Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/1986COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES x x PLACE: City Council Chambers C °v = TIME: 7:30 p.m. _ � m ' i DATE: May 22, 1986 9 z a a m City of Newport Beach 9 ROLL CALL INDEX Present x x N x x x Commissioner Winburn was absent. Absent x * x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney * � f 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 0 11111111 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 between 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 x Motion was made to approve' the amended May 22, 1986, Ayes x x x x planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION Absent x CARRIED. x it ,t 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 May 8, 198E Request for wMMU�ivNtK� MINUTES x May 22, 1986 � a C o 0 s v x Ayes _ C v m 2 c m a m = x Y x I z N o r O O MM = a = M m City of Newport Beach Absent x a ROLL CALL (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of June INDEX Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended), Bubbles Balboa Club, Ltd, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 19, 1986. Motion x Motion was made to continue Item No. 10, Use Permit No. Ayes x x Y x x x 1758 (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of Absent x 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. r x t Final Map of Tract No. 11949 (Discussion) Item No.l Request to approve a Final Map of Tract No. 11949 Final Map subdividing 16.085 acres of land into 5 numbered lots of Tract for residential condominium purposes, 5 lettered lots No.11949 for private open space purposes, 2 lettered lots for public recreational purposes and one lettered lot for Approved 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 x Motion was made to approve the Final Map of Tract No. Ayes x x x x x 11949 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit Abstain x "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Absent x 0 11111111 FINDING: 1. That the proposed Final Map substantially conforms with the Tentative Map and with all .changes -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES z z _ May 22, 1986 C O O `{ 1 T 9 9 = 9 T 2 C T D PI 2 A z p z T m City of Newport Beach C z m O x O O ROLL CALL INDEX 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. amp B. Amendment No. 9 to the City of Newport Beach Local 1LCP/LUP Amendment Coastal Program, Land Use Plan (Continued Public No. 9 Hearing) Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Resolution Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, No.1140 and PCH /Jamboree sites. Approved 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- A. General Plan Amendment No. 85- l(B)(Continued Public Item No.2 Hearing) General Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circu- Plan lation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Amendment Newport Beach General Plan; so as to allow construction No.85 -1(B) of an additional 1,275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, • 248,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant use and 700 Resolution No.1139 residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to Approved 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. amp B. Amendment No. 9 to the City of Newport Beach Local 1LCP/LUP Amendment Coastal Program, Land Use Plan (Continued Public No. 9 Hearing) Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Resolution Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, No.1140 and PCH /Jamboree sites. Approved 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- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES x May 22, 1986 c o 0 S H p 9 v m Z c m a m Z M Z a= T m City of Newport Beach c Z 0 O Z o 0 9 ROLLCALLI INDEX 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 • I ( I I agreement that an establishment of a use of this nature is appropriate within Newport Center, and that the location is acceptable. WC 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. 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. • I I I 1 I I 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- MINUTES INDEX May 22, 1986 x F 2 c m r v a m m = c z O r 0 0 m M z m=, l City 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. 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. • I I I 1 I I 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- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS May 22, 1956 x x o C x 9 y m C 2 co v r 0 0 I z n T l City of Newport Beach a a=� MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX 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 pointed 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 standpoint; 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- 'N MISSIONERS May 22, 1486 c o In response to a question posed by Commissioner f y a v = v r v m z c m y m z Koppelman regarding the square footage of the 245 C z m p r o 0 z a z m City of Newport Beach a=, MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill -INDEX 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- MINUTES 111 May 22, 1986 7 F C o = £ a the proposal and Mr. Neish opined that everyone agrees y v T m with the land use for the site, that the addition of a c m y, z the high quality mid -rise office space is important in C z H o X o A= o j City of Newport Beach 9 z m 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: -8- 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 is 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 Orange 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- COMMISSIONERS 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 -9- MINUTES x x C o � F z a = - C 9 r v m z c m o m z W a = r Z c= 0 p S 0 0 0 M z 0 19 ' '� az .i m 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 -9- MINUTES MMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 X x C o n f y a v m v r a 2 C m s m z c Z W a r O O M Z Z T m City of Newport Beach .7 S 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 Bay 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- MINUTES INDEX Westbay: 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 Planning Commission representing the Natural History • 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- MINUTES INDEX May 22, 1986 x C o n m z c v m y m z n= a T m I City of