' dedication. If these projects utilize the established park credits, a remainder of 0.85 acre of park credit will remain. Since the Newport Village and Newporter North sites have master plan parks designated, , park dedication should be required in conjunction with those develop- ments. Westbay. The Planning Commission has recommended redesignation of the Westbay site to Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Please note that this recommendation does not require dedication to any agency and does not grant any park credits. The consideration granted ' in this redesignation is the additional residential and commercial development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites. in delet- ing the 40 units (est.) which remain on the Westbay site, an increase ' of 253 units on other residential sites is being granted. The Westbay site was not part of The Irvine Company request for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The site has, since the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1, been tied to Newport Center for planning purposes. The allowed development of Westbay was limited to four dwelling units per buildable acre in that action, with 75% of the units transferred to Newport Center. This site provided the predominant portion of the "floating" residential units in the Center. one of the goals of staff and the Planning Commission in the consid- eration of the build -out plan for Newport Center was the resolution of the amount and location of residential development in the area. The plan recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission does not contain any "floating," "transfer" or "matching" units, as called ' out in the existing General Plan. As such, the development of the Westbay site is part of the consideration of the Newport Center plan, because the deletion of the transfer units is an automatic reduction in development rights attributable to Westbay. As previously indicat- ed in the discussion of AayvieW Landing, it is appropriate to consider community open space goals when addressing a, project of the magnitude of the one under consideration. 453 T0: City Council -7. I I 1 Circulation and Transportation Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one -Way Couplet. The deletion of the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet from the Master Plan of Streets and Highways of the Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach is one element of proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). if the proposed GPA were approved, and the one-way couplet were deleted, MacArthur Boulevard would be designated a Major Road between Coast Highway and the northern terminus of the one-way couplet approximately 1,600 feet north of San Joaquin Hills Road. With the proposed GPA, Avocado Avenue would be a two-way street, with the segment between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive shown as a secondary arterial (4-lanes). The Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet concept has been a part of the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways since 1974. When originally designated, the northern terminus of the couplet was at San Joaquin Hills Road. After the incorporation of the one-way couplet into the Master Plan, preliminary investigations by City staff indicated that traffic operational problems might make it impossible to implement a one-way couplet without extending Avocado Avenue northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. By Resolution No. 9933, dated December 8, 1980, the City Council approved amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan (GPA 79-2) which included the extension of Avocado Avenue northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. With the approval of GPA 79-2, the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet was designated a "Primary Couplet," meaning that each direction of the couplet would have three through lanes, plus turning lanes as necessary. In both 1989 and 1993 Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis (ICU), the function of the one-way couplet versus two-way MacArthur appears equivalent. Without the couplet, the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road experiences capacity problems. With the couplet, the intersection at Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard experiences capacity problems. In the long term, the couplet and two-way MacArthur also appear equivalent. The capacity of the Primary Couplet and a Major Arterial Roadway are the same. Additionally, site access to the Newport Village and Avocado/MacArthur sites would be provided on Avocado Avenue in the two-way MacArthur scenario, eliminating ingress/egress conflicts with through traffic. Elimination of the couplet also reduces out -of -direction travel necessitated by the couplet configura- tion. In analyzing the redesignation of MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue, staff took into consideration the short and long term function of the circulation system, site access, aesthetics, and public safety. It is the opinion of staff that the elimination of the one-way couplet is advisable, but only so long as MacArthur Boulevard is designated as a Major arterial (6-lanes, divided). 1 T0: City Council -8. 454 1 MacArthur Boulevard, Designation. Many questions and comments were made regarding the appropriate roadway designation for MacArthuL Boulevard. Currently, the Master Plan designates Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard as a primary couplet with three through lanes in each direction. It is anticipated that if the couplet were construct- ed, some additional acceleration/deceleration, left and right turn, and ingress/egress lanes would be required in addition to the s_x ' through lanes, The roadway capacity for MacArthur Boulevard at six lanes, with Avocado Avenue as a secondary road, is essentially the same as the one-way couplet. Even though Avocado Avenue between Coast Highway and San Miguel may be constructed as a four lane road, is cannot be anticipated to carry any through traffic, but will only serve for local circulation on the east side of Newport Center. A rather lengthy discussion was included in the Planning Commission staff report of April 24, 1986 (pages 16-17) (Volume 5 of the DEIR) on the inability of Avocado Avenue to serve as an alternate facility for through traffic. ' In considering the General Plan Amendment for the Circulation Element, , it is important for the Commission to consider the function of the overall circulation system. it is the long-standing position of the City that the planned roadway system be adequate to serve planned development. It is staff's firm recommendation that MacArthur Bovie- ' vard not be downgraded from a six lane road (either with or without couplet) to the four lane road requested in the public hearing. Volumes and capacities in the traffic study are as follows: , Without Project/with Couplet Volume 4-lane v/c 6-lane v/c W/o project capacity ratio capacity ratio , MacArthur Blvd. (couplet) n/o Coast Hwy. 46,200 36,000 1.28 54,000 .86 n/o Harbor View 46,700 36,000 1.30 54,000 .86 n/o San Miguel 30,300 36,000 0.84 54,000 .56 1 With Project/Without Couplet Volume 4-lane v/c 6-lane v/c with project capacity ratio capacity ratio MacArthur Blvd. n/o Coast Hwy. n/o Harbor View 46,800 49,100 36,000 36,000 1.30 1.36 54,000 54,000 .87 .91 , n/o San Miguel 31,000 36,000 0.86 54,000 .57 I 455 TO: City Council -9. I I I Li It is important to note that both of these scenarios assume completion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and all planned connections, as well as completion of the entire City and County Master Plans of Circulation (except University Drive). The testimony received stating that the traffic volumes do not account for further volume reductions which result from the SJHTC and Pelican Hill Road is in error. The projected volumes on this roadway segment without the corridor are as follows: With Project/Without Couplet/Without SJHTC/With Pelican Hill Volume 4-lane v/c 6-lane v/c with project capacity ratio capacity ratio MacArthur Blvd. n/o Coast Hwy. 51,700 36,000 1.44 54,000 .96 n/o Harbor View 54,200 36,000 1.51 54,000 1.00 n/o San Miguel 48,100 36,000 1.34 54,000 .89 if MacArthur Boulevard were not constructed to the necessary 6-lane configuration, the road would be congested at build -out. As is currently experienced in Corona del Mar due to the "planned deficien- cy," traffic will seek out less congested routes during peak periods. Since the 6-lane MacArthur is needed even after installation of Pelican Hill Road, it is anticipated that any diversions will occur closer to MacArthur. The road which staff anticipates would receive most diversion traffic is Marguerite Avenue to San Joaquin Hills Road in both directions. Thus, if MacArthur Boulevard is kept at a 4-lane configuration, the use of local Corona del Mar streets for through traffic could begin to increase, defeating all that the City has worked for in requiring construction of Pelican Hill Road. Another related effect is noise impacts on Harbor View Homes. Without the depression and the westward shift of the centerline of roadway, noise walls along MacArthur Boulevard will need to be much higher. (Similar to the "No Couplet-A1t.B" depicted on Page 37, Volume 2 of the EIR, but higher since the centerline of a 4-lane road is closer to the residential area than a 6-lane road.) it should be noted that intersection improvements along this segment of MacArthur Boulevard will be required at the time of project devel- opment. These improvements (at Coast Highway, San Miguel, and San Joaquin Hills Road) will require three through lanes in each direction in order to comply with TPO criteria. Were MacArthur to be left at four lanes, the effect of the intersection improvements with adequate merging tapers will leave only the road segment between Harbor View Drive and Crown Drive (extended) at a 4-lane width. 17I TO.,City Council -10. 456 1 A concern was raised regarding the flow of three lanes southbound on ' MacArthur into Coast Highway which is two lanes east through Corona del Mar. The intersection in question is a three -leg or "T" inter- , section and allows for both right and left turns. East of MacArthur, Coast Highway is two lanes eastboundr west of MacArthur, Coast Highway is currently two lanes westbound, and will soon be widened to three ' lanes westbound. Therefore, the three lanes of MacArthur merge not into two lanes, but into four (current) or five lanes (future) since traffic does, in fact, make right as well as left turns. MacArthur ' Boulevard will have dual left turn pockets flowing into the two eastbound Coast Highway lanes. In the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding MacArthur Boulevard, a set of criteria for the widening of MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to Harbor View Hills was included. It was proposed that the widening accompany the development of Newport Village as an adjacent improvement, the road be constructed to a full 6-lane width with an ' extra -wide median strip. Four lanes could then actually be paved, with the additional lanes added towards the road centerline at such time as they are warranted. Circulation System Improvements. The local and regional circulation system improvements will be tied to the project phases within the context of the General Plan. Circulation System improvements iden- ' tified are: 1. Dedication of Right -of -Way for Coast Highway improvements. ' 2. Completion of Jamboree Road to six -lane major arterial standards from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. 3. Completion of MacArthur Boulevard to six -lane major arterial standards from Coast Highway to Route 73. , 4. Construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road between Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. , S. Construction of four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road between Spyglass Hill Road and Pelican Hill Road. ' Traffic Phasing ordinance. The project will be reviewed for compli- ance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance as part of the final ' approval action. Currently, a supplemental traffic study is being prepared. initiation of the project, preparation of the SIR and the Traffic , Study commenced many months prior to recent revisions to the Traffic Phasing ordinance. The TPO information provided in the Traffic Study and EIR was prepared consistent with the ordinance prior to revision , in December 1985. Complete It test, ICU analysis and intersection mitigation has been conducted for the 4fternoon peak hour. It is anticipated that the additional morning analysis and the update of the afternoon analysis to current TPO criteria will show the same 457 TO: City Council -11. intersections with capacity constraints, and a similar, if somewhat expanded mitigation program. it is not anticipated that any addition- al intersections with no available improvements will be affected by the project. The complete TPO Analysis is contained in Chapter 4 of the Traffic ' Study (EIR Volume IV). Findings are summarized as follows: 1989 (Phase 1): Analyzed Intersections: 37 Intersections increased by 1% ' as a result of the project: 37 1985 ICU over .90: 9 1989 ICU over .90 (no committed improvements): 18 1989 ICU over .90 plus project (no committed improvements): 22 Twelve intersection improvements have been required of previously ' approved projects and are considered to be "committed." Standard practice of the City is to include all committed improvements at intersections affected by the project as approval conditions. This ' insures that intersection improvements will occur with the first projects constructed. Intersections with improvements still needed after "committed" improvements: 10 II Intersection improvements have been proposed to satisfy 1989 TPO ' requirements and are described in detail in EIR Volume I, pages 280-283. Briefly, feasible intersection improvements are identified for five intersections: Coast Highway at: Jamboree Road at: Superior Avenue Campus Drive Bison Avenue Santa Barbara Drive Pelican Hill Road reduces ICU values sufficiently to satisfy TPO requirements at four intersections: Coast Highway at: Goldenrod Avenue Poppy Avenue MacArthur Blvd. at: San Joaquin Hills Road San Miguel Drive one intersection has been identified for which staff cannot identify a feasible improvement until the widening of Coast Highway westerly of Dover Drive. Therefore, the following intersection is not considered mitigatable at this time: J 458 T0: City Council -12. Coast Highway at: Dover Drive 19,93 (Phase 2): r Analyzed Intersectionst 37 Intersections increased by 1% , as a result of the project: 37 1993 ICU over .90 with committed improvements and 1989 miti- gation measures: 10 1993 ICU over .90 plus project: 12 Intersection improvements have been proposed to satisfy 1993 TPO r requirements and are described in detail in EIR Volume I, pages 290-294. Briefly, intersection improvements are identified for eight intersections: ' Coast Highway at: Superior Avenue Riverside Avenue Tustin Avenue ' Bayside Drive Jamboree Road at: Campus Drive ' Eastbluff Drive North MacArthur Blvd. at: San Joaquin Hills Road ' San Miguel Drive one additional improvement has :peen identified, but may not be feasi- ble due to insufficient right-c=-way: Jamboree Road at: Ford Read ' Three intersections have no feasible identified improvements: coast Highway at: Dover Drive , Jamboree Road Goldenrod Avenue As previously discussed, Dover Drive improvements are not considered ' feasible until the widening of Coast Highway westerly of the inter- section. Additional widening at Goldenrod Avenue is not considered feasible. , Existing traffic volumes at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road signifi- cantly exceed the intersectiot capacity, resulting in an existing ICU ' value greater than 1.00. Traffic at this intersection is expected to increase considerably in the future. Unlike other intersections alone Coast Highway, the situation at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road is , complicated by an extremely heavy eastbound left -turn demand from Coast Highway onto Jamboree Road, which conflicts with the heavy westbound through movement. Some of the heavy eastbound left -turn demand is attributable to the fact that Coast Highway and Route 73 T0: City Council -13. 459 I I ill rl J (Bristol Street and Bristol Street North) are the only facilities available for travel between the western and eastern portions of Newport Beach. Thus, a considerable amount of "around -the -bay" traffic is included in this movement. There is also a substantial southbound right -turn movement which also includes considerable "around -the -bay" traffic. As part of the committed widening of Coast Highway, improvements would be made at this intersection (adding through and turn lanes). These improvements would meet TPO requirements for 1989, but would leave the ICU value at a high level (1.08). After the implementation of the 1989 improvements, it would be vir- tually impossible to provide additional lanes at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road. Accordingly, for 1993, in lieu of adding lanes at the intersection, two alternatives were considered: 1. The extension of Back Bay Drive to a signalized intersection with Coast Highway, to accommodate some of the vehicles making east- bound -to -northbound left turns. This option has been evaluated in detail in prior studies, and in fact is considered to be a "committed" project. However, the improvements included in the 1989 conditions were considered to be preferable, and that set of intersection improvements were used as the "committed" conditions for 1989. , The extension of Back Bay Drive could still be con- sidered an option for 1993, however. 2. The construction of a grade separation at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road to carry the through traffic on Coast Highway over and across Jamboree Road without having to stop at a signal. For the extension of Back Bay Drive to satisfy TPO requirements, the ICU at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road would need to be reduced from 1.15 to 1.10. This could be achieved if about 21 percent of the vehicles turning left from eastbound Coast Highway to northbound Jamboree Road could be diverted to make a left turn at Coast Highway/Back Bay Drive Extension. To reduce the ICU at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road to 0.90, about 90 percent of the left turns would need to be diverted. This is considered impractical, since it would necessitate the provision of three eastbound left -turn lanes at Coast Highway/Back Bay Drive Extension and would create congested operating conditions there. Thus, the option of the Back Bay Drive Extension can at best be considered to be a measure that could bring about some improvements in operating conditions at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road, but cannot be considered a long-term solution. The construction of a grade separation at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road is considered to be a long-term solution, anc. one that would achieve satisfactory operating conditions. One concept would consist of a grade separation structure to carry Coast Highway through traffic uninterrupted over Jamboree Road. Another concept would provide an east to northbound free double left turn lane from Coast Highway to Jamboree, with the left turn lanes going under the JI TO: City Council -14. 