Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/1992COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES o PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. • �o"`�� DATE: June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INOEX Present * * * * All Commissioners were present._ • x EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: i James Hewicker; Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager John Douglas, Principal Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of June 4. 1992: Minutes of 6/4/92 Motidn * Motion was made and voted on to approve the June 4, 1992, - Ayes * * * * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain Public Comments: Public Chairman Di Sano reported that he attended a meeting of the 5th Comments Supervisorial District and Orange County Transportation Authority regarding a review of Measure M overview, the project status of the freeway improvements, the bus transit, the rail and super street planning, and the road program funding. Chairman Di Sano pointed out that the terms of Commissioner Debay and Commissioner Pomeroy expire on June 30, 1992, and he commended their service as Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS p d June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Posting of the ggnda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 12, 1992, in front of City Hall. Planning Commission Review No. 17 (Discussion) item No.1 Request to review two chimneys which exceed the 24 foot basic PCR No.17 height limit in the R -1 District and which also exceed the minimum approved height required by the Uniform Building Code. The proposal also includes a request to install a cast stone finial on the main tower as an architectural feature which also exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit. LOCATION: Lot 16, Block E, Tract No. 1219, located at 603 Kings Road, on the southerly side of Kings Road, between Signal Road and Kings Place, in Cliff Haven. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Rick Wallace Architect, Newport Beach OWNERS: Mr. and Mrs. J.O. Palanjian, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, reviewed the subject application. He indicated that the Zoning Code allows an extension of fireplace chimneys to exceed one foot above the height required by the Uniform Building Code, and the purpose of the additional one foot is to allow for spark arrestors and decorative chimney caps. He indicated that staff could not find a justification for the subject request. Mr. Rick Wallace, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibits "A" and "B". He explained that the reference point for the chimney heights is at the edge of the