Newport Beach a Westbay: 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 Planning Commission representing the Natural History • 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- MINUTES INDEX MMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 X 0 111 c o 0 formed, was charged with the responsibility to r v m z c m a m z determine the feasibility. of a teen youth facility to 0 p c 2 ; o O 9= City of Newport Beach x a m 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. Deven 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. Deven stated that the background of this particular issue is that on January 13, 1986, the Ad Hoc Committee that was previously -12- MINUTES INDEX 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 Newport Beach Restaurant Association, the Committee -12- MINUTES INDEX CUM \bNUNtKS MINUTES May 22, 1986 c o 0 x m z c m> m z M ( City of Newport Beach C z H o r o o ROLL CAL777= I I INDEX 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- WMN\bNUNLK5 MINUTES � T May 22, 1986 c o O `L ti T L 9 m r v z c m a m z 9 A= j City of Newport Beach C= 0 0 C O O ROLL CALL INDEX stated that she approves of the subject General Plan Amendment; 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. In response to questions posed by Commissioner 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 • 11111111 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- MINUTES May 22, 1986 t Beach INDEX 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 I I I I I I 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- C F C v = m C a i M Cz0O i m ;° 0 M m o m> * r °City of 2 9 Z a i r m MINUTES May 22, 1986 t Beach INDEX 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 I I I I I I 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- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 111 May 22, 1986 X X C O 11111111 x v � v m z c m o m z C z 0 v a o o IIM z z a= M m City of Newport Beach a 29, 1986, and that the Planning Commission could not ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I 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. He 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. Sean Watt, representing SPON, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Watt commented that she was 11111111 of the opinion that the comment period was over on May 29, 1986, and that the Planning Commission could not -16- COMMISSIONERS 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. May 22, 1986 x x In response to a question posed by Commissioner T. C o Eichenhofer regarding the detailed illustrations of O H major intersections, Mrs. Watt replied that she has not z c 9 m y > s m read Volume 3 and Volume 4 of the Environmental Impact m z =Z W o; o M of m M = M questions posed by Chairman Person, Mrs. Watt replied City Y of Newport p Beach _ that members of the City Council have given several 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. -17- MINUTES 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- MINUTES May 22, 1986 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 5:00 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 I I 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. CIVE MINUTES INDEX X F 9 9 = ti 9 r y T z c m Z" z C z w o r 0 =O Zm0 City of Z a z x z 2 Z , a m MI May 22, 1986 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 5:00 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 I I 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. CIVE MINUTES INDEX 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. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 • I I + I I I Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road, and have those I improvements in place before considering widening MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes. -19- MINUTES May 22, 1986 _ n f a v = v v m C 2 c m > s m z WZ 9 H z o; a o T of m City v of Newport p Beach x 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. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 • I I + I I I Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road, and have those I improvements in place before considering widening MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes. -19- MINUTES MINUTES 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. • I I I i I I I I 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- May 22, 1986 x _ c o m z C v m y ,n z C z M= m a; a 0 T 0 m I City of Newport Beach a 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. • I I I i I I I I 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- COMMISSIONERS x May 22, 1986 c o m z c m y m z C Z 0 c r O T O 9 = 8 = m City of Newport 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(13) 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. Red x x x Chairman Person recommended a vote on whether to Green x continue the item for two weeks (green) or to take Absent x 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- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Land Use Element: Motion x Motion was made to approve (1) Fashion Island: Add Ayes x x Y Y 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 x Motion was made to approve (2) Block 600: Add 300,000 Ayes IxJxJ JxJxJ 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. x x Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support t x the motion. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -22- z C C O �+ z c m a m z M a a z r O x c z 0 0 K 0 0 M ao m> r 2 , 2 m MINUTES May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Land Use Element: Motion x Motion was made to approve (1) Fashion Island: Add Ayes x x Y Y 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 x Motion was made to approve (2) Block 600: Add 300,000 Ayes IxJxJ JxJxJ 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. x x Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support t x the motion. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -22- COMMISSIONERS Motion x • Substitute Motion x May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach 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 xlxlxlxlxl, land use designation from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi- Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change the land use designation -23- MINUTES INDEX x x C o x _ a 9 y m C z c m a m = W S a= r x m 0 M o m s 2 9 = 9 = m Motion x • Substitute Motion x May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach 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 xlxlxlxlxl, land use designation from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi- Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change the land use designation -23- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX _ for Villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi- Family Residential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion xx Motion was made to adopt (6) Corporate Plaza West: o x x x F x C Change the land use designation from "Retail and Absent x y v m Service Commercial with Alternate Land Use" to "Admin- z c m y, z m p Cz x= N r °; 0 ° Z a m 0 m s m °City of z a z a z r M m May 22, 1986 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX _ for Villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi- Family Residential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made to adopt (6) Corporate Plaza West: Ayes x x x x x x Change the land use designation from "Retail and Absent x 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. Motion 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. moitute Chairman Person made a substitute motion to change on 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. Ayes ( Ix Ix I x x� x� x' Motion voted on to amend Newport Village. MOTION Absent x CARRIED. -24- MINUTES x May 22, 1986 c o 0 x o M v a m z c m y m z C M= a a T m City of Newport Beach C 2 0 p 9 0 0 9 IRL CALL INDEX Motion 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 substitute motion to increase the day care center to Motion x 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. Ayes x x 2 x x x Motion voted on to amend Avocado /MacArthur. MOTION Absent x CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made to adopt (9) Big Canyon /MacArthur: Ayes x x X x x x Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Absent x Environmental Open Space" to "Multi- Family Residen- tial," at a maximum of 60 dwelling units. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -25- COMM1551C�NtKS MINUTES x May 22, 1986 c O �! S 9 9 r v m z c m m z X= a T m( City of Newport Beach _ 0 o 3 O O ROLL CALL INDEX 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 N 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- COMMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 t 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. Substitute Commissioner Goff made a substitute motion to approve Motion x 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- MINUTES INDEX a F c o C 9 r y m z c m y m z m a `= A m z r r °; m ° x °j 0 W m o m m City of Z m 2 a s v m May 22, 1986 t 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. Substitute Commissioner Goff made a substitute motion to approve Motion x 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- MINUTES INDEX 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 tip 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 Ayes x x x x level, access for commercial uses shall be determined Noes by the City Engineer, one of the facilities may be used t x as a Teen Center. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. on x 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 set 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, Ms. 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 I t I I Designation, and that the museum would not require a I separate category. Chairman Person commented that it would not be precluded. In response to Commissioner -28- MINUTES INDEX May 22, 1986 x T C o n f m i 9 v 2 c m m a =Z H z o >ool , M = > m City v f Newport p Beach a= T 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 tip 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 Ayes x x x x level, access for commercial uses shall be determined Noes by the City Engineer, one of the facilities may be used t x as a Teen Center. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. on x 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 set 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, Ms. 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 I t I I Designation, and that the museum would not require a I separate category. Chairman Person commented that it would not be precluded. In response to Commissioner -28- MINUTES INDEX Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion to t Motion Ayes Absent 0 COMMISSIONERS x x(x JxJxJx Of May 22, 1986 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. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (12) Westbay: 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. xlxl 4 4 x1x1 Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. xJxJJ J]JJ Motion was made to adopt (13) San Diego Creek North: Add a 2.5 acre Fire Station reservation to the site. 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: xI I I I I I 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. .1'1'11111 Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -29- MINUTES INDEX x x c o 9 9 = T T T C 2 C m > m S W D D r Z 0 2 C Z N a L O O 0 M 2 A = y a T T x x(x JxJxJx Of May 22, 1986 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. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (12) Westbay: 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. xlxl 4 4 x1x1 Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. xJxJJ J]JJ Motion was made to adopt (13) San Diego Creek North: Add a 2.5 acre Fire Station reservation to the site. 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: xI I I I I I 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. .1'1'11111 Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -29- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSICNNERS MINUTES X x 111 May 22, 1986 C o x M C _ v a °y z c m m z 9 A = T City of Newport Beach C z w v 9 0 0 p R L CALL INDEX Circulation Element: Motion x I I I Motion was made to adopt: (1) Delete Avocado Ave- 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 Koppelman, Commissioner Turner commented that Avocado Avenue will be straightened. Ayes x x k x Absent x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. 