460 westbound Coast Highway lanes. In either case, much of the conflict- ing traffic would be eliminated, and turns would be mode opposing much lesser levels of traffic. From an intersection capacity ptandpointw ICU values can be reduced to levels below 0.90, depending on the number of lanes provided for turning movements. It is important to note that the need for further improvements at Jamboree/Coast Highway are necessary with or without the proposed project. Cost of Improvements. Est .rzated Cost 1. Dedicate right-of-way for the City's R:.iht-of-way FAU project to widen Coast Highway dedication from Jamboree Road thru Bayside Drive. 2. Widen Jamboree Road John Wayne $ 8501000 Tennis Club to San Joaquin Hills Road (construct a soutbbound lane, and complete emergency parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk). 3. Widen MacArthur Boulevard - Coast 13,800,000 Highway to Bonita Canyon (includes lowering the grade of MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel and will provide a 6 lane facility with raised landscape median and curb gutter and sidewalks. Curb and sidewalk won't be constructed on the east side northerly of Ford Road). 4. Construct Pelican Hill Road/Bonita 25#000,000 Canyon Road - Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard (provides for the initial grading for a 6 lane roadway and the construction of a 4 lane road). 5. Construct San Joaquin Hills Road - 5o600,000 Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road (provides for the construction of a 4 lane roadway). Subtotal Items 1 - 5 $45,250,000 6. Intersection Improvements Required by 1989 a. Jamboree/Campus 5,000 (restriping) b. Jamboree/Bison 5,000 (restriping) I I I 1 I 461 TO: City Council -15. ' c. Jamboree/Santa Barbara included in (provide 1 more southbound #2 above ' d. lane) Coast Highway/Superior 69,000 (add a westbound lane) e. Coast Highway/Riverside 950,000 ' (add second eastbound left turn lane) ' Required by 1993 f. Coast Highway/superior 130,000 (convert westbound right turn to thru lane) g. Coast Highway/Riverside included in (add third eastbound thru #6e above lane) h. Coast Highway/Tustin 5,000 (provide parking on Tustin to add southbound lane and restripe) i. Coast Highway/Bayside 5,000 (restripe to provide third northbound left lane on Bayside Drive - can be done after City widening project is completed) ' J. Jamboree/Campus 131,000 (add a second left turn lane and convert right turn lane to a second thru lane - requires right-of-way) k. Jamboree/Eastbluff 301,000 ' (add fourth northbound thru lane - requires right-of-way) 1. Jamboree/Ford/Eastbluff 327,000 (add fourth northbound thru ' lane - requires right-of-way) m. MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills Road included in n. (add third northbound lane) MacArthur/San Miguel #3 above included in (add third northbound lane) #3 above o. Coast Highway/Jamboree right-of-way ' (provide right-of-way reservation reservation for future grade separation) Subtotal Item 6 $ 1,928,000 ' Grand Total $47,178,000 iJ aez 'To: City Council -16. Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass of MacArthur Boulevard. A review of the ' area between San Miguel Drive and Coast Highway has been made to determine a possible location for a bike bridge. The most feasible location appears to be at the intersection of Sea Lane and Crown Drive. This location takes advantage of the proposed lowering of MacArthur , Boulevard to allow the bike bridge to be constructed at almost the same grade as the intersection. To get back to grade on the westerly side would require a 250-to 300-foot-long ramp paralleling MacArthur Boulevard. Depending on the site grading for Newport Village, this ramp could be earth fill or structure. The attached sketch shows the proposed location. , The main part of the structure would be at least 10 feet below the houses on Surfline Way; however, a 48-inch railing will be required on the bridge. It is estimated that the bike bridge and ramps could be , constructed for $300,000 to $400,000. A bicycle bridge at this location should provide good access to Newport Center and the westerly side of MacArthur Boulevard for the , Broadmoor Hills area. Some bicyclists from the older sections or Corona del Mar might provide for regional also use the bicyclists and bridge. The bridge would not probably would not be heav-ly ' used. Transportation System Management Program. Mitigation measures 1-39 az ' clarified in Responses to Comments (page 5.47) requires a Transpo.ts- tion system Management program, as follows: "Prior to occupancy of any individual structure permit- ' ted by GPA 85-1(B), a site specific TSM component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments." ' Some elements of the traffic management program proposed in conj--.c- tion with GPA 80-3 are now in place and operating at Newport CertL_. The most visible of these are that the Irvine Company has r. Tra:.t.iar- ' tation Coordinator, an intra-Center shuttle has been put into t.:.ra- tion, and express bus service is being is being operated br,_ween Newport Center and Northern Orange County via Route 73 and the c ' er lanes on Route 55. In conjunction with proposed GPA 85-1(B), the continuation and enhancement of traffic management programs is required. However, traffic impacts have been analyzed and roadway , system improvements are recommended without considering reductions in traffic programs. To the extent that Newport Center traffic manage- ment programs reduce traffic volumes the areawide roadway sys;.em would provide better levels of service, especially in the vicinity of ' Newport Center. Pelican Hill Road. A question was raised as to the adequacy of 2-lane ' Pelican Hill Road as proposed for early construction by The Irvine Company. it should first be noted that Pelican Hill Road is r 463 TO: City Council -17. I 7 n 1 LJ designated as a 6-lane, major arterial roadway on the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The implications of the construction of Pelican Hill Road were an- alyzed in detail, to assure that the road would, in fact, provide the anticipated benefits to the City of Newport Beach and Corona del Mar in particular. The detailed discussion is contained in Volume 4, pages 3-38 through 3-44 of the EIR. Generally, in the timeframe associated with the Newport Center project, two lanes of Pelican Hill Road are considered adequate. The capacity of a 2-lane road is 18,000 average daily trips. The total anticipated volume on the road in the year 2010 with buildout of all planned development, including the downcoast development and without the Corridor, does not exceed 22,500. In the 1992 timeframe and prior to the downcoast development, the two lanes will be adequate. It should be noted that at such time as the downcoast development occurs, further improvements to Pelican Hill Road will be required. In fact, the downcoast project phasing will result in Pelican Hill always being two lanes wider than the capacity required by the development. This assures that the diversion benefit in Corona del Mar will not diminish. Request of Spyglass Hill _ Community Association. A request was re- ceived from Spyglass Hill and Spyglass Ridge Community Associations which address the arterial designation and eventual construction of San Joaquin Hills Road from its present terminus to Pelican Hill Road. The specific requests are as follows: Circulation Element 1. Delete Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Primary Couplet desig- nation; designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six lanes divided); designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (4 lanes) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive and desig- nate San Joaquin Hills Road as a Primary Arterial (4 lanes The circulation element revision is subject to approval of the County of Orange. 2. Recommend to the City Council initiation of an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to desig- nate MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial (8 lanes divided) and San Joaquin Hills o�.a ac R ur;mery Arterial (4 lanes, divided) between Marguerite Avenue Construction Phasing 4. Certificate of occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road (from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard at or near Bristol Street). TO: City Council -18. 1 Block 600 5. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be t issued upon full dedication and commencement of construction of four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: ' A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West Other Requirements ' 5b. Full dedication and completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Primary Arterial configuration (6 lanes divided) (4-lane., , divided) easterly of Spyglass Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. Based upon information contained in the Traffic Study, staff analyzed the capacity and configuration of the circulation system. The rec- ommendations of the staff to the Planning Commission included revising the designation of San Joaquin Hills Road easterly Spyglass Hill Road , to a Primary arterial (4-lanes, divided). This recommendation was upon the anticipated average daily traffic volume at buildout of 22,000 ADT, which is well within the capacity of a four lane road ' (36,000 ADT). The Planning Commission did not concur with staff ;r, this recommendation, and did not recommend initiation of the General Plan Amendment needed to proceed with the action. staff originally recommended the Circulation Element revision, but has no problem or , concern with the action of the Planning Commission. in the opinion c. staff, maintenance of the higher road classification is a conservati._ yet appropriate position. Should the City Council give considerati-:. ' to the request of the two Spyglass area associations, it is recommend- ed that the redesignation occur only easterly of Spyglass Hill Road, and not easterly of Marguerite Avenue as requested. ' Council Resolution 85-11. On February 25, 1985, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 85-11 expressing the position of the City of Newport Beach on the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. (Cc-�r ' Attached) Contained in this position is support for construction . the corridor as well as specific criteria in regards to Pelican H;.,:_ Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, as follows: "The connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hills Road shall not occur until Pelican Hills Road is fully ' operational. San Joaquin Hills Road should not exceed four travel lanes as it connects to Pelican Hills Road. The extension of San Joaquin Hills Road east of Pelican Hills , Road to the Corridor shall not occur." The circulation system phasing program does not appear to be in ditc,z ' conflict with the established position of the City Council, since San Joaquin Hills Road is in a later phase than Pelican Hill Road. There is no reason to extend San Joaquin Hills Road unless it can connect to Pelican Hill Road. So long as this policy is not interpreted to mean ' that construction cannot commence until completion of Pelican Hill r ' TO: City Council -19. 465 Road, there is no conflict at all. The Planning Commission recommen- dation requires the construction of San Joaquin Hills to Pelican Hill ' Road, and is not in conflict with this policy in this regard either. The traffic study included information on the implications of the elimination of the Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills Road connections to ' the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The primary implica- tions of these deletions are significant increases in daily traffic on Spyglass Hill Road (12.5%), San Miguel Road (14%-20%), Ford Road (37%) and MacArthur Boulevard (9%-178) while reducing traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road to a level which could be accommodated by a two-lane road easterly of Spyglass Hill Road. ' General Plan Amendment 86-2(A). The Traffic Study prepared for the Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites General Plan Amendment analyzed not only the impacts associated with the project, but assessed the circulation system of the City as a ' whole at the buildout of the General Plan. The analysis involved several "runs" of the City's computerized Transportation Model. The comparison of the Trend Growth buildout of the county to future roadway capacity of MacArthur Boulevard at six and eight lanes in the subject area is as follows: Future V/C Ratio V/C Ratio Roadway Segment Volume 6-lanes 8-lanes MACARTHUR BOULEVARD n/o Ford Road 66,800 1.24 0.93 n/o Bison Avenue 71,500 1.32 0.99 J It is important to note that the need to redesignate this segment of ' MacArthur Boulevard to eight lanes exists whether or not GPA 85-1(B) is approved. The capacities of this segment of MacArthur Boulevard without GPA 85-1(B) are as follows: ' Future V/C Ratio V/C Ratio Roadway Segment Volume 6-lanes 8-lanes ' MACARTHUR BOULEVARD n/o Ford Road 64,200 1.19 0.89 n/o Bison Avenue 69,800 1.29 0.97 ' J 1 466 TO City Council -20. ' Since the expanded roadway capacity is not necessitated by the Newport ' Center project, staff did not recommend and the Planning Commission did not require the construction of MacArthur Boulevard to eight t lanes. The need to actually construct the full eight lanes will not occur until sometime in the future. it is, therefore, the opinion of staff that the future construction of MacArthur Boulevard to the eight -lane width be factored in to the Fair Share Traffic Contribution ' Fee formulas the next time the City Council reviews the fee structure. On June 19, 1986, the Planning Commission considered the amendment and adopted Resolution No. 1141, recommending approval of the amendment to ' the City Council. Quality of Life Committee Comments The Quality of Life Committee, and its predecessor Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee, have often made comments regard- , ing the adequacy of EIR's. The comments received from the Committee have been responded to over the years in the "Responses to Comments" section of the SIR. The Comments of the Committee have been responded ' to in Volume V of the SIR previously distributed to the City Council. There is no CEQA requirement that an EIR be reviewed or found adequate ' by a citizens committee. The City of Newport Beach has established this process to enhance the public review process of EIR's. The responsibility for the determination of EIR adequacy is the sole responsibility of the body which takes final action on a project. In the case of General Plan Amendments, it is the City Council which determines adequacy of the SIR. , Comments of the Western Center on Law and People t As requested by the Western Center on Law and Poverty a letter dated June 20, 1986 has been included in the record of the public hearing , concerning General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). This discussion responds to the various comments contained in that letter. It is apparent that the writer of the letter has not reviewed the ' Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project, has not read the various staff reports prepared for the Planning Commission or the City Council public hearing and is not familiar with the project forwarded , by the Planning Commission to the City Council for consideration. As required by the City's Housing Element, a housing impact analysis ' was prepared for the project and is contained in the technical appen- dices (Volume 3) of the EIR. The technical report is summarized and included in the body of the draft EIR. The SIR also examined residen- tial as an alternative to the proposed development on every site under consideration in the GPA. 1 11 467 1 TO: City Council -21. 1 Using the information contained in the housing impact analysis, as well as all the information contained in the EIR, staff and the 1 Planning Commission analyzed and made recommendations to the City Council in regards to the project. The recommended project being considered by the City Council has taken into consideration environ- mental issues, land use compatibility, circulation system impacts, 1 commercial/residential balance as well as the need for very low, low and moderate income housing. 1 in recommending approval of the project, the Planning Commission increased residential development proposed by 80%, reduced the commer- cial and office proposal by 18%. The various recommendations include 1 a land use phasing program which requires residential development to occur concurrent with commercial development and an affordable housing program requiring 30% of the units to be in affordable ranges for 20 years with an emphasis on very low and low income units and priority 1 to Section 8 certificate holders. No residential development is tied to a major circulation system improvement such as Pelican Hill Road construction or MacArthur Boulevard widening. 1 GPA Checklists 1 Staff has prepared a checklist for the use of the City Council in reviewing and taking action on the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments (Attachment 1.). 1 Respectfully submitted, 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director BEN NOLAN, Director 1 By � � Patricia L. Temple Don Webb 1 Environmental Coordinator City Engineer 1 GPA851/jg Attachments: 1) Checklists 2) GPA Correspondence 1 3) Resolution 85-11 4) P.B. & R. Commission Report 5) Schematic Drawing: MacArthur Boulevard 1 Pedestrian -Bicycle Bridge 6) Schematic Drawings: Jamboree Road grade Separation -Alternatives A+C 1 7) Planning Commission Resolution 1141 8) Initial Study for GPA 86-2(A) 9) Responses to Comments GPA 86-2(A) 1 1 M WOT City Council -22. Attachments for City Council only: 10) Draft Resolutions - SIR 11) Statement of Facts 12) Statement of overriding Considerations 13) Draft Resolution - GPA 85-1(B) 14) Draft Resolution - MP Amendment No. 9 15) Draft Resolution - GPA 86-2(A) 16) Volume 6 to the Draft SIR. (Attached Separately) A a Plann kny Commission Recommendation Planning Commission Recommendation �Gh St+�£�$ecomme�dg57 CLt�a�gea LaND USE ELEMENT: LAND USE ELEMENT: 1. Fashion island: Add 188,000 1. Same. sq.ft. :Ear general and retail commercial uses and 2,500 theater seats. Total allowed development in Fashion Island is 1,429,2SO sq.ft, and 2,500 theater seats. 2. Block 600: Add 300,000 sq.ft. for 2. Same. aeneral office development. Total allowed development in Block 600 is 1,100,000 sq.ft. and 325 hotel rooms. 3. Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 50,000 3.. Same. so ft. for office or institutional use, cr a total of 284,706 sa.it. of office and 48,000 sq.ft. of institutional use. An additional 1S,000 sq.ft. of institutional may be allowed subject to use of all of the above described 50,000 sq.ft. for institutional uses. Institutional uses include Art Museum, Natbral History Museum and Library uses. In this scenario, total development is 234,706 sq.ft. of office and 113,000 sq.ft. of institutional uses. 4. Block 800: Change the land use 4. Same. designation from "Multi —Family Residential" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 440,000 sq.ft. for office development in Block 800, or a total of 693,100 sq.ft. in Block 800. 'U W C. Other Alternatives STRAW VOTE_ AMMO LAND USE ELEMENT: 1. None suggested. C] A C] B Cl C 2. None suggested. C] A el B C] C 3. None suggested. ] A Cl B C] C F ON ko 4. None suggested. C] A C] B Cl C 4 S_ E G. 1 7. "NR d plsnnilfg,�gt�}a;j,on Receta�gijpg, PCH/Jamboree; Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi - Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, chance the land use designation for Villa Point <PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi - Family Residential." not to exceed iS4 dwelling units. The combined sites arc not to exceed 284 dwelling units. Corporate Plaza Went: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial with Alternate Land Use" to "Adminia-- trative, Professional and Finan- cial Commercial." Add 100.000 sq.ft. for office development for a total of 123,400 sq.ft_ Newport Village: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to -Multi- Family Residential," not to exceed S60 dwelling units. Add 80,000 sq_St_ to Corporate Plaza, for a total of 44S,200 mq.ft. 80,000 sq.ft. can be constructed only if for an athleticl health club. r a Plonnina Commission Recommendation with_3.LJtf,�.RK4P1!f[il�_ti��lP9!#. S. Same. S. Same. 7. Sent. rL Other Alternatives S. None Suggested. 6. %one auggested. 7. None suggested. SMW ACTION 11 A rl 8 p C rl A rl 8 rl C El A rl 8 0 C M M M M M M M M M M M M 1 a. 1 9 I N Y-1-aDTkI s-Sco19m3;L%tgV RssS"eAo-Y& 19 R23aAniD.9-G?Bm:t4{�o�Reoomm.£¢da.�.isa nth Staff# Recommended Chances Avocado/MacArthur: Change the a. Same. land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residen- tial" and -Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental. ducational and Institutiona: Facilities." 44,000 sc.ft. of office uses are permitted with a transit facility and 1S,000 sc.ft. for a day care facility. Big Canyon/MacArthur: Chance the 9. Same. land use designation from "Recrea- tional and Environmental Open Space" to "Multi -Family Residen- tial," aliowinc a maximum of 80 dwelling units. 4 .STRAW. QtZer Alternat;v-els YaFI AC_TTQN 8. None suggested. C) A B C7 C 9. None suggested. C] A C] B 4­ C7 C s a Planning CowrjllF, en Recemsen�atign f}p�pq,�ewwisfiert RKoawendatioa Y1.LLh_$Saff Ijeeoswend,�,�Dy,P� 11. Nevporter North: Change the land 11. Same. use designation from "Low Density Residentia2" to "Multi -Family Residential" with a maximum of 490 dwelling units. Significant cultural resources which exist on the site shall be preserved in a manner acceptable to the City, with development clustered in other areas of the site. 12. Vestbay: Change the land use 12. Same. designation from "Low Density Residential" to •Recreational and Environmental Open Space" in partial consideration for in- creased development in Newport Center and on the peripheral site&. 13. San Diego Creek North: Add a 2.5 13. Same. acre Fire Station reservation to the site. The reservation shall be in effect for a period of five years. In a QthftX AStft=VM es 11. None Suggested. 12. 13. San Diego Creek North: Add a 2.S acre Fire Station reservation to the site. The reservation Shah be in effect for a period of five years. The land +. reserved shall be dedicated to the City of Newoort Beach if the reserva- tion is exercised within a Period of five years. C3 A r3 B 0 C C3 A r3 B V C V 13 A N 13 R E3 C M M M M i M M.._M. M M M-■. a M M M M M M PJannJng Commission Recommendation Planning Commission Recommendatj= with Staff Rveymme�ed Ct_1_{a pgt;. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: 1. Bayview Landing: Maintain the 1. Same. existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designa- tion, but preclude development from the upper level. 2. Newporter North: Maintain 2. Same. existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designa- tion, but add an unmapped environ- mentally sensitive area for preservation of significant on - site cultural resources. 3. Westbay: Designate the site for 3. Same. regional nark facilities with unmapped environmentally sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history facility may be allowed on the site subject to approval of the City. Other ALternat vas VOTE ACTI- RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: 1. Maintain existing language in the C3 A Recreation and Open Space E3 B Element, which allows some 13 C development to occur on the upper level of the site. 2. None suggested. E3 A 13 B C3 C 3. Maintain existing language in the C3 A Recreation and Oren Space 13 B v Element. E3 C W A A EL+!onSs+_S_42R.■_it_s�yL_RVr-QstfnilsS34R Ei��Rtns�s�■3f�eion Reeo Zli!i: i4a VAtb_ZJLs;[f�Re_cgajk IIf_tA_ChAn3RW CIRCULATIO%£]t,,E?; T: CIRCULATIONR.rMENT: 1. Delete Avocado Avenue/MacArthur 1. Same. Boulevard Primary Couplet designa- tion; designate MacArthur Boule- vard as a Ma3or Arterial Csix lanes, divided); designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (four lanes) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. This circulation clement revision is aub3ect to approval of the County of Orange. 2. Add an additional arterial highway 2. Same. desianatlon to the Circulation £leaent, as follows: Ma3or Modifiedz eight lanes, divided. Reclassify the portion of Mar Arthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Statc Route 73 as a "Me3or- Modified Arterial; eight lanes, - d1vSded." This circulation element revision is sub3ect to approval of the County of Orange and the City of Irvine. a a MAW Other Alternatives VOTE ASc N CIRCULATION ELEMENTt 1. None suggested. C) A C3 B CI C 3. None suggested. C3 A C3 B C3 C v a $ P�aning Commission Recommendation Planning Commiaaion Recommendation wii<_si Ch;lnypa 3. San Joaquin Hills Road east of S. San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of 3. Spyglass Hill Road: Not recom- Spyglass Hill Road: No recommenda- mended for GPA initiation. tion. I 4 MAW Other Alter yea VOM ACM10— Initiate an amendment to the 11 A Circulation Element of the C1 B Newport Beach General Plan to 11 C designate San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Sovalass Rill Road as a Primary Arterial, four lanes, divided. This Circulation Element revision is subject to approval of the County of Orange. v In a a Plannina Conwissinq_Cqv-tRLpjELsuL-8 weeawand ation with 'Jtaff Eaeo�gB,�.ld Chanaas AFFORDABLE HOUSING: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: 1. Thirty percent (30%) of the total 1. Sage. dwelling units constructed on all sites shall be affordable to low and moderate income families. W s x 9: 6TRAV OtheL/)jt rnatives MOM A47'39Jt AFFORDABLE HOUSING: 1. None suggested. ❑ A E7 B E1 C M M M M M M M M M M M M r M r = M= M Planning Commission Recommendationanning_Comssion Ree me a_tioi1 Other Alternative& VIEW With Statsf—ko9.2 ended Changes _ ACTION 2. The affordability mix shall be as 2. The affordability mix £or any 2. None suggested. 0 A follows: project which uses the Mortgage 13 B Revenue Bond Program and the Big 11 C 66.7% County Low Income* Canvon/MacArthur project shall be as 33.3x City Very Low* follows: (with rents not to exceed HUD Section B 66.7% County Low Income* "Fair Market Rents--) 33.3X City Very Low Income* (with rents not to exceed *per Housing Element HUD Section 8 "Fair Market Rents--) *per Housing Element The affordability mix for any project, with the exception of the Big Canyon/ MacArthur project. which 1a unable to use the Mortgage Revenue Bond program shall be as follows: 33.3X County Median Income* 33.3X County Low Income* 33.3X City Very Low Income* ' • (with rents not to exceed HUD Section 8 "Fair Market Rents") *Per Housing Element The affordable units may be Provided on sites other than those in Newport Center and the peripheral sites. ' subject the review and apnroval of the Planning Department. - d a planning Cossiasien Rreearrndation Planning Cos�;sion Reco■wendation with Staff Rtrgawes�pd Chal�ggN! 3. Preference shall be given to 3. Same. 3_ Section E Certificate holders for the "City Very Low Income- units. 4. The tern of affordability shall be 4. The term of affordability &hall be 4. 20 years from the data of initial 20 years from the date of initial occupancy. occupancy. This provision may be C- Othrr Altrrnativea None suggested. None suggested. S. The affordable units any be S. The affordable unit& say be located S. None suggested. located on any site, however they on any site, however they shall be shall be phased proportional to phased proportional to construction the market rate residential units. o the market rate residential units. 6. Additionally, the 29 remaining 6. "pool" affordable units in the Haywood expansion shall he committed for a period of 20 Years, with SOX at County Median and 2Ox at County Low Income. (Thou* units were to be in addition to the overall 30% affordable housing requirement) i W W 6. None suggested. MMI VOTE kcmx. CI A E3 B CI C LI A CI B C1 C CI A CI B CI C A. @ Planning Commiag�f��eommeD]'�.Af19B. P�aryIl�pg—C�omn "_y�s_eCOm�,}}�a�o1r with €€a##�F�,erowmend�5t Chanaea 7. Prior to issuance of building 7. Same. nermits for any development permitted by GPA 85-1<B>. the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City guaranteeing the provi- sion of the affordable units. This agreement may be included within the development agreement. ¢ SIBAw Mar Alternatives VOT€ _ ACTICN 7. None suggested. 0 A 13 8 C] C A V P�anninq�oesj �+on Rn-ossendation LAND USE PHASING: 1. No :development ofl residential CPCH/ Jamboree, Newport Village, Newoorter North. Big Canyon) units required Eprior to issuance of building or grading permits) for: A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza Expansion 1 2. A- B. Ikk 400 units must have building permits issued and substan- tial progress in construction (foundations plus some framing) before building permit issuance for: 1. Block Soo i£. Bmyview Lending ill. Avocado/MacArthur Iv. Corporate Plaza 400 additional units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction before issuance of occupancy permits for: I. Block 600 p viAthPSa it $P gDAO-ShlA4ss LAND USE PHASING: 1. No residential development shall be required to be under conatructlon Prior to the issuance of bu£ldinq permits for the following sites: A. Fashion Island S. Civic Plaza Expansion C� Block 600 �, Bavviw Land i� €, Avocado/MacArthur i Corporate Plaza 2.'400 units must have building permits 4&Aued and show substantial progress. in construction (foundation& olus framina) before: A_ The issuance of a certificate of occupancy for- 1, Block 600 The issuance of building Permits for- d_ Block 800 iii. Corporate Plaza West Other Alternatives LAND USE PHASING: 1. None suggested. 2. None suggested. E1 A rl B EI C V A U S E1 C p OD O s � p}3nnlna Commiasi� FL�eomf2SIId3�i4R 2�3vnng_49J�91�sSQ2RR�otnmepn with Staff Rs�glnmend� Changaa 3. Completion and Certificates of 3. 400 units must have certificates of 3. Occupancy For 800 du's before occupancy issued and 400 additional building permits issued for: units must have building permits issued and show substantial progress A. Block 800 in construction before the issuance B. Corporate Plaza West of certificates of occupancy for: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West W MAWK Okher VOTE ACTION None suggested. C] A U B Cl C F1 00 r d a a STRAW nning Coup, planning Cowala;�tL,]�eeea}�endatLon . gther Alternatives W-M with Sta,�Q��s¢ Changes A=9x CIRCULATION PHASING: CIRCULATION PHASING: CIRCULATION PHASING: L] A 1. Prior to the issuance of any 1. Prior to the issuance of any 1. None suggested. L) B L1 C' building permits for any component building or gradi� permits for any of GPA SS-itg), all dedications component of SPA BS 1(B), all necessary for the completion of dedications necessary for the the Coast Highway Improvement completion of the Coast Highway Program shall have been made. Improvement Program shall have been made. _ r m N) 0 a r m WO M M t M M r M M M� M m M r M � r W nor r a Planning CRecommepdation The following orolects may proceed after Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue dedications and completion bonding and before installation of Pe_ican Hzll Road: A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza C. Big Canyon/MacArthur D. Newporter North E. PCH/Jamboree F. Newport Village m PlanningCommia_*&gjj commend � wjth StafF Recommended Chanaea The following protects may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue dedications and completion bonding and before the installation of Pelican Hill Road. In the case of MacArthur Boulevards dedications shall be to the full Master Plan width as amended, and completion bonding for six lane, maior arterial standards: a STRAW _Other Alternatives VOTE ACTION The following projects may 11 A proceed after Coast Highway :l B dedications and Jamboree Road, E3 C MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue dedications and completion bondina and before.installation Of Pelican Hill Road. In the case of MacArthur Boulevard, dedications shall be to full Master Plan width as amended, and completion bonding for six lane, major arterial standards: A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza Expansion A. Fashion Island C. Big Canyon/MacArthur B. Civic Plaza Expansion D. Newporter North C. Newporter North E. PCH/Jamboree D. PCH/Jaaboree F. Newport Village E. Newport Village G_ Day Care Center - Avocado/- F. Avocado/MacArthur MacArthur G. Bavview Landing The completion of MacArthur Boule- vard improvements between -Coast Hicc,hvay_and San Miguel Drive shall be done as adjacent improvements for the Newport Village. site. Gradins, permits for the Newport Village development may be_ issued upon commencement of cp:.Ztuction of ad ;scent MacArthur_ boulevard I i.,provements and construction shall b_e completed prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for Newport Village. The number of lanes constructe_d_in this seament of MacArthur Boulevard shall be subiect to criteria established in other requirements applicable to the approval of General Plan Amendment 8S-1 CB). The completion of MacArthur Boulevard improvements between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive shall be -done as adjacent improvements For the Newport Village site. Grading Permits for the Newport Village development may be issued upon commencement of construc- t on of adjacent MacArthur Boulevard improvements and construction] shall be completed Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occunanev for Newport Village. A W W d � P7.a�tctiprS�oaiailf.391'LRtC9t?+�nd3tisn. P�,sIln�.p3_rcoaw�slt�cSriR.Rf2�tD.dS�S#s7.tJ. nth Sta£f"Racoaaen�,g¢�tllnves 3. Building or grading permits for 3. Building or grading permits for the 3. the following projects may be following projects may be issued issued upon commencement of upon commencement of construction of construction of Pelican Hill Road Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur and MacArthur Boulevard improve- Boulevard improvements iron San ments: Miau;l Road tc 3onita Canyon Road: A. Block 600 B. Avocado/MacArthur C. Corporate Plaza 4. Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of Pelican Hill Road: - Block 600 S. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: A. Block BOO B. Corporate Plaza West a. Bayview Lending W7 A. Block 600 B. Avocado/MacArthur C. Corporate Plaza D_ Bavviev Landxne 4. Certificate of Occupancy may not be Issued for the following project until the completion of construction Of four lanes of pelican Hill Road and the comoletion to Maior arterial a andards. of MacArthur Boulevard Improvements between San Miguel Drive to Ford Road_ - Block 600 S. Building or grading permits for the following projecta may be issued upon commencement of construction of four lanes of San Joaquin Hill* Road to Pelican Hill Road and the completion to Maior arterial standards MacArthur Boulevard i_mprovem�nts between Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Roadt A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West Q Vi" Othar Alkanatives Y ACTIM Building or grading permits for O A the following projects may be r3 B issued upon commencement of rl C construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improve- ments frow San `Havel z.'aad_ to Bonita Canyon Road: A. Block 600 B. Corporate Plaza C_ Bin Canvon/MacArthur 4. Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following pro3act until the completion of construction of four- lanes of Pelican Hill Road wn-ck thx completion to Mayor arterial standards MacArthur Boulevard Improvements between San Miguel Drive and Ford Road- - Block 600 S. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road and the completion to Ma'vor arterial standards Mac- Arthur Boulevard improvements between Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Roadi A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West r3 A 13 B E3 C rl A r3 B El C r ON M M i M r M M M M� M W M MI M M d 9 C Sim Planning Commia RecOAAepd3tiop, E14k3PLq.ipg_C0wWniaa4oJl_Re_q*meD-0-t1 -Other Alterjletives VOTE r�S�St+�#�Ress�ens�sd Ch9lp3ls AcrxoN. OTHER REOUZP.EMENTS: OTHER REOUZR?CENTS: OTHER REQUIREMENTS: a. A landscape program for MacArthur 1. Same. 1. A landscape program for MacArthur C? A Boulevard shall be reviewed and Boulevard shall be reviewed and C) B approved by the City Council prior approved by the City Council E3 C to the issuance of any building or prior to the issuance of any grading permits for any component building or aradin for of of GPA 85-1(B). The Landscaping any component of GPper85ti shall be installed concurrent with The landscaping shall be instal - MacArthur Boulevard improvements. led concurrent. with MacArthur -. - Boulevard improvements. Between . - San Joaquin 611 s Road and Ford Road. The Irvine Company ;hall - dedicate additional right-of-way to create a landscaped parkway. 2. That the lull dedications for 2. MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Delete. Required by Circulation Phasing E3 A A - MacArthur -Boulevard be required. Highway and San Mig•el�Drive shall requirement number 2. 0 B W - be sub Ject to the following in V C In conjunction with the- Circulation ' '"" •' .Phasing requirements: - - _ A. Full dedication for 6-lane MacArthur Boulevard .is re- quired. -& - s p,1,�RniDg Coaatas-jgn,��!!!p{datiort 3. That MacArthur Boulevard be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in the Environmental Impact Report. 