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 x 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 GPA 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 1 x Ix Ix 1 1 1 xl x Motion 0 l J■ May 22, 1986 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. 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 (308) 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 x x C o 0 x _ c v m C z c m y m z M a r x c z a a ; p o 0 0 W m 0 o m> M r 2 9 2 a a T m Ayes Absent 1 x Ix Ix 1 1 1 xl x Motion 0 l J■ May 22, 1986 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. 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 (308) 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 COMMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 Beach 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for any development permitted by GPA 85 -1(B), 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. Ayes x xxxx Absent x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Land Use Phasing: Motion x Motion was made to adopt: Phase I: No residential (PCH /Jamboree, Newport Village, Newporter North, Big Canyon) units required for: A. Fashion island Expansion B. Civic Plaza Expansion Center Ayes X Xi xxx Absent x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. It 1XI 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 Substitute Chairman Person made a substitute motion stating that 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 INDEX x x n f n v x y 9 r M m Z c m y m Z W a `Z a y Z r °; ° 0 x °j s ° a City of Z Z Z a z r m May 22, 1986 Beach 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for any development permitted by GPA 85 -1(B), 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. Ayes x xxxx Absent x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Land Use Phasing: Motion x Motion was made to adopt: Phase I: No residential (PCH /Jamboree, Newport Village, Newporter North, Big Canyon) units required for: A. Fashion island Expansion B. Civic Plaza Expansion Center Ayes X Xi xxx Absent x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. It 1XI 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 Substitute Chairman Person made a substitute motion stating that 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 INDEX COMMISSIONERS May zz, 1986 MINUTES xx C o n zC m a ,Dy m z c a m z a Z A= r m City of Newport Beach di 01 z c z H p r o o ROLL CALL INDEX 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- COMMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 F F C O O x m Z C c m y m z c z m o r 0 0 i z A Z 9 z T m City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX 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. S itute Commissioner Goff made a substitute motion to adopt 0 x Phase IIa as recommended by staff. Ayes x x x x Substitute motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Noes x Absent x Motion was made to adopt Phase IIb: 400 additional Motion x units must have building permits issued and substantial Ayes x x x x progress in construction before issuance of occupancy Absent x permits for: Block 600. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt Phase III: Completion and Motion Certificate of Occupancy for 800 dwelling units before Ayes x x x x building permits issued for: A. Block 800; B. Corporate Absent x Plaza West. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Circulation Phasing: Motion I jxj I I I Motion was made to adopt (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. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Webb replied that the item was primarily to cover dedications between Jamboree Boulevard and Bayside Drive. Ayes x x x x x x - Absent x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -34- CUN\N\bNUNER5 May 22, 1986 MINUTES x x C o 0 `< ti r v z c m Y m z m A A a r 0 0 M Z a= T m City of Newport Beach A 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: - 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- COMMISSIONERS F C o x v 9 y m Z C m m Z T a=� Z m May 22, 1986 i Z I City of Newport Beach 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 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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- MINUTES 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. • May 22, 1986 I c o ( I 1 I I all of Fashion Island in Phase I, and the deletion of I I` residental and moving that down into another Phase? Z a T y" Z W 9 z = , I City of Newport Beach a m 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. • I I Commissioner Koppelman asked what is. accomplished by ( I 1 I I all of Fashion Island in Phase I, and the deletion of I I` residental and moving that down into another Phase? -37- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS MINUTES x x May 22, 1986 c o x F22 v v m m y" z r, z n = _ m `City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 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. . x x x x x x Chairman Person stated that he would support moving b t x Pacific Coast Highway /Jamboree Boulevard and Big Canyon /MacArthur Boulevard to Phase 2. He opined that Ayes x x x x x x Newporter North is too dense a project to have built Absent x before construction of Pelican Hill Road. Commissioner Koppelman cited that Newporter North is Substitute one area that had bond financing. She made a substi- Motion tute motion that Phase 2 would remain the same with the exception that Newporter North, Pacific Coast Highway /Jamboree Boulevard, Big Canyon/MacArthur Boulevard and all of Fashion Island be added to Phase x 2. Commissioner Goff stated that he would support the substitute motion, because there has been plent3 of inducement for The Irvine Company to start Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. Amendment I I Ix I I I I I Chairman Person advised that he would accept Commis - to Motion sioner Koppelman 's suggestion as an amendment to his motion. Commissioner Koppelman concurred. Ayes x x x x x x Motion voted on to adopt Phase 2: b t x MOTION CARRIED. Motion voted on to adopt Phase 3: Ayes x x x x x x Absent x MOTION CARRIED. -38- MINUTES Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes 0t Motion Ayes . Absent Motion Ayes Absent X Motion voted on to adopt Phase 5: MOTION CARRIED. Other Requirements: X Motion was made to adopt (7): A landscape program for X x x x x x MacArthur Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by x 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 improvements. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. 4 x Motion was made to adopt (2) i 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 x IxI 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 x 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- 11 May 22, 1986 x c x o x y z c v m m m z c z a 0 = v A 3 O = T O m City of Newport Beach p IRL CALL INDEX x x x x nt x Motion voted on to adopt Phase 4: MOTION CARRIED. Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes 0t Motion Ayes . Absent Motion Ayes Absent X Motion voted on to adopt Phase 5: MOTION CARRIED. Other Requirements: X Motion was made to adopt (7): A landscape program for X x x x x x MacArthur Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by x 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 improvements. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. 4 x Motion was made to adopt (2) i 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 x IxI 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 x 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- COMMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 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 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. Motion 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 I I I I 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, 1995 ". 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 -40- MINUTES INDEX C F c o y v m z c m y m z m M `_ z " z r °$ m x ° Z m o m a � r ° City of Z a z n z r m May 22, 1986 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 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. Motion 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 I I I I 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, 1995 ". 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 -40- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 C z _ C O n D y 2 - - - O T Z C T' y T Z C= w or.00 M z m City X_, I 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. is 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. Ayes x x x x x Noes Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Absent x Motion was made to adopt (6) All mitigation measures Motion x 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 INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES INDEX 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 May 22, 1986 x x x _ x C O Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. O F ti a v Motion was made to adopt (7): The Irvine Company shall = x 2 c V m y ; y ," aggressively pursue all necessary approvals and con- m 2 C z C 9 0 z O x 0 T 0 m A= Road to Pelican Hill Road. I City of Newport Beach Commissioner Kurlander inquired if "constructed as a INDEX 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 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 fent designated. x x x x x x 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 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 x xxx Absent x lll 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. • I I I I I Commissioner Kurlander stated that he would not support the substitute motion because the footprint of the buildings would not change. -42- COMMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 Beach 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. Ayes Noes I I x Ix I ] I x) xl Substitute motion was voted on to increase the office Absent x development to 380,000 square feet. MOTION FAILED. x x Motion was voted on to increase the office development x x to 440,000 square feet. MOTION CARRIED. t x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1139 recommend- ing approval of General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) and Motion x accepting the environmental document, and Resolution Ayes x x x x x x No. 1140 recommending approval of Amendment No. 9 to Absent x 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. 0 :r x -43- MINUTES INDEX x x � ' D 1 = H D 9 T ma p x `= W Z� ° ` 0 ° °City o ms,+ r of Z D 2 Z D Z T m May 22, 1986 Beach 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. Ayes Noes I I x Ix I ] I x) xl Substitute motion was voted on to increase the office Absent x development to 380,000 square feet. MOTION FAILED. x x Motion was voted on to increase the office development x x to 440,000 square feet. MOTION CARRIED. t x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1139 recommend- ing approval of General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) and Motion x accepting the environmental document, and Resolution Ayes x x x x x x No. 1140 recommending approval of Amendment No. 9 to Absent x 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. 0 :r x -43- MINUTES INDEX May 22, 1986 Beach A. Amendment No. 634 (Public Hearing) MINUTES Item No.3 Request to establish Planned Community � x JA634 Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development TS Plan for the development of the Point Del Mar Planned ° Community, and the acceptance of an environmental TTM12209 document: C S 2 W °_ Z� ° ; G) °° D m 0 o m T m City of 2 D Z S z z n m May 22, 1986 Beach A. Amendment No. 634 (Public Hearing) MINUTES Item No.3 Request to establish Planned Community Development JA634 Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development TS Plan for the development of the Point Del Mar Planned 8825 Community, and the acceptance of an environmental TTM12209 document: WED 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) 1111111 Request to consider a resubdivision of the subject property so as to create one parcel of land for convey- ance purposes. WIMP 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. 0 11111111 ZONE: P-C -44- Approved APPLICANT: Real Estate Development Corporation, Tustin OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Fuscoe Williams Lindgren & Short, Santa 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 ". I I I I I I 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. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Environmental Impact Report, Ayes x x x x x Amendment No. 634, Traffic Study, Resubdivision No. Absent x 825, Tentative Map of Tract No. 12209, subject to the 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- MINUTES INDEX May 22, 1986 x 1 O F y 9 p 9 m z c m o m z _ A w = O z A = O O T m City of Newport Beach APPLICANT: Real Estate Development Corporation, Tustin OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Fuscoe Williams Lindgren & Short, Santa 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 ". I I I I I I 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. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Environmental Impact Report, Ayes x x x x x Amendment No. 634, Traffic Study, Resubdivision No. Absent x 825, Tentative Map of Tract No. 12209, subject to the 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- MINUTES INDEX ROLL COMMISSIONERS xx c o � x m z c m> m z W a 9 z r 0 2 ` c z y o 0 0 Izm o ma r +� Z a z s z m m G May 22, 1986 of Newaort 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.l. 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 -of -Sight Requirements' draw- ing." C. TRAFFIC STUDY 10010301eblr I I I I I I I 1 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 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES A X T May 22, 1986 C O f y 9 a v = r v m z c m y m z z a z A=0 m City of Newport Beach a ROLL CALL INDEX 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. 1/ u 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- COMMISSIONERS x May 22, 1986 c O � F y 9 a v m r v z c m a m = I Z D= = T m i City of Newport Beach E. Tentative Map of Tract No. 12209 (Revised) 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, 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. MINUTES INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That all the conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 825 be fulfilled. is2. That a final map be recorded. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee MINUTES INDEX MMISSIONERS MINUTES A F 111 May 22, 1986 C o x V A y m z c m a m z Z a z a=* m j City of Newport Beach C z N o s 0 0 ROLL CALL I III Jill I 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 • 11111111 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. 8. 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. • 10. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, man- holes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Depart- ment. Om ROLL 0 • May 22, 1986 Beach 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 engineer; 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 storm 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. -50- MINUTES Pt Z C o 0 f a v x v r v m C z c m s m z m A `Z D W = r 0 ° x M m o M; m a r °City of Z a z a z r m May 22, 1986 Beach 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 engineer; 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 storm 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. -50- MINUTES ROLL 0 COMMISSIONERS z z C O O x z c m a m z ma a zr a x ICZ N O ;OO�C�t Of aM o ma m+i za = m=.� m May 22, 1986 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- MINUTES y May 22, 1986 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- MINUTES ROLL 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 structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department • I j ( I I I ( ( that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan.) -52- MINUTES May 22, 1986 s _ c o n f y v z C 2 N z p r 0 0 M a=, I City 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 structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department • I j ( I I I ( ( that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan.) -52- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS 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. I 144. 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 x x C o � f n v m y v r z c m y m z m A A z S C z m o r 3 0 0 0 M m o m a T m Z a = y z m m 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. I 144. 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 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES xx May 22, 1986 c o 0 IM x v a v m 2 c m a m z W w= m z m m City of Newport Beach z w p n o a 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. 0 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 MacArthur 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 K -5 and X -6. -54- "/V\ISSIONERS x x May 22, 1986 c o � x T a y m z c m y m z m z,= r m 1 City of Newport Beach a z m o S o 0 MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I III I I INDEX • 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: 708 (6) shall be affordable to County median income and 308 (3) shall be affordable to County low income. Maximum rents shall be based on yearly income x 308 r 12 for a three - bedroom unit. Rents for a two - bedroom unit shall be reduced by 58 and a one - bedroom unit by 108. 58. That Park Dedication requirements may be satisfied through the use of North Ford Park credits. -55- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES x May 22, 1986 c o � x C v y m F.- c m y m S M = a = r m City of Newport Beach z 0 o C O O Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) 'Item Nn_d Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted various alterations to the Balboa Inn and related restaurant uses. The proposed amendment UP3158A 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 ". . • 11111111 The public hearing was closed at this time. -56- COMMISSIONERS x x c o �+ x _ a a c v m 2 c m z m Z c z w a; 0 0 Z n z Z= Z m p MINUTES May 22, 1986 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 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 x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A "(Revised). Substitute Commissioner Goff made a substitute motion to approve Motion x 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 Ayes x that the conditions are unnecessary and unenforceable, Noes x X and detrimental to the use being applied for. t.: x x Substitute Motion voted on, MOTION DENIED. x x Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3158 A* Absent x x x x x x (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in x Exhibit "A "(Revised). MOTION CARRIED. -57- COMMISSIONERS Of PTNDTNQS- May 22, 1986 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. 4. That noise from the outdoor dining area should be minimal in that no live entertainment will be permitted.. I I I I I I I 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- MINUTES x x c o 0 - 1 r y z c M m> m z z r 2 a z c= 0= oi' 0 O O 0 = m Z M m Z a X z Of PTNDTNQS- May 22, 1986 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. 