4. That the two outside through lane& be constructed so that any additional lanes would occur towards the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive. I-t IF E1+aenlns. CP-V R1 tk= with 'JkVSfL-h[C9-putn4m -9b-A 9_19A S. MacArthur Boulevard between, Coast Highwav and San Y uel Drive shall be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in the Environmental Impact Report Prepared for General Plan Amendment SS-i(B). C. -Two outside tbrou"gh lanes £n S. That prior to construction of D. through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway' and 4yan Micuel Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum *hall be met: each direction on MacArthur Boulevard shall be constructed so that additional lanes constructed when required by the City, will occur towards the centerlinc of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the center- line of Crown Drive. That prior to the construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a Prolongation of the centerline Of Crown Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum shall be met: a sru—W -Other Altfrnativ** YM A=..4 C 2. MacArthur Boulevard between Coast E3 A Highway and San Miguel Road shall E3 B be improved to lower the grade E3 C and move the road' westerly, as described in the Environmental Impact Report Prepared for General Plan Amendment 95-I(B). The road shall be constructed a* a 6-lane divided highway in conjunction with the development of the Newport Village site. *NOTE: If this item is adopted, Planning Commission items 2-5 are not necessary, since they •establish the criteria under which MacArthur Boulevard may be widened to 6 lane&. The City Council should skip to Planning Commission item 6. Delete. Not needed if item 2 above 1& E3 A adopted. 0 B V C Delete. Not needed if item 2 above is E1 A adopted. E3 B EI C M" M M ! M � = M= � M M M M M MIM Mon� vw� r M M M M M '� man M M M M M A Planning Commission Recommendation a. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road. b. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided), easterly of Spyglass Hill Road and connection to Pelican Hill Road. C. An average weekday volume -to - capacity ratio of 1.1S on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive. d. A decision has been made regarding the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first. I � n a a ning Commission Recommendation with Staff Recommended Changes 1. Same. Q Other Alternative{ Delete. Not needed if item 2 above is adopted. ii. Completion of San Joaquin Delete. Not needed if item 2 above is Hills Road to Primary adopted. Arterial configuration (4- lanea divided) easterly of Spyglass Hill Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. 111. Same. Delete. Not needed if item 2 above is adopted. iv. Same. Delete. Not needed if item 2 above is adopted. (1 A U B El C A U B (] C El A (7 B U C 13 A U B p C Al W V AL P3_aSnAM9—Cea* 4si4_!tReP.4*reLt¢atl9rt A public hearing shall be conduc- ted by the Planning Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. 7,`t�a vaderatood that thr sty A in s PUM w1•th_�Seff Rlc�stntndssLGhaD4� A public hearing &hall be Delete. conducted by the Planning adopted. Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening_ erseotion improvements may result in 6 lanes, at NaeArthy�r uavard in the area& adjacent to said intersections with a tapering to 4 lanes or�IfacArthyr Ssglevard between Coast Highway and Narrb_gr view Drive and between the o£ the centerline of _prolongation Croon Drive and an Niguel Drive. 6. All mitigation measures outlined 3. Some. in the Final EIR shall be re- quired. n It Qther Altern_rtj_v_ Not needed if item 2 above is 3. None suggested. C] A C1 8 0 C C7 A Cl S 0 C M i r SIr M M M M r r M rr M M M M M i M M- M.M M M M i M M M M W r 'M M � M M M 1 7. planninq.Othtr Alternative{ with Siaf£ RgS9J9J�LSBAid�J1��395! The Irvine Company shall aggres- 4. Same. 4. The Irvine Comany shall aggres- sively pursue all necessary sively pursue all necessary approvals and construction of San approvals and construction of San Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road. Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road. The extension' of San Joa_ouin Fills road shall be connected to Pelican Fill Road upon completion of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road, $TRAu yore 8. A Development Agreement and S. Same. S. None suggested.. • overall Planned Community Develop- - - - .;ment Plan for Newport Center shall. -be prepared and approved concur- rent with or prior to any further _ discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the develop- _ -- - • •sent allowed by the General Plan - - - Amendment. 9:' The initial construction of G.'Same. - - -. G. None suggested. •Pelican Hill Road shall be a --• minimum of four lanes. •' - - ' Pedestrian/bicycle bridge: No addi- Pedestrian/bicycle bridge: No addi- 7. An part of the MacArthur Boule- tional requirements have been recom- tional requirements have. been recom-. vard improvements. The Irvine mended. mended. --, Company shall submit plans and a ' feasibility study for the constretion of a grade -separated ' pedestrian and bicycle bridge ' over MacArthur Boulevard between San Miguel Drive and Coast - Highway. The City Council will determine the feasibility of this facility and may require its con- atruction as part of the Mac- ---- _ Arthur Boulevard improvement ' program. C7 A 13 B 13 C E3 A S 13 C 0 A 0 B 0 C C3 A 13 B 0 C 0 490 Corona del Mar CHAMBER of COMMERCE Honorable Mayor and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Honorable Mayor and Council: 7 L r A unique blend of people and place , r June 23, 1986 r We believe the advantages the City will reap in increased revenue, housing, improved intersections, street improvements and new roads to combat traffic congestion in CDM, far outweigh any disadvantages associated with approval of GPA 85-1(B). We think the Irvine Company has shown great sensitivity to the surrounding communities' concerns, especially in regard to alleviating traffic congestion in Corona del Mar. We are very aware that our traffic problems are regional in nature and origin and cannot be solely attributed to this project. Because CDM has borne the burden of the traffic generated by development in the county, we are especially sensitive to the phasing of construction of Pelican Hills Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Extension. We respectfully request, and plead, that council require that 4 lanes of PHR be in place before Certificates of Occupancy are issued for Block 600. We further re- spectfully request, and plead, that SJHR Extension be retained on the Master Plan as a 6-lane Major Arterial but that only 4 lanes be caveioped before Certificates of Occupancy are issued for Block 600 and before building and grading permits are issued for Block 800. It is our honest and sincere belief that approval of this amendment will Provide the most benefit for the most people, the City at large, and for the Irvine Company. We commend your staff for a yeoman oz of negotiating this complex plan and contingent conditions and for their willingness to listen and explain. We urge approval of the amendment and incorporation of our recommendations for PHR and SJHR Extension. Further delays will only complicate matters and add dollars to the eventual cost. Si er yours Masters Luvetta Hayton Co-chairmen Transportation Committee DM/js r ll r 7 P I r r r r r 2855 East Coast Highway • Post Office Box 72 • Corona del Mar, Calif=4 92625 • 714/673.4050 1 491 I E I I I I LJ i Newport Center Association 180 Newport Center Drive Suite 160 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714)640.1861 Richard H. Mardi President owner Newport Cmkrene 9ootery Dewd R. Carmlchul. Vics President 2M Vice President Amelia general Counsel led go Mu full life 10111111"Company Hank Adler, Vice President lhremr Touche Ross 8 Company Eareetd E. SNneldsr, Esq., Treasure pamper eud i0ter. Hamer. Raids Chrysde 6 Younger Lynn Stanlon, M.O., Secretary dennls L. Rohrer, hs1 President Vice President District Manager Great Amencen Rat Savings Bank Walter d. Snndl, Iii M. Ed, Thomas C. Way Senior Vice president Rni bNncan Tru9 Campanry Cads Dmohowskl Manager. Governmental Retauons The Hume Company Robson Engllsh, Jr. Vice President Bukof Amen Wllllam A. Got Director of Property Management Carver Development Raymond Kovacs General Manager Hrviport 6eaN!damon Hold liTennli Club Roger L. Neu, J.D., C.P.A. Klaus O.Tenter General Manager Four Seasons HDIH EX•OFFICIO DIRECTORS Richard Wehre Executive Director Newaon HdoorAtta Chamfer of commerce Where Happala Director Fashronisland Management EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Karen Kennedy RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-l(B) Whereas, the completion of Newport Center is necessary to the vitality of Newport Center and the City of Newport Beach; Whereas, the Newport Center Association has thoroughly reviewed and considered all aspects of proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Board of Directors of the Newport Center Association do hereby unanimously recommend and endorse the approval by the City of Newport Beach of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B), o b eedQ � fi • � 'Richard H. Marowitz, President IF] N5 492 6_M_8 � CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION -o r. a P. O, BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 June 23, 1986 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mayor Maurer and Council Members: Re: CDMCA Positions on Newport Center CPA 85-1B It is important that these hearings on the proposed General Plan A- mendment open the lines of communication between the residents and the Council; and that testimony from a broad range of residential communities be elicited in order that we may define their needs and problems relating to this proposal and ultimately arrive at a satisfying decision. This plan is part, a major part at that, of the rapid commercial and residential growth our community has experienced in the past few years. It also reflects a trend toward accelerated growth within the region, Such de- velopment requires planning and management if we are going to attempt to minimize the harmful impacts and retain the quality of life we have come to expect in our community. Corona del Mar, because of being situated on one segment of the Pa- cific Coast Highway has historically been expected to bear large volumes of traffic. In fact it continues to operate at a seriously deficient level, It serves as you well know as an alternate route to the 405 freeway for the north and southbound commuter. Our residential streets increasingly serve as bypasses around the congested segments of the highway during peak hours. The 65 CNEL contour reaches much further back on both sides of the highway than it did only a few years ago. Residential neighborhoods have been bisected. We have become a community growing apart because of the highway. The opportunity for residents to do business in their com- munity is severly hampered by these conditions. Traditionally, easy pedes- trian access to the business community has been an important characteristic of Corona del Mar. Thtts, what we know about this growth trend is that we have been unable to adequately mitigate the significant impacts causing a deteriorating quality of life in our community. This we find totally unaccep- table. d*' 493 CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Mayer Maurer and Council Members ' June 23, 1986 Page Two With this in mind then you can well understand our sensitivity to any plans to further increase development over and above that which is already allowed. Our association has discussed the General Plan Amendment and has endorsed unanimously the following resolutions: First, the circulation element of our community, and other roads such as Pelican Hills, must be planned, designed, built and functioning as viable ' bypass routes for regional traffic. This should be done before the commence- ment of any additional development activity in Newport Center. This in- cludes development allotted under the existing General Plan, We cannot ' adequately mange the 93, 000 trips per day from the center. It is unrea- sonable to expect that we can absorb any more without further deterioration in the quality of life. Second, the proposed.General Plan should be.denied. • It fails to move, we' believe, in the direction of low intensity development in both the residen- tial and commercial areas. It does not conform adequately to the existing general plan. Third, the Pacific Coast Highway should not be expanded. It must remain a four lane highway. Fourth, MacArthur Blvd, should remain a four land highway from the Coast Highway to San Miguel. The positions we have taken are supported with a good deal of resolve on our part. Of paramount importance is the need to build bypasses around the community before, not in conjunction with, development in the Center. In the long term we need relief in our circulation system. If this results in a much reduced level of development then we should accept that consequence. ' Very truly yours, 1 1 RCC:sn Ronald C. Covington, President CDMCA 1 y, 494 CITY OF NEWroR16'EACN, CALIF. RECEIVED CITY CLERK, :.' BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662 June 16, 1986 Newport Beach City Council Philip R. Maurer, Mayor 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Maurer and members of the City Council, We have reviewed the plans for the expansion of Newport Center, the 8IR for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B), and the comments by other reviewing organizations. We have dis- cussed the matters at issue, such as traffic and intensity of development, with members of other organizations and wish to relay to you the following conclusions and requests: Residents of Newport want the City to remain a high quality residential community, I I, �I 1 I I I We believe that the direction we are going is away from ' the City's long held policies to retain the residential nature of the City. The projected increase in commercial development jeopar- dizes the residential community, The increasing commercial development requires roadways that are too large for the residential nature of the City. ' It has been the policy of the City to limit the width of roads and intersections and avoid freeway type overpasses. Now, with proposed increases in commercial development, these limits will be exceeded. Besides changing the character of the City, excessively wide roads and freeway type overpasses will create excessive speeds, hazardous conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, more noise and adverse visual impacts, The intensity of development proposed is so great that, ' even with wider roads, intersections and overpasses, the traffic levels of service at the peak hour will be unacceptable. We believe these problems should be addressed by a , representative body of residents before further increases are IF 495 allowed in General Plan densities. - The Newport Center expansion plan is of particular con- cern because of the plan to lock 1,275,000 square feet of additional office/commercial development into a development agreement which will bind future Councils. Therefore we make the following request: 1. That an advisory committee be formed of representatives from all organizations representing homeowners in the City and wishing to be represented on such a committee. 2. That a staff representative from the City be assigned to help with traffic and engineering expertise. 3. That a Chairman and Vice Chairman be elected from among the representatives. 4. That a short term agenda and meeting dates be developed by the Chairmen. 5. That recommendations for the following be developed: a. A redefinition of roadwav facilities with a commitment to retaining a size and scale compa- tible with the interests of the community ; asso- +,. c ra ., s . b. An ordinance calling for significant decreases in commuter traffic by the use of high —occupancy vehicles as is being accomplished in other cities. c. A limit to the and t cial development epmng pon te faa ity of roads and acceata Te levels of service. Very Truly Yours, Jean Watt, Presiding Officer '/9 496 • N[WeORT NAR[OR Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa toar o l W"115as 5" f ` 401 North Newport Blvd., Post Office Box 1815 F ' Newport Beach, California 92663 , COSTA MISA T 46.1671 4 ' � Ci11! OF, June 18, 1986 TY � OFFICE OF T P A'fOR' Hi * '{'�! We. r [OARD OR R[A00110 �l���r��j� CCMESSENTTO: Newport Beach City cil City of Newport Beach q�t P.O. Box 1768 Othahrk 1986 Officers Newport Beach, CA 92663 TERRY McCARDLE Dear Mayor Maurer and Council Members: President MARY DANK On June 17, 1986 the Board of Directors of the Newport Harbor - Vice -President Costa Mesa Board of REALTORS approved a resolution in support of Newrt Beach lan Amendment 85--1B for NINFA O'BRIEN of Newport Center cas proposed eneraby the Irvine Companycompletion. ' Secretary MAX ADRIAN The Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of REALTORS is composed Treasurer of some 1,800 members, including REALTORS and Affiliates, most of LANE BOYD area, ho and reside o genuinelyconc rk rn d witNewport the quality of li life Immediate the area. ' Past President We believe the Newport Center General Plan Amendment will re- 1986 Directors sult in improvements beneficial to the entire community, Includ- ing: ROBERT BURTNER Expanded shopping with a broader mix of retail opport- JOYCE SPILLER unities, thus eliminating much of the need to travel long ART REESE distances to satisfy shopping requirements; Increased facilities for dining, entertainment and leisure LEE MOHLER time activities; , Significant infrastructure improvements such as, -reduced traffic through Corona del Mar due to the Pelican Hills Road bypass, Executive Officer -completion of San Joaquin Hills Road through to Pelican Hills Road; and, DWIGHT DICKEY -widening MacArthur Boulevard to provide for smoother traffic flow. As citizens with a genuine concern and commitment to our commu- nity, the Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of REALTORS urges your support of the Newport Center General Plan Amendment. Sincere REALTOR' err cCardle, President SY / NEWPORT HARBOR -COSTA MESA BOARD OF REALTORS `_ F'1ECLIV Lti �• �i:i� 1': i5db�' � r s,re � Ma'M C'tY "Prof ithtErrellctice" fIti `� 497 Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of Realtors 401 North Newport Blvd., Post Office Box 1815 Newport Beach, California 92663 COSTA MESA Telephone (714) 646.1671 1 0m: BOARD OF REALTORS ' NEWPORT HARBOR -COSTA MESA BOARD OF REALTORS 1986 Officers TERRY McCARDLE President ' MARY JANK Vice -President ' NINFA O'BRIEN Secretary MAX ADRIAN ' Treasurer JANE BOYD ' Immediate Past President RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-111 COMPLETION OF NEWPORT CENTER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the NEWPORT HARBOR - MA BOARD OF REALTORS hereby supports Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 85-1B for completion of Newport Center as proposed by The Irvine Company. Adopted by the Board of Directors this 17th day of June, 1986 Directors 1986. ROBERT BURTNER JOYCE SPILLER ' ART REESE LEE MOHLOHLER � —v / resi e Executive Officer M DWIGHT DICKEYZ'GG 'be5eret REALTOR• W Y+4 a..nno... " Profit inExcellence 9.7-1 'E Western Center on Law and Poverty, Inc, 3535 W. Sixth Street • Los Angeles, CA 90020-2898 • (213) 487-7211 "RECEIVED AFIER AGENDA MCrt 5 "C,Ck PRINTED"' - 2 w .'