4. That noise from the outdoor dining area should be minimal in that no live entertainment will be permitted.. I I I I I I I 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- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS 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. S. 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- MINUTES INDEX F C C O = i z 9 9 m z c m y m z 9 `= x y 2 r °; O ° S °1 a m o m r m City of s s z a z z m m 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. S. 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- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 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. F'i l Amendment No. 636 (Public Hearing) 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. • x x May 22, 1986 C o 9 y x - Z C C 9 m y m m Z Block 631, Corona del Mar Tract, located C 2 M 0 O S O O City of Newport Beach at 500 Carnation Avenue, comprising a _ AL portion of the block bounded by Carnation Avenue, Fourth Avenue, Dahlia CALL Avenue and Second Avenue, in the Corona INDEX del Mar Homes (Summer Wind) Planned operation which is the subject of this use permit, Community. 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. F'i l Amendment No. 636 (Public Hearing) 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 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. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Gfeller Development Co., Inc., Tustin OWNER: 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 I I j I I I 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 cm MINUTES 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. I I I I I I I I 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. -61- May 22, 1986 A c o f a v m 2 c m m Z A = a = � m I City 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. I I I I I I I I 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. -61- COMMISSIONERS x 111 Motion was made to May 22, 1986 s _ c O n C x x 2 A y x Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 1986 so as to _ v m z c m y „, z a z N o i 0 0 p T City of Newport Beach Absent x 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 x Motion was made to continue Amendment No. 636 to the Ayes x x x Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 1986 so as to Abstain allow the developer and the homeowners time to resolve Absent x their problems.. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x Site Plan Review No. 40 (Public Hearing) . Request to construct a two story building containing parking on the ground floor and storage on the second floor, on property located in the Corona del Mar 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 F, 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 I 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- MINUTES INDEX Item No.6 SPR No.40 Approved COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 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 x Motion was made to approve Site Plan Review No. 40, Ayes x x x x x x subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Absent 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. 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 is 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- May 22, 1966 x , _ c o y 9 m z c a m Z m z C z X W v X 0 T 0 _ , = m City of Newport 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 x Motion was made to approve Site Plan Review No. 40, Ayes x x x x x x subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Absent 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. 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 is 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- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES A x May 22, 1986 c o x FWM C v p y m Z c m s m z C 2 m 0 3 0 0 z a= r m City of Newport Beach a R CALL INDEX 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. * x A. Use Permit No. 3195 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to permit the expansion of an existing hotel UP3195 located in the C -1 District. Said proposal includes: 8826 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- 1,AMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 C x C o � 1 A 9 x _ z c y m s m m z C z 0 o r A o 0 m� City of Newport 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 Roppelman, Mr. Skaug described the design of the balcony. -65- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 x x C o � x °y _ m 2 v m 2 c y" 2 O= N v C O O C m= m m j City of Newport Beach a= Mr. Skaug referred to Condition No. 4 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. 5, 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 x 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 gum MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES x x May 22, 1986 c o � r v m z c m s m = z 9 z A= r m City of Newport Beach C Z N p r O o p ROLL CALL INDEX 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. Hewicker 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. Ayes x x x x x Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3195 and Absent x 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 t 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. -67- COMMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 x z C O O x E-122 y m z i z z= r m City of Newport Beach C z m p r O O MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I H I I INDEX 9 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. 8. 