•� Fatltvh.b4 rry lryr E7Ltn8 20, 19$6riChCdA Rotha,rua n j 4 taco •' bngal�nn R�/(1� j/A/�.� (1��1��.rk i Y r'}y � � f7niMCnlnl WJSOn *•�Yi,r C'�QY� r�' AamTrtun�or 8 ' Metmoo 8•rp JUN x 3-1586 ba j `2 Co'men E51109a EXPRESSChy Mn� F LL` MWX Gteenberg *L city0 No'Rorl 8wh C atnnn MOry Lee a wee Robert NOWMon city Council city of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: This office represents a number of the plaintiffs in Davis, et al. V. Cit of Ne ort Beaoh. This statement is submitted as testimony n oppos t on to the proposed General Plan Amendment 85- 1(B) and I hereby request that this letter be included as part of the record of the public hearing concerning that general plan amendment. General Plan Amendment 85-1(B), which is a request to allow the construction of an additional 11275,000 square feet of office uses, 248,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses and 700 residential units on property located in Newport Center and some peripheral sites, is inconsistent with the city's 1984 Housing Element in that it will exacerbate an existing imbalance in the City of Newport Beach between low and moderate income housing demand resulting from employment in the City and the availability of housing affordable to low and moderate income persons in the City of Newport Beach. General Plan Amendment as-l(B) is also inconsistent with the City's obligations under its constitutional Police powers, to take into account and accommodate in its land use decisions the existing and regional needs for very low, low and moderate income housing. GPA 85-1(B) will adversely affect the Cityts regional need for lower and moderate income housing by creating significant employment for lower and moderate income persons without a concomitant provision of housing affordable to those persons and their families. `6onnern Calitorno Oi ico a 1900 V St. • Suite 200 • Socramonto CA 95814 • (916) 412.07ti3 r 1 I I [1 n L I CC'e'r Mr,, nB,gr U fWor • rudollo C Am$ • Wo. F 4ChOo • A'rnaj 5t,II.L ^g • BAI pow, -Ns ` tuf ~yjy.ry �� 499 Newport Beach City Council June 20, 1986 Page 2 The imbalance in the City between employment generated demand for lower and moderate income housing and the availability of housing affordable to such families has been elaborated upon in ' testimony in the trial of Davis v. City of New ort Beach by expert witnesses Perla Eston and Alan Mallach and such testimony is incorporated herein by reference. ' GPA 85-l(B) will also exacerbate the City's existing indigenous need for low and moderate income housing to the extent ' that a commercial development will increase the demand for such housing in the City of Newport Beach, thereby creating a tighter housing market and contributing to a further increase in the housing costs. ' The agenda for the City Council meeting of June 23, 1986 does not specify whether any of the 700 residential units will be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households and GPA 85-1(B) may also be inconsistent with the City's 1984 Housing Element if low and moderate income housing units are not required in the proportions provided for in that housing element. ' Furthermore, even apart from the requirements of the 1984 Housing Element, the City has an independent constitutional obligation to meet its fair share of the regional need for very low, low and ' moderate income households which will require that a significant percentage of the 700 residential units be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households for a significant period of ' time, such as 30 years as provided for in Government Code 65916. Unless these requirements are part of GPA 85-l(B) then the General Plan Amendment will be deficient. ' Finally, the environmental documentation on GPA 85-1(B) is inadequate due to its failure to adequately assess the impact of the proposed additional commercial development on the City's regional and indigenous need for very low, low and moderate income housing and for its failure to fully explore all available mitigation measures, including the use of all available local, ' federal and state programs for the development of very low and low income housing. The environmental documentation also fails to adequately assess and consider the effects of the commercial development on limiting or restricting future residential ' development and for its failure to adequately assess and consider mitigation measures for the inconsistencies between GPA 85-1(B) and both the city's 1984 Housing Element and its constitutional ' obligations under its police powers. 2 look forward to the City considering and addressing the highly important issues raised in this letter concerning the 1 s3 500 Newport Beach City Council June 20, 1466 Page 3 opportunities for very low and low income families to live in the City of Newport Beach. JLG/jaC S erely, , nathari Lehrer-Craiwer ' 1 11 11 Newport Hi 501 Community Association June 19, 1986 Councilwoman Hart Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Cal. 92663 "RECEIVED AFtER AGENDA PRINTED:" �2) " Z Dear Councilwoman Hart and fellow City Council members: ' The Newport Heights Community Association is concerned about the General Plan Amendment requested to facilitate the Newport Center buildout. We believe Newport Beach is a prime residential community. As the General Plan is the blueprint for our City's growth, we believe it should reflect this residential character. We further believe any action taken by the City Council must be based first and foremost on this basic premise. Given Newport Beach is a residential community, it follows that the streets must reflect this character in size and type. We do not believe six lane roads and overpasses are appropriate in a primarily residential community. As traffic and growth are tied together, it is necessary for the City Council to look at our roads, listen to what the community wants and determine how they should function, then plan growth accordingly. General Plan amendments that suggest increasing the building areas must be analyzed critically with traffic in mind. Specifically, the Newport Heights Community Association believes the General Plan Amendment is out of character to our City and creates too much traffic for our roads. The EIR for the Newport Center expansion responds to the increase in traffic with mitigation measures. We find'these,measures unacceptable. We also find it -unacceptable to allow the Amended Plan growth without the mitigation measures needed to avoid further traffic congestion. We feel the only way out of this bind is to scale down the development to allow for an acceptable and workable circulation system which is reflective of Newport Beach's low density development and residential character. Specific requests regarding the Newport Center expansion include (but may not be limited by): 1) Bayview - Limit restaurant development to a maximum of two, with the rest of the area dedicated as a park and bike staging area for the Back Bay. ' S7� Newport 502 Community Association r June 19, 1986 Page 2 of 2 I 2) Newport Village - Keep residential but lower density. Include ' a park for the residents and local workers. 3) Total Office S uare Foota e - Block 600 and block 800, Newport Village etc. Reduce the square footage to 500,000 square feet. This reduction should significantly reduce commuter trips. Regarding traffic: , 1) Require a traffic management system such as can/van pooling and staggered work hours. ' 2) Keep streets residential in nature. This means NO SIX lane roads and NO overpasses. ' 3) Do not improve capacity of intersections in Mariners Mile. 4) DO NOT WIDEN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ANYWHERE. But plan for ' improvements to our streets that enhance our city's image further. The citizens of Newport Beach feel the character of our city is , threatened by too much commercial growth. This feeling is evidenced by the Traffic Ordinance Initiative and by the active ' interest in the Citizen's Traffic Task Force. We feel it is time for the City Council to meet with Homeowners and Citizen's groups to review the circulation system. We believe this must be accomplished prior to processing of the General Plan Amendment. Representatives of the Board of the Newport Heights Community Association are ready and willing to assist in this endeavor. Our suggestions are made with the best interests of Newport Beach ' at heart. W.e sincerely hope the City Council will rise to the occasion and protect those interests. ' Thank your, '(\ - aar\Wt�HV g 1i President NHCA ' 722-8413 cc: Dick Nicoles, Com Homeowners Assoc. Dave Dmohowski, Irvine Company , 17 L j 503 "RECEIVED AfE�'i�fGFl�I3>1 FRIENDS OF NEWPORT BAY`"'�� ' P.O. BOX 2001 'NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 June 23, 1986 Mayor Maurer and honorable members Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: -General Plan Amendment #85-1 (B) ' We have reviewed the GPA 481-1 (B), the staff report and the appropriate sections of the E.I.R. that'apply to development of lands that may impact Upper Newport Bay ecological reserve. ' In addition, we reviewed the development possibilities of the sites with Mr. Carl Wilcox of the California Department of Fish and Game. We offer the following comments: ' (1) Newport North and John Wayne Gulch sites A 100' set -back applies to these two sites. It is our under- ' standing, as well as that of Mr. Wilcox, that the 100' set- back is to be measured from the top of the bluffs and no de- velopment (other than trails, etc.) would take place for.100' back from the bluff edge. We contacted Patricia Temple of the Newport Beach planning department and confirmed our interpre- tation of the 100' measurement.. ' The documents are not clear on this point. We request that the appropriate documents be clarified to state that the 100' set -back begins at the top of the bluff and extends away from ' the reserve. Otherwise, the bluffs will have little protec- tion. In many areas no public 'trails could be constructed without destroying the -bluff faces. The 100' set -back from the top of the bluffs will go a long way to prevent collapse ' of the bluffs as happened in several areas on the west side of the Upper Bay in the Dover Shores development. (2) Westbay site ' We support the planning commission's recommendation that this site be re -designated for open space and recreational pur- poses. Since 75% of the D.U.'s already have been transferred to Newport Center, transfer of the remaining 25%, as recom- mended, complete the process. We also recommend that dedica- tion of this site to bhe city be implemented. It is the best way to protect public rights gained through this mitigation. pRRe�.sspectfully, [,�,(n o3hn Ro tman ` President, Friends of Newport Bay .577 504 June 23. 1986 Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is Chuck Hirsch. I have been in business in Newport Beach for 23 years, and a former 10 year member of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, and my daughter has been in a business in Corona del Mar for the last 6 years. We are all concerned about transportation, for that is how we are able to maintain businesses which generate profits to keep our area viable and a pleasant place to live — and be able to pay taxes to pay for city services to be provided for the people who live and work in Newport Beach. That any expansion of current properties or building of new improvements in Newport Beach generates additional traffic, is fully understood. Any similar construction in cities and the County land adjacent to or near our city, over which we have no control, produces traffic also. We have such marvelous and attractive nuisances, such as our beaches and harbor, that draw visitors from near and far, with their associated traffic, also over which we have absolutely no control. We also have a new State beach between Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach, which attracts increasing traffic each year, over which we cannot exercise any control. We cannot stop the growth of traffic, but we can thoughtfully achieve development agreements which will provide for road improvements that will improve the circulation of traffic. There was an opportunity to provide for traffic improvements when GPA 80-3 was proposed. It included some of those improvements being proposed with GPA 85—l(B), such as the Pelican Hill Road. Had that Amendment had the needed support, the improvements would have been constructed, and, as an example, the heavy congestion experienced now on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar in the morning and evening would be dramatically reduced. The EIR includes analyses of the traffic which could be generated by the buildings requested in GPA 85-1(8), and many of us have spent hours reading those analyses.. As the staff summary indicated, the incremental increase in traffic, which would be contributed by the total requested project, would, in various locations, range from a low of 2% to a high of only 11%. One example of this is the increase on Pacific Coast Highway, west of Dover Drive, in the Newport Heights area due to the General Plan I I 11 1 1 r I r I �J Amendment, alone. Based on the traffic volume forecasts from the EIR, ' the increase in the traffic is estimated to be 2200 Average Daily cars, and this amounts to only a 4.3% increase over currrent traffic counts. This number is somewhat obscured in the estimated traffic ' volumes presented in the EIR, which account for the total possible 505 growth of traffic, and which include that increment from GPA-85-1(B). When a business, such as the Irvine Company, plans a project defined ' in GPA 85—l(B), that business understands certain corollary investments are reqired. The Pelican Hills Road is an example of one of those that could be justified, assuming that the necessary income ' stream generated by the project can realized. If that road is built, the analysis shows it should divert a major portion of the total projected increased traffic — from all sources — ' off PCH in Corona del Mar, and MacArthur Boulevard. There are other circulation element components and improvements which ' would be provided with the approval of the total project that would also improve the conditions on our roads as well as reduce the noise generated by traffic, such as the lowering of MacArthur Boulevard and the construction of minimal sound walls. Consideration for widening of MacArthur Boulevard to 6 lanes was part of the presentation and considerations before the Planning Commission; however, the community adjacent to MacArthur asked that the widening be withheld until traffic demonstrated the need to widen. ' In addition, an analysis of the data shows that when the road improvements are completed, more capacity is provided on those roads than is needed to accomodate the trips generated through the completion of the GPA. The Master Traffic Circulation Element, which was addopted in March of 1974, ,and which has been modified in minor respects over the years, ' had the build —out of Newport Center included in its calculations. It is recognized that the details of that build —out have changed since that time, but the land use element used to provide the estimates of ' traffic to provide that document is the same. There is a proposed change to the Circulation Element that is incorporated in the GPA and set forth in the EIR. That one is the deletion of the Avocado/MacArthur one—way couplet. The Pelican Hill Road is an example of link that would be added as part of the project, improving the Circulation Element. ' Some years ago, when the Citizens Traffic Advisory Committee studied the Circulation Element and the needs for improvement, they used data developed for a traffic volume to be anticipated by 1995, and those numbers included all the influences throughout the County which impact ' traffic in Newport Beach, and not just the buildout of the land in accordance to the land use element in Newport Beach. At that time recommendations from that committee to the City Council included such items as widening Pacific Coast Highway between MacAthur Boulevard and Dover, widening of MacArthur and Jamboree, and the grade separation for the PCH/Jamboree intersection. The introduction of these as ' consider—ations in the analysis of this project are not new or unique. F L 1 59 506 r Traffic System Management techniques to reduce trips are being used and will be use in the future, both by the developer and the tenents in Newport Center. Such practi-ces as car pooling, van pooling and staggered hours provide shrinkage of the volumes over the projected ' volumes per the EIR, which are recognized to be conservative in their establishment in the study. In balance, the City and its residents will benefit from the approval of GPA 85-1(8) and I recommend that the City Council give that approval strong consideration. r r r r r r r r E r �. r _ 507 Dom las Wood & Associates Land Use lanning / Governmental Relations / Environmental Analysis June 23, 1986 ' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA Attn: The Honorable Phillip Maurer, Mayor Subject: Newport Center General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) as related to San Joaquin Hills Road ' Dear Mayor Maurer: It is the intent of this correspondence to provide a response and respectfully propose changes to recommended Conditions of Approval concerning the Newport Center General Plan Amendment ' 85-1(B) as specifically related to the future extension of San Joaquin Hills Road. These proposed changes articulate the position of both the Spyglass Hill and Spyglass Ridge Community Associations, the two residential Communites immediately adjacent to and impacted most by San Joaquin Hills Road. These proposed changes are intended to accomplish the following goals: 1) insure that Pelican Hill Road is completed (i.e. from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Blvd. at or near Bristol Street) prior to the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road; 2) extension of San Joaquin Hills Road as a four -lane Primary Arterial from its current terminus at Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road within the timing parameters recommended by Staff; 3) dedication of right-of-way necessary to accomodate San Joaquin Hills Road to six lanes (in the event of the need arising for widening); and 4) initiation of an Amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to redesignate San Joaquin Hills Road to a Primary Arterial (4 lanes, divided) between Marguerite Avenue to Pelican Hills Road. ' In order to accomplish these goals, we wish to respectfully propose the following changes to the proposed Conditions of Approval concerning the Newport Center General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) as specifically related to the future extension of San Joaquin Hills Road. The following revised Conditions of Approval are numbered and page referenced to correspond to their listing in the June 23rd Staff Report. ' Page 4 - Circulation Element 1. Delete Avocado Avenue/MarArthur Boulevard Primary Couplet designation; designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six lanes divided); designate Avocado Avenue as 1 3800 Inlet Isle, Corona Dal Mar, California 92625 714/759.8949 �0� 508 , a Secondary Arterial (4 lanes) between Coast Highway and t San Miguel Drive an designate San Joaquin Bills Road as Avenue and Pelican H1118 Road. This circulation element revision is subject to approval of the County of Orange. 