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. Eno ROLL • Of Resubdivision No. 826 FINDINGS: 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. CONDITIONS: 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 MINUTES x x C o i a m C z c m y m z W 9 a z r O 2 S O tr z a o m> Z a z r m ROLL • Of Resubdivision No. 826 FINDINGS: 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. CONDITIONS: 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 MINUTES COMM v IS Sc IO v N ER0 x m S MINUTES May 22, 1986 o m y m z A = T City of Newport Beach C z m o r 0 0 a ROLL CALFf I I I I I I I IINDEX the Building Department and Public Works Depart- ment; and that the existing piping (water, sewer, etc.) over the existing alley be brought up to Code. s +e Use Permit No. 3202 (Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to permit the establishment of an automotive UP3202 repair facility on property located in Area 2 of the North Ford Planned Community. lArmroved 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 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 nAn 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 x 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 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. -70- May 22, 1986 C z c O f y y m z c m y m z M z= T m i City of Newport 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 Ayes x x x x operating hours be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday Absent x 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. • I I I I 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from Camelback Street. -71- MINUTES C WAISSIONERS1 May zz, 1986 MINUTES F F C o r v 2 C T y m 2 1= a= M z T m 1 City of Newport Beach C 2 N p; O 0 ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX 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. 8. 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.9 Request to permit the installation of 8 to 10 food UP3203 carts within the open courtyards adjacent to Robin - son's, Bullock's Wilshire, and Neiman Marcus, located Approved in the Fashion Island Shopping Center. LOCATION: Portions of Tract No. 6015, located is in the interior courtyards of the Fashion Island Regional. Shopping Center in Newport Center. -72- ROLL Motion Ayes Absent ZONE: APPLICANT: OWNER: May 22, 1986 Beach C -O -H The Irvine Company, Newport Beach 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. JxIx I ] i xl xl Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3203, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on MOTION CARRIED. FINDINC3S : 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. 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- MINUTES X n i a v x v a m z c m y m z C T `a S N a r. °; 0 ° 2 M s o m s °City of Z a a a m ZONE: APPLICANT: OWNER: May 22, 1986 Beach C -O -H The Irvine Company, Newport Beach 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. JxIx I ] i xl xl Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3203, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on MOTION CARRIED. FINDINC3S : 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. 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- MINUTES 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. 9. That a minimum 10 foot clear space shall be 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. * r -74- MINUTES INDEX May 22, 1986 x x C o a 9 m v = N p ; O O a j City of Newport Beach 9 m 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. 9. That a minimum 10 foot clear space shall be 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. * r -74- MINUTES INDEX May 22, 1986 t 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 11111111 OWNER: Traweek Investment Fund #12, Ltd., Marina del Rey Motion x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 1758 Ayes x x x x x x (Amended) to the Planning Commission meeting of June 5, Absent x 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) (Public Hearin 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 -75- MINUTES Item No.10 UP1758A Continued to Item No 11 RP 7n ASA Continued to 6 -19 -86 x x c o E-a a v v m z c m y m z a D `= N 0 = K °; a ° S °(City i of s z a a T m May 22, 1986 t 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 11111111 OWNER: Traweek Investment Fund #12, Ltd., Marina del Rey Motion x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 1758 Ayes x x x x x x (Amended) to the Planning Commission meeting of June 5, Absent x 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) (Public Hearin 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 -75- MINUTES Item No.10 UP1758A Continued to Item No 11 RP 7n ASA Continued to 6 -19 -86 "/V\ISSIQNERS MINUTES X x May 22, 1986 C o r v m z c m s m = M a a M= r m I City of Newport Beach C T N a x O O at the southwesterly corner of East Bay Avenue and Washington Street, 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, 18 (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 On 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. x Exception Permit No. 20 (Discussion) Item No.12 Request to permit the installation of a pole sign on a EP No.20 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 • I I I I ( I APPLICANT: George Stevens, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant -76- 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 Motion x 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 x Substitute motion was made to approve Exception Permit Motion No. 20; suhject to the findings and conditions in Ayes x x x Exhibit "B ". Motion voted on, MOTION DENIED. Noes x x x Absent x Motion voted on to approve Exception Permit No. 20, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Ayes x x x x x x MOTION CARRIED. Absent x • 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. -77- MINUTES INDEX May 22, 1986 C 0 C a A A 9 m z c 2 C v m a m z cz z A N = oao = T °I City Y of Newport P Beach a m 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 Motion x 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 x Substitute motion was made to approve Exception Permit Motion No. 20; suhject to the findings and conditions in Ayes x x x Exhibit "B ". Motion voted on, MOTION DENIED. Noes x x x Absent x Motion voted on to approve Exception Permit No. 20, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Ayes x x x x x x MOTION CARRIED. Absent x • 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. -77- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS x x c o � x £� a x °y m z c m y m z m a A = r GI x May 22, 1986 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX 0 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 20.06.070,8,3 of the Municipal Code. • * x A D J O U R N M E N T : 1:22 a.m. ,t x PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION affle 7 N °; ° 1 °City of a =, Z M m May 22, 1986 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX 0 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 20.06.070,8,3 of the Municipal Code. • * x A D J O U R N M E N T : 1:22 a.m. ,t x PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION affle