2. Recommend to the City Council initiation of an amendment ' to the Circulation, Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to designate MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road ' and Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial (8 lanes divided) and San Joaquin Hills Road as a Primary Arterial (4 lanes, 4TVTdedT-BeEween AaEguuer_ a A'venue 3NMRad-Te-11canRATANT , Further, recummend to the City Council that final action ' on this amendment be taken concurrent with the action on GPA 85-1(B). Page 6 - Construction Phasing (Including Staff Recommendation t on page 24) 4. Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following pruject until the completion of construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur,Bouleyard at or near Bristo Street : ' -Block 600 5. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon.full dedication and commencement of construction of four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: , A. block 600 B. Corpurate Plaza West ' Page 7 - Other Requirements 5b. Full dedication and completion of San Joaq:iin Hills Road toAS EASE configuration 4-h*aes-, 31uided) (4-lanes, d_iy_id d) easterly of Spyglass Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. ' As representatives of the two Community Associations most Impacted by San Joaquin Hills Road, we feel that the proposed ' revisions noted above respond to our local concerns while also respecting regional transportation goals. 1 I 61 irl 509 We wi.11 be in attendance at your hearing of June 23, to ' answer your questions and provide any information as necessary on this matter. Thank you for your patience and consideration. ' S.i.ncereI , I 1 1 C D I 510 June 11, 1986 t NEWPORT CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Introduction. Mr. Mayor, my name is Bill Picker. I live at 522 West ' Oceanfront. I have been a permanent resident in Newport Beach since 1953. 1 was a member of the Planning Commission at the inception of the Irvine Company's ' Master Plan that included Newport Center, and I am here to speak in favor of the Newport Center General Plan Amendment.` 1 I have had an unwaivering interest in the maturing of this community and take great pride in being part of it, but particular pride in the quality with which it has matured. But there are many people of varying opinions who have ' a common interest to see our city be the finest city in the world* in the last 25 years, Newport Beach has become the hallmark by which other cities, their ' patterns of growth and maturity are measured. People literally come from all over the world to copy or understand how a city can not only maintain, but improve in quality, its expansion and development. ' We were fortunate in having, perhaps, the most creative ' land planner of our time, Bill Pereira, "master plan" the area surrounding what we knew in 1963 as Newport Beach, so the land wasn't merely subdivided in a grid pattern like most of Southern California at the time. ' instead, it has been developed in the most ideal manner with highly identifiable areas of residential, commercial and industrial uses. ' The keynote has been quality, and today it is more obvious than over that there is a dedication to excellence. , There are traffic concerns that we all share, but as a planner, I know that traffic studies are not an exact , science, and I hope that we will not try to anoint them as an exact science in the deliberations before (0j 511 June 11, 1986 ' Newport Center General Plan Amendment Page 2 ' However, traffic engineering does -provide a magnitude of concern for us to consider. The magnitude of impact ' or concern is almost insignificant in the proposed General Plan Amendment. It is a small fraction of the overall impact of the surrounding areas. ' With regard to traffic, there are some elements to consider that, perhaps, cannot be quantified, and that is the tremendous benefit to our emotional and physical welfare in being able to live in Newport Beach and work ' in Newport Beach. This takes a dramatic amount of cars and pollution away from our greater environment. Certainly, it is an overwhelming plus for our ' transportation concerns. We can carry on all phases of our life for entertainment, shopping, medical services, education and cultural opportunities without leaving ' our surface streets and with short trips. We should be secure in that we do have adequate controls over our destiny. We should have confidence ' that traffic mitigations do work. The back bridge is, perhaps, the classic example of that philosophy. We did not simply move the problem to another location, but the problem was almost entirely removed. I would like to address some points that I think have not been stressed adequately in the past, but s:a extremely important to the future and present welfare of our community. J 11 LJ We must have some balanced growth. We have an obligation to our young, people that are born and raised in this community. We graduate over high school students a year. Some stay in our locality and attend college, some go directly into the labor market, and others go away to school, but I venture that most all of them, such as our own daughter, like to come back and live in Newport Beach. What you see in -this General Plan is just part of the opportunities that we must provide for these young people. They need to know that they can return home and participate with their families, friends and community, as clerks, laborers, professionals, doctors and' maybe even architects. We cannot merely say that they should go somewhere else to live, although we recognize that the economics of housing in Newport Beach might mean an interim stop along the road before they can return. 512 I June 11# 1986 Newport Center General Plan Amendment Page 3 Newport Beach was a wonderful place when I moved here, it is more wonderful today. It is a community that has the best of everything and we have matured from sitting on the beach and only sailing and needing to go elsewhere for cultural and social enrichment. No have now attained that social and cultural enrichment here in Newport Beach and its surrounding areas. I say "surrounding areas•, beoausi. Newport Beach has infected those surrounding areas with similar qualities. We have an opportunity.to provide the finest shopping, the finest professional services, cultural activities, and perhaps most importantly# the finest private hospital and medical center of any area this six*. Hoag Hospital and the outstanding staff it has attracted would not be here without the dedication to quality and the growth of this community that has taken place. I agree there are some inconveniences with growth, but they are dramatically out weighed by the benefits which we all enjoy. The plans for the visual enhancement of areas of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road will strongly add to the visual pleasures of driving through our City and One point that I am particularly interested in is the retention of the view at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway. This view should even be enhanced by some grading to provide a vista of the Back Bay# and if some buildings are built on that site, they should be well below the view. I am very much in favor of shared public and commercial use of the site# if for no other reason than security. Merely a view park with no other access or use, not as successful as the shared use. An example is the old Victor Hugo in Laguna Beach and similar commercial uses. It provides an opportunity for the private sector to participate in the maintenance and visual enhancement# and also provides the security for public participation and enjoyment. I I 1 C I J 513 June 11, 1986 Newport Center General Plan Amendment Page 4 ' I think this Plan provides for the maximum opportunity to provide a quality environment for the completion of ' Newport Center and its surrounding area and the quality of the entire City will be enhanced by it. This type of commitment also breeds confidence in other ' land owners who might also be more secure to continue to cleanup redevelopment areas of the City, such as Old Newport and the Cannery Village. ' Newport Center need its renaissance just as other areas need revitalization. It is important to the overall City that all entities are successful. 1 1 I 1 1 Finally, and perhaps, one of the most important considerations is that I would like to see our City at peace. The controversy in the past was debilitating to the City. There are so many positive opportunities in this City and so much love for the City among all of us, that I would like to see all of our energies channeled together to work toward enhancing the quality of every street, block and building in this community. We have the energy, we have the wealth and the desire to do that. The approval of this General Plan Amendment, will be one of the most worthwhile actions this City has ever taken. Thank you for the opportunity of addressing you here tonight. 1 4011 514 1 CITY COUNCIL HEARING FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1 (8) Newport Center expansion and peripheral sites June 23, 1986 S.P.O.N. Is statement: We would like to call your attention to our prior testimony on this project. It has consisted of verbal comments before the Planning Commission and written comments regarding the issues to be addressed in the SIR and the adequacy of the SIR. So far we have not received answers to these comments nor have the comments made during the officia3 comment period (which ended on May 29) been made part of a final EIR so all interested parties can have the benefit of such dialogue. This seems to be a deficiency in the process required by the California Environmental Quality Act. To add to our concern, the EIR for this project came in four volumes, the third and fourth of which were not generally fiven out. yet, Volume 3 contained the written comments of all the various agencies, individuals, and associations. When reading these comments it is obvious that there is great concern about the intensity of the project and its effect on traffic and as many stated, the quality of life. In reviewing the mitigations for the traffic from this project, S. P. 0, N. and other associations find that the improvements called for include wider roads and intersections and in the case of Pacific Coast Hwy. and Jamboree, a "diamond" shaped grade separation or overpass, The size of the roads and intersections is increasing beyond what had been previously considered compatible with the residential nature of the community. I I We believe these problems should be considered by a representative body of residents before further increases are allowed in the ' General Plan densities, Therefore, we make the following request: 1. That an advisory committee be formed of representatives from interested homeowner associations. ' 2. That recommendations for the following be developed: a. A redefinition of roadway facilities with a committment to retaining the size and scale compatible with ' the interests of the homeowners. b. An ordinance calling for significant decreases in commuter traffic by the use of high occupancy vehicles as is being accomplished in other cities. ' c. A limit to the amount and type of commercial development depending upon the availability of roads and acceptable levels of service. 1 515 1 NEWPORT CENTER GPA - PRESENTATION TO ' CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 23, I986 ' MY NAME IS TOM NIELSEN, PRESIDENT OF THE IRVINE COMPANY ' I AM PLEASE TO BE PRESENTING OUR PLAN FOR COMPLETION OF NEWPORT CENTER THIS ' EVENING. SINCE ITS CONCEPTION IN THE 1960'S, NEWPORT CENTER HAS A UNIQUE CONCEPT. A MIXED USE CENTER WITH A GREAT DIVERSITY OF USES IN AN AESTHETIC, QUALITY ENVIRONMENT. THE NEWPORT CENTER WE SEE TODAY IS TRUE TO THAT ORIGINAL CONCEPT -- EXCEPT IT IS NOT YET FINISHED. ' AND WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT NEWPORT CENTER IS NEARLY 20 YEARS OLD. WE BELIEVE IT IS TIME TO UPGRADE THE CENTER, TO MAKE IT RESPONSIVE TO CHANGING COMMUNITY NEEDS FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS, AND TO FULFILL THE ORIGINAL GOAL OF MAKING I NEWPORT CENTER THE WO "TOWN CENTER" FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY. THE CITY STAFF HAS OUTLINED THE BASIC COMPONENTS OF THE SONNE1190 PLAN FOR ' NEWPORT CENTER AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THOUGH IT IS A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT PLAN THAN WE SUBMITTED 18 MONTHS AGO, WE GENERALLY CONCUR ' WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSALAS iT tNcoQ taoRAS `THC-� FI ERAL OBJECTIVES LVE NAP ' IN MINDpJ1%'W WE M"tA (MMFLGTVOM 9ft NC-L%'Tm " CG1.l'miz o&fc-c'riUCS AlaE41 ' o MAKE NEWPORT CENTER MORE OF A COMMUNITY FOCAL POINT BY PROVIDING A GREATER VARIETY OF GOODS, SERVICES, ACTIVITIES AND RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES IN AN ' EXCITING ARCHITECTURAL SETTING. 1 (01 L NIr ESOLVE LONG-IM PLANN NG, ENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES. 516 -2- TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING ISSUES FOR NEWPORT OMPLETE THE UNDEVELOPED PARCELS IN AND AROUND NEWPORT CENTER AND UPGRADE XISTING USES SO AS TO INSURE THE LONG-TERM VITALITY AND ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THE CENTER. o PROVIDE FOR A CONTINUING STRONG BALANCE OF MUTUALLY -SUPPORTIVE LAND USES AND ACTIVITIES INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE, RETAIL, RECREATIONAL, AND CULTURAL. � Aub GiRAvIJt� o IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION, BY COMPLETING THE CITY'S ARTERIAL SYSTEM IN THE NEWPORT CENTER AREA, BY CONTRIBUTING TO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION OF PELICAN HILL ROAD, AND BY IMPLEMENTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES, SUCH AS THE EXPERIMENTAL SHUTTLElvAw TccLs.4 E 6tax kVCI us o l mb(*�k w OR SITE GZOWN4TOR, THE RESULTING PLAN, IN MANY WAYS MADE EVEN BETTER BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, EMBODIES THESE OBJECTIVES. AS HAS BEEN INDICATED BY STAFF, THE PLAN BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS NOT THE SAME PLAN WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED. OVER THE PAST YEAR WE HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH AND LISTENING TO OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR;THE BUSINESS OM I Y. AS AND SUGGES7I RED. IN MORE THAN 30 SEPARATE MEETINGS WITH COMMUNITY GROUPS AND THREE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE HAVE HEARD THAT PEOPLE WANT THE CITY'$ ROAD SYSTEM TO BE IMPLEMENTED; THEY WANT A GREATER.VARIETY OF SHOPPING AND ENTERTAINMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN FASHION ISLAND; AND THEY WANT IDENTIFIABLE CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY AMENITIES IN NEWPORT CENTER. 1 �7 1 1 1 I u 517 -3- RKING WITH STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE S SPECIFIC GOALS FOR INCREASED HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES OBJECTIVES. I IN THE COMMUNITY. 1 8EL IC --VC -' THE PLAN BEFORE YOU TONIGHT MEETS ALL THESE ' FIRST, LETS LOOK AT THE EXPANDED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES IN FASHION ISLAND. FASHION ISLAND, OF COURSE, IS THE CENTERPIECE OF THE PLAN. �WWEgg WANT�O MAKE FASHION ISLAND A BETTER PLACE TO SHOP, AND WE WANT TO MAKE IT 11 TOWN CENTER WHERE PEOPLE NATURALLY GO FOR ENTERTAINMENT, DINING, CIVIC EVENTS OR JUST PEOPLE WATCHING. THEVARIETY OF SHOPS AND ACTIVITIES IN FASHION ISLAND ' WILL BFIkW- 0NtELOCAL RESIDENTS AND ALSO ® THE EMPLOYEES IN NEWPORT CENTER WHO ARE AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR MARKET AND OUR COMMUNITY. 1 1 u 1 14 IN ADDITION TO THE RETAILI! FASHI AND, WE ARE PROPOOSING NEW RESTAURANT USES ON THE BAYVIEW LANDING SITE,11100M ALSO INCLUO A VIEW PARK. REGARDING RESIDENTIAL ,THE PLAN REPRESENTS A MAJOR COMMITMENT TO NEW HOUSING. ALMOST 75% OF THE UNDEVELOPED LAND IN THE PLAN IS•DEVOTED TO NEW RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES IN NEWPORT CENTER AND ON THE PERIPHERAL SITES. WE BELIEVE THIS HOUSING WILL L�EQim T MORE NEWPORT CENTER EMPLOYEES LIVE CLOSE TO THEIR WORK R THEREBY REDUGX TRAFFIC DEMAND. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THESE NEW RESIDENCES WILL MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT, WHICH CALLS FOR A BALANCE OF HOUSING TYPES AND PRICE RANGES. WE BELIEVE ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IN THE PLAN WILL REINFORCE AN IMAGE OF QUALITY DESIGN IN TERMS OF ARCHITECTURE AND, LANDSCAPING. AT THE SAME TIME WE INTEND TO ADDRESS THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT BY PROVIDING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE UNITS AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 1 -7l 518 RESOLUTION No. %!�//// A MsoLUTICW or TNs PLANNING COMMI8sI0N or THE CITY or NEWPORT BEACH NECOM MIND TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELMENT Or THE MWPORT BEACH GEa AAL PLAN BE ADOPTED, AND, IN 9SCOM MMING APPROVAL or SAID AMENDMENT, RICO M M THAT THE ENVIROIMENTAL IMACT REPORT PMRPAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH GENERAL PLAN Amman 85-10) u USED As THs =NV Y M ML DoCtNI M TOR THE t8WICT (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT e6-2(A)). WNEREAB, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Circulation Element has been prepatedt and waREAS, said element of the General Plan mats forth obloo- tives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of tba Circulation system of the city of Newport Beach% and wNEREAs, pursuent to Section 707 of the Charter of the city of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public heating to consider a certain amendment to the above referenced element of the Newport Beach General Plant and MAUS, it is the policy of the City to provide for a balance between planned land use* and the Circulation System; and MMREAS, the City of Newport Mach has prepared an Environ- mental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CBQA) and the State EIR Guidelines for General Plan Amendment 85-I(s)t and WHEREAS, the information contained in this SIR indicated the necessity to provide a higher capacity roadway or. MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 711 and WNEREAB, the City Council initiated consideration of A General Plan Amendment for this roadway links and WHEREAS, an Initial study was prepared to aloes$ the adequa- cy of the SIR prepared for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) to serve as the environmental document for this Goner*1 Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, based upon information contained in the Initial study, it has been determined that the EIR prepared for GPA 85-1(8) 519 adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed change to the Newport Beach Circulation Element: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the SIR in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the Circulation Element and Master Plan of Streets and Highways is racomoended for approval to the City Council. Circulation Element: ° Add an additional arterial highway designation to the classifications, as £oilows: Major -Modified: 8-lanes, divided Master Plan of Streets and Highways: ° Reclassify_ the portion of MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and State Route 73 as a "Major -Modified" arterials 8-lanes, divided. ADOPTED this day of , 1986, by the following vote, to wit, BY CHAIRMAN BY SECRETARY RES02/jm AYES WOES ABSENT nwam 520 n PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 June 31 1986 To All Interested Agencies and Persons; The review of the Traffic and Circulation System prepared in conjunction with the city's consideration of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) resulted in the indication that the segment of MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73 needed to be eight lanes in width in order to accommodate anticipated traffic. As a result, in is the intent of the City to amend its Circulation Element to reflect this roadway configuration as a "mitigation measure" for cumulative effects which are identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment. The redesignation of this road, however, requires its own General Plan Amendment. As such, the City of Newport Beach is circulating this notice to all interested agencies and persons to identify this change in the Circulation Element as an additional component of the proposed project. As indicated in the attached Initial Study, it is the intent of the City to use the Environmental Impact Report prepared for GPA 85-1(B) to serve as the environmental document for the Circulation Element amendment for MacArthur Boulevard. The City is, therefore, 'requesting comments from any interested agencies and parties as to the sufficiency of the Environmental Impact Report prepared as the environmental information for the Circulation Element amendment. The City has established a thirty -day review period in which additional comments are solicited from your agency. Comments should be addressed to: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 If you have any questions, please contact Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, at (714) 644-3225. We will appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director FA BY IC ILS!L d^- - M 1 I I 1J I H I I I I 1 PATRICIA TEMPLE I Environmental Coordinator PLT3/jm ' Attachment 521 APPENDIX I rNVIRONMENTAL CHECFLIST FORM Environmental Checklist Fors (To Be Completed.4 Lead Agency) I. background 1. Name of Proponent 2. A4cresA and Phone 3. Date of Checklist Submissio 4. Agency Requiring Checklist S.. Mama of Proposals if applic II. Environmental Impacts• (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c. change in topography or ground ' surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any.increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean of any bay, inlet or lake? IRS MAYBE Ro X X 73 gg 522 YES MAYBE HD It. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earth— quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ x 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or detiri- X oration of ambient air quality? b. the creation of objectionable odors? X e. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 9. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either fresh marine or waters? b. Changes in absorption ratsa4 drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? �. d. Change in the ano�+nt of surface wa or X in any water body2 a. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of on aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 74 x 523 I C� 11 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any•species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 3. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: s. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals . (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects)? 1 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of ani— mals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ' 1. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? ' 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 75 ,as MYHE to T 91, 524 YF.S MAYRF M0 4. Matural Resources. Will the proposal ' result n: a. Increase in the rate of use of any ' natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk k o —an explosion or the release of ' basardous substances (including, but Not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) In the event of an accident or ' upset conditions? 11- Toro ulation. Will the proposal alter the ' ]]ocatro , distribution] density, or growth rate of the human population of an sreat 12. Will the proposal affect ' existing housing, or create a deeded for additional housing? 13. transportationCirculation. Will the proposal result : a. Ceneration of substantial additional vehicular movement? ba Effects on existing parking facilities, , or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing ' transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of ' circulation or movement of people and/or goede? a. Alterations to waterborne, rail or �+ ' air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hasardous to _... t rotor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. public Services. Will the proposal have an ' effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered itovernmental services in any of the following areds: ' 76 ' PPE-2A:24 525 YES MAYBE NO i a, fire protection? be Police protection? n Co. Schools? x d. Parks or other recreational facilities? a. Maintenance of public facilities. ��[[ including roads?---- X f. Other govarnnaotal aarvicesT — 15. gnarly. Will the proposal result in: i. Use of substantial 4rA"ta Of Net Or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy. or require the development of maw sources Of x• energy? — 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a ale- d fo= new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gau? ! X --- b. Communications systems?--- c. Water? - d. Sewer or septic tacks? --- a. Storm water drainage? to solid waste and disposalt—•- 17. flames Mealth. Will the proposal result a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding Y L- mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential X health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. will the proposal result is the Obatructlon Of any scenic vista or view Open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically -offensive site open.to public view? —.- Is 526 YES 19. Aeereation. Will the proposal result s sn pact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Arch*olo icalhlistoricalo Will tbn proposal result Is an alteration of a significant archeological at historical sit*, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory pisdiage of giasifieasea. a. Does the, project have the potential to degrade the quality of the savirennost, aubstastially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below asl'f-sustaining loveU, threaten to eliminate a plant or aninial'oommunity, reduce tha Ababor or restrict the range of a were or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prahiateryt be Does the project have the potential to achieve abort -term, to the disadvantage of long -ter", environmental pals? (A short-term impeet on the environment is one which occurs We relatively bri,f definitive period of time while loag- terw I* eta will eador* well into the futurs.) e. Does the project hove impacts tA►ieh are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or Nor* separate resources where the impact on each resource to relatively small, but %bare the affect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) do Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial advors* effects on humnn beings, either directly or indirectly! III. Discussion of Environmental tvaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the bead Apency) 78 ' X k �I C� L �I C� L 527 D lb. The project may result in the construction of two additional lanes along MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73'. This will cause an increase in the covering of soil by the roadway. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for GPA 85-1(B) addressed the construction of six lanes of MacArthur Boulevard in this area. The impacts of the proposed redesig- ' nation, if ultimately constructed, are considered similar to those anticipated for a six -lane roadway. lc. The construction of two additional lanes of MacArthur Boulevard could change the topography or ground surface relief features in the immediate vicinity of the roadway. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for GPA 85-1(B) addressed potential changes in this area for a six -lane MacArthur Boulevard. The environmental effects anticipated from an eight -lane roadway are similar in nature to those anticipated for the six -lane roadway. Id. The construction of eight lanes of MacArthur Boulevard may result in a modification of geologic features. The effects are con- sidered similar to those which may occur for construction of a six -lane MacArthur Boulevard and are addressed in the Environ- for GPA 85-l(B). mental Impact Report prepared 3b. An eight -lane width of MacArthur Boulevard in this area will ' result in a decrease in permeable surfaces and may change the absorption rate and drainage patterns within the area. The impacts are considered to be similar in nature to construction of a six -lane MacArthur Boulevard and are addressed in the Environ- mental Impact Report prepared for GPA 85-l(B). 4a. Construction of an eight -lane road may change the diversity of within the area since species or the number of species of plants an increased amount of land will be occupied by the roadway. The impacts associated with this change are considered similar in ' nature to those associated with construction of a six -lane roadway and are addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for GPA 85-l(B). of 4b. Construction of an eight -lane road may reduce the numbers unique, rare, or endangered species of plants. Potential impacts ' are considered similar in nature to construction of a six -lane Report for roadway and are addressed in the Environmental Impact GPA 85-1(B). ' 4c. The construction of an eight -lane roadway will increase the size of the barrier which will result from the construction of a widened MacArthur Boulevard. This may effect the normal replen- ishment of existing species. The impacts associated with con- in to those struction of an eight -lane roadway are similar nature associated with construction of a six -lane roadway and are ' addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for GPA 85-1(B). 528 1 5a. Construction of an eight -lane roadway will over -cover more land , which may change the numbers of any species of animals. This change is considered similar to the effects which will result from construction of a six -lane roadway are addressed in the ' Environmental Impact Report for GPA 85-1(B). 5b. The construction of an eight -lane roadway may reduce the numbers of raze or endangered species of animals. This potential is similar to those which may be incurred by construction of a six -lane roadway and are addressed in the Environmental Impact ' Report for GPA 85-I(B). Sc. The construction of an eight -lane roadway may result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals. The effects are con- ' sidered similar to the construction of a six -lane roadway and are addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for GPA 85-1(B). 5d. The construction of an eight -lane roadway may result in deterio- ration of existing fish or wildlife habitat. This is due to increased runoff from the expansion of impermeable surfaces and will eventually enter Upper Newport Bay. This effect is con- sidered cumulative or incremental increase and is addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for GPA 85-1(B). 6a. The additional roadway width may result in an increase in exist- ' ing noise levels in the immediate vicinity. The expansion of the roadway is not, howeverp expected to increase the actual number of trips through this particular roadway corridor. The effects ' of this are addressed in t)e Environmental impact Report for GPA 85-1(B). 6b. Construction of the roadway will expose people to severe noise levels, particularly during the construction time. This effect is addressed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for GPA , 85-1(B). 8. The proposal will alter the planned use of this area from a major arterial, six -lanes, divided to a major modified arterial, t eight-lahes, divided as set forth in the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. This change is being made, not to accommodate additional unplanned development, but merely to ' accommodate the anticipated number of automobiles on the road at general plan buildout. 11. The alteration of the roadway has the potential to alter the ' distribution or the growth rate of the human population in the Orange County area. The road will provide some excess capacity which may enable the approval of some additional development and ' is addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for GPA 85-1(B) under the "Increased Trend Growth" scenario. IF 529 I I 1 IJ 13c. Redesignation of the roadway will have a substantial impact upon existing transportation systems. This impact is anticipated to be a positive one in that the road will be designated with sufficient capacity to sustain planned development. This dis- cussion is based upon the information included in the Environ- mental Impact Report prepared for GPA 85-1(B). 13d. The proposal could alter the present patterns of circulation or movement of people in that MacArthur Boulevard will function at a better service level. 13f. The construction of an eight -lane road could increase traffic hazardous to bicycle or pedestrian. A person attempting to cross the eight -lane roadway will incur an increased hazard than would normally result from a six -lane road in the same location. This is an incremental increase, but similar in nature to that iden- tified in the Environmental Impact Report for GPA 85-l(B). 14b. The construction of an eight -lane road could increase the need for governmental services in the area of police protection. This is due to the potential for increased traffic violations along the eight -lane road. These effects are addressed in the Environ- mental Impact Report prepared for GPA 85-l(B). 14e. The construction of an eight -lane road will increase maintenance costs of the road due to the increased roadway width. This effect is addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for 'GPA 16. The increased roadway width may result in construction of roadway over any or all of the listed public utilities. This will be determined at the time the road is built and engineering drawings are prepared. 18. The construction of an eight -lane road will result in a broader expanse of paved area which may be considered offensive from an aesthetic viewpoint. The effects, however, are considered similar to the effects of the six -lane road and are addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for GPA 85-l(B). 20. The construction of an eight -lane road will disrupt more land than that required by a six -lane road. This could result in an alteration of significant archaeological or paleontological resources. The effects of the eight -lane road, however, are considered similar to the effects of construction of a six -lane road and are addressed in the Environmental Impact Report pre- pared for GPA 85-l(B). PLT3 1 �I 530 on the bisis of this initial evalwtion: [] I find that the propsod ptojoct COOL" MOT have a significant effect on tie onvitoamosts and a MATIVA MCIdMTION will be prepared. [] I find that altbegh tbo "re"aeed project could .Iisve a significant effoctvn the emirornont► tboe will sot be a signifieeaVeffact in this case because the mitigation isossoree described on an attatbed sheet baw beau addd to the "eject. A MMATIVI gMCLAMTION will bo "re"ard. ® 1 find ebe "reposed "reject wt bate a significant 'effect' on the MmIrwmsnt. and an UUMN SWUL TWWT NMI is required. �I thei =eN it to foeoat far only owiss�• etero pat ,;, 6 fi _CC_�z__ d loblie agencies are free to devioG /D 79 531 1 SHUTE, MIHALY 6 WEINBERGER ' ATTORNEYS AT LAW E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR. 396 HAYES STREET TERRELLJ WATT, AICP MARK I WEINBERGER SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 URBAN PLANNER MARC B. MIHALY, R C. (415) 552.7272 DANIEL S. MILLER ALLETTA D'A. BELIN ENVIRONMENTAL FELLOW FRAN M.LAYTON RACHEL B. HOOPER June 16, 1698 co 9 R�r I�• F'�+ �� 4'F i0 r' T FEDERAL EXPRESS ' Patricia Temple v`�� Nam`'• Environmental Review Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Improper Reliance Upon ' The EIR For GPA 85-1(B), For Proposed GPA 86-2(A) ' Dear Ms. Temple: This letter ioi submitted on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (�h�reinafter "Sp N"). SPON's purpose in submitting this letter is to object to the use of the Newport Center EIR for GPA 86-2(A) for at least the following reasons: ' 1. The EIR has not yet been certified, nor has a final EIR been completed. Thus, the Planning Commission does not have before it all the relevant information on which to base a decision as required by law. 2. As stated previously in our comment letter of May 28, 1986 regarding GPA 85-1(B), we have serious doubts as to the legal sufficiency of the environmental impact report (hereinafter "EIR") prepared for the Newport Center expansion project. For purposes of brevity, we hereby refer to and incorporate specific comments enumerated in our letter of May 28, 1986. ' 3. In addition to the specific inadequacies expressed in our prior letter, we believe the EIR is deficient and cannot be used for the purpose of addressing u 1 W 532 ' Patricia Temple June 16, 1986 Page 2 the impacts associated with the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to redesignate McArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial (eight lanes divided). Set forth below are our specific comments. ' Project Description The project description contained in the EIR with , respect to the proposed McArthur Boulevard widening does not encompass the project proposed in GPA 86-2(A). The project description in the EIR states that the amendment to the , Circulation Element would result in a designation of McArthur Boulevard as "six -lane divided highway;" not an eight -lane divided highway as specified in GPA 86-2(A). (EIR at 30, 310.) Aside from a statement in the traffic , appendix (based on estimated traffic demand, with or without GPA 85-1(B)) that McArthur Boulevard from Ford Road to the Route 73 interchange Would need to be an eight -lane facility, there is no discussion or analysis of an eight -lane facility. (FXR, Volume IV qt 3-27 and 7-4.) An EIR or supplement to the SIR for 85-1(B) should be prepared which provides an accurate project description including the principle engineering proposals and other technical, economic and environmental characteristics of the project (e.g. is the roadway to be depressed; if so, how much earthwork is required, etc.). Absent an accurate project description, the environmental analysis cannot be adequate as is demonstrated below. Environmental Analysis ' The environmental analysis contained in the EIR does not address the proposed project. where improvements to McArthur Boulevard are addressed, they refer only to the t proposed widening to six -lanes, and analyze only impacts in the "vicinity" of Newport Center. For example, the noise section assumes a widening of McArthur Boulevard to six , lanes and analyzes noise impacts at 25 locations all south of San Miguel Drive (Well south of Ford Road). (EIR, Volume II at 30 et seq.) There is no noise analysis in the 1 533 Patricia Temple June 16, 1986 Page 3 EIR for the stretch of McArthur between Ford Road and Route 73. ' Project related impacts which are not discussed or analyzed in the EIR include: air quality; topography ("estimates of cut and fill are unknown at this time;" at 87); biology; archaeology and cultural resources; water quality, drainage and cumulative impacts, among others. Needless to say, the EIR also fails to list the significant ' adverse impacts associated with the project. Mitigation and Alternatives ' The lack of analysis of project related and cumulative impacts has the inevitable result of inadequate, actually nonexistent, discussions of mitigation measures and ' alternatives which may reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts. ' Recommendations i We respectful4l request that the Planning ' Commission reevaluate the decision to rely upon the EIR prepared for GPA 85-1(B) for the proposed project, and instead, prepare a new EIR or supplement to the prior EIR, ' which specifically addresses proposed GPA 86-2(A). Among the specific issues which should be addressed in a new EIR or supplement are the following: 1. A complete description of the project (depressed or at -grade, design capacity, alignment, etc.); 2. An analysis of project related and cumulative impacts; ' 3. A list of unavoidable significant adverse impacts related to the project; and 4. A description of mitigation measures and/or ' alternatives which may reduce or eliminate project impacts (i.e. will the completion of Pelican Hills Road and/or the 534 Patricia Temple June 16, 1986 Page 4 San Joaquin Hills Corridor render the project unnecessary to meet project demand with or without GPA 85-1(B)?). Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MMLY & WEINBERGER �-7" axtL TERRY WATT Urban Planner 030/sp2 cc: Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney Jean Watt f� h 17 L 1. L1 535 IJ 51- RECEIVED Y &."k = Pla rriMURRAY STORM De�artrtmdlt DIRECTOR, EMA I t J U L 2 1986 �► JC 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA N G E CITY Df SANTA ANA, CALIPORNIA %M- NEW PORT BEACH, MAILING ADDRESS: CALIF. ( ROBOX 4048 \ SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 CU TELEPHONE: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY (714) 834 zaos PILE NCG 4128 Mr. Robert L. Wynn City Manager City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: GPA 86-2(A): Redesignation of MacArthur Boulevard: initial Study ' Dear Mr. Wynn: The County of Orange has reviewed the Initial Study for the redesignation of ' MacArthur Boulevard. The project involves a proposed widening of MacArthur Boulevard �{o eight lanes between Ford Road and Route 73, and redesignation of it as a Ma or -modified Arterial through an amendment to the City's Circulation ' Element (GPA 86-2(A)). This agency supports, in concept, the proposed redesignation of MacArthur Boulevard. The reclassification of this segment of MacArthur Boulevard, a major arterial, from a six to eight lane arterial highway is appropriate for the forecast volumes contained in the City of Newport Beach's EIR for Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency will propose a reclassification of MacArthur Boulevard to reflect the City's proposal during the next County Transportation Element Amendment T86-3, which is tentatively scheduled for a Board of Supervisors hearing on November 19, 1986. The City's intention to utilize the DEIR prepared for GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites as the environmental documentation for GPA 86-2(A) (MacArthur Boulevard redesignation) raises some concerns. The EIR analysis used the assumption of widening this s arterial. An expansion to eight lanes for identified traffic -impacts of the Sites development. While the impacts may be similar to those of widening to assumed that the impacts are the same of the six -lane proposal. egment of MacArthur to a six -lane was suggested as a mitigation measure proposed Newport Center and Peripheral of widening to an eight -lane arterial a six -lane arterial, it cannot be nor adequately addressed by the analysis t /03 Rabert L. Wynn Page 2 536 Therefore, it is suggested that an Addendum to the EIR be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines to update the EIR analysis to address the proposed eight -lane widening. As an example, the Master Plan of County Bikeways, which depicts a Class I, off -road bikeway along the west side of MacArthur Boulevard should be discussed relative to the eight -lane expansion. The areas of land use, circulation, noise, air quality, biological and archaeological resources should also be assessed in the Addendum. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the initial Study. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this project. If you have any questions or Comments on this matter, please contact Sara Anderson at 834-3686, Very truly yours, M. Storm, Director Environmental Management Agency BBskhPL02-26 6178 cc: Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach I rI L r I L t n L F L lay 537 COMMENTS: Regarding Adequacy of Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendment 86-2(A) Commentors Comment/Response Series 1. Letter - June 16, 1986 2SMW 1-14 Terry Watt, Urban Planner Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger for Stop Polluting Our Newport(SPON) 2. Letter - July 2, 1986 CO 1-2 M. Storm, Director Environmental Management Agency County of Orange h 105 538 U�SpONSE8 The following section responds to all comments related to the Draft Environmental Impact Report being used for General plan Amendment 86-2<A>. Several comments do not address the complete- ness or adequacy of the EIR, do not raise significant environmen- tal issues, or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act. Such comments are responded with a "comment acknowledged" reference. This indi- cates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decisionmakers for their review and consideration. L 17 L__ r1 L 1 7 L r1l L L F 539 SHUTS MIHALY & WEINBERGER 2SMW 1 Comment ' The SIR has not yet been certified, nor has a final SIR been completed. Thus, the Planning Commission does not have before it all the relevant information on which to base a decision as required by law. 2SMW 1 Response The SIR referred to in this comment is that which was prepared for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). As indicated in the Initial Study accompanying the envirommnetal notice for the'General Plan ' Amendment under consideration, the proposal is in essence a "mitigation measure" related to cummulative impacts impact identified in that SIR. J I� J J Section iS153 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows a Lead Agency to use 'an SIR prepared in connection with an earlier project to apply to a later project, if the circumstances of the projects are essentially the same. This section sets forth the specific procedures an agency is to follow in this circumstance. This section does not reauire that an SIR be certified in order for the document to be used as the SIR for the project at hand. It does require, in the event the SIP. is deemend adequate by the decision makers, that the document'be certified as required by Section 15090, that findings be made as provided by Sections IS091 and 1S093 if necessary, and that a Notice of Determination be filed. The Planning Commission is not a decision making body for projects which involve a General Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council in such matters. The public hearing held by the Planning Commission will also be a public hearing on the adequacy of the SIR prepared for. GPA 85-1(B) to serve as the environmental document for this project. Section 15087(g) of the State CEQA Guidelines regarding public review of a Draft SIR states: "public hearings may be conducted on the environmental documents, either in separate proceedings or in connuction with other proceedings of the public agency. Public hearings are encouraged, but not required as an element of the CEQA process." The City of Newport Beach encour- ages public participation throughout the preparation and review of environmental documentation. During Planning Commission and City Council hearings on a project for which an environmental document has been prepared, the hearing on the document remains open until action is taken on the project iri order to solicit public input throughout the public review process. 2SMW 2 Comment As stated previously in our comment letter of May 28, 1966 regarding CPA 85-l(B), we have serious doubts as to the legal sufficiency of the environmental impact report (hereinafter "EIR") prepared for the Newport Center expansion project. For purposes of brevity, we hereby refer to and incorporate specific /0"7 540 comments enumerated in our letter of May 28, 1986. 2SMW 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by the deciaionmakers. Responses to comments contained in the letter from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger dated May 28, 1986 provided in Volume 5 of the Draft EIR prepared for General Plan Amendment 85-1CB) are hereby incorporated as reponaea to thoae specific comments enumerated in said letter. 2SMW 3 Comment In addition to the specific inadequacita expressed in our prior letter, we believe the EIR is deficient and cannot be used for the purposes of addresr.ing the impacts associated with the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to redesignate MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial (eight -lanes, divided). Set forth below are our specific comments. 2SMW 3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of th.a project for review and consideration by the decisionmakers. 2SMW 4 Comment The project description contained in the EIR with respect to the proposed MacArthur Boulevard widening does not encompass the project proposed in GPA 86-2(A). The projact description in the EIR states that the amendment to the Circulation Element would result in a designation of MacArthur Boulevard as a "eix-lane divided highway," not an eight -lane divided highway as apec_fieG in GPA 86-2(A). 2SMW 4 Response The purpose of Section 15153 of the State CEQA Guidelines is to enable use of an EIR prepared for an earlier project to be used if the environmental aetting, significant effects, and alterna- tive* and mitigation measures are essentially the &axe, The project description for the additional General Plan Amendment was contained in the notice required by this section. 2SMW 5 Comment Aside from a statement in the traffic appendix tBased on estima- ted traffic demand, with or without GPA 85-i(B>] that MacArthur Boulevard from Ford Road to Route 73 interchange would need to be an eight -lane facility, there is no discussion or analysis of an eight -lane facility. I r I r--, L �I L_ 1 I 1 L I 7 541 I J �ii 2SMW 5 Response The discussion of environmental effects in the EIR relative to the proposal in many areas relates to the physical environmental effects engendered as a result of increased daily traffic generated. The environmental analysis conducted in the EIR used the daily traffic volumes projected for the road in the areas of air quality, noise etc. The initial study indicates that the increased roadway width may increase some of the future construc- tion related impacts associated with the road.. It is important to remember in the assessment of the adequacy of the EIR to consider the project at hand that the project is an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, not a proposal to construct the road. Section 15146(b) of the State CEQA Guide- lines states that "an EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from t},e adoption or amendment. :ut need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow." In fact, it is not anticipated that construction of this road widening will occur for many years. The amendment is being considered now in order to insure that the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of the Newport General Plan remain consistent. 2SMW 6 - Comment An EIR, or supplement to the EIR. for SS-1(B) should be prepared which provides an accurate project description including the principal engineering proposals and other technical, economic and environmental characteristics of the project (e.g. is the roadway to be depressed; if so, how much earthwork is required, etc.). Absent an accurate project description, the environmental analysis cannot be adequate as is demontrated below. 2SMW 6 - Response Please refer to 2SMW 5 - Response. At the time construction of the road widening is being considered, review of the project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act will be required. 2SMW 7 - Comment The environmental analysis contained in the EIR does not address the proposed project. Where improvements to MacArthur Boulevard are addressed, they refer only to the proposed widening to six - lanes, and analyse only impacts in the vicinity of Newport Center. : 2SMW 7 - Response As delineated by 2SMW response number 5, the level of detail required for an environmental document of a general plan amend- ment need not be as detailed a one prepared for construction of the project. The secondary effects of the redesignation of the /09 542 I general plan amendment have been addreased in that the air, noise and traffic analyses are based on total anticipated traffic. In addition, analyaea where included assesaing the impacts of development in excess of that which is currently planned in the County. To the extent that the project will eventually allow for increased development through the provision of additional roadway capacity, these impacts have also been addressed in the environ- mental impact report prepared for General Plan Amendment 2SMW 8 - Comment For example# the noise section assume& a widening Of MacArthur Boulevard to six lane& and analyses noise impacts at 2$ locations all south of San Miguel Drive (well south of Ford Road). There is no noise analysis in the SIR for the stretch of MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73. 2 SMW 8 - Response The analysis included noise analysis for MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road which includes the segment under consideration. Noise projections are based on daily volumes and are measured from the centerline of the roadway. impacts are, therefore projected for the anticipated impacts. 2 SMW 9 - Comment Project related impacts which are not discussed or analysed in SIR included: air quality, topography, biology# archaeology and cultural resources, water quality, drainage and cumulative impacts, amoung other^. Needless to say, the SIR also fails to lint the significant adverse impacts associated with the project, 2 SMW 9 - Response Refer to response number S. 2 SMW 10 - Comment The lack of analysis of project related and cumulative impacts has the inevitable result of inadequate, actually nonexistent, discussions of mitigation measures and alternatives which may reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts. 2 SMW 10 Response Please refer of 2 SMW response 5. Project alternatives were analysed in detail. Alternatives included a broad range of circulation system alternatives associated with the local and regional circulation system. 2 SMW 11 - Comment I 1 11 11 E C' II We respectfully request. that the Planning Commission reevaluate )ID 543 the decision to rely upon the EIR for GPA 85-1(B) for the proposed project, and instead, prepare a new EIR or supplement to the prior EIR, which specifically addresses proposed GPA 86-2(A). Among the specific issues which should be addressed in a new EIR ' or supplement are the following: 1. A complete description of the project (depressed or at grade, design capacity, alignment, etc.); 2. An analysis of project related and cumulative impacts; 3. A list of unavoidable significant adverse impacts related to the project; and 4. A description of mitigation measures and/or alterna- tives which may reduce or eliminate proDect impacts (i.e. will the completion of Pelican Hill Road and/or the San ' Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor render the protect unnessary to meet project demand with or without GPA SS- 1CB>?). 2 SMW 11 - Response �I I i J u J J Comment is noted. The EIR for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) analysed the need for the redesigr.at'ion in detail on the basis of the ultimate roadway configuration in the County. The informa- tion in the traffic study indicates that the redesignation is needed with or without the various roadways mentioned. CO I.- Comment The City's intention to utilize the DEIR prepared for GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral sites as the environmental documen-% tation for GPA 86-2(A) raises some concerns. The EIR analysis used the assumption of widening this segment of MacArthur to a six -lane arterial. An expansion to eight lanes was suggested as a mitigation measure for identified traffic impacts of the proposed Newport Center and Peripheral sites development. While the impacts of widening to an eight -lane arterial may be similar to those of wideneing to a six -lane arterial, it cannot be assumed that the impacts are the same nor adequately addressed by the analysis of the six-lane,proposal. CO 1 - Response The need to widen MacArthur,Boulevard is needed with or without the Newport Center Project. The actual widening will not be made a requirement of the project, but will only actually be construc- ted if needed in the Suture. The project at hand is a General Plan Amendment only. Please refer to 2 SMW 5 response. CO 2 - Comment Therfore, it is suggested that an addendum to the EIP, be prepared !// 544 pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality ' Act Guidelines to update the ESR analysis to adraaa the proposed eight -lane widening. As an example, the Master Plan of County Bikeways, which depicts a Class Z, off -road bikeway along the west side of MacArthur Boulevard should be discussed relative to ' the eight -lane expansion. The areas of land use, circulation, noise, air quality, biological and archaeological resources should also be assessed in the Addendum. ' CO 2 - Response Please refer to 2 SMW reaponae 5 and CO 1 reaponae. ' I I I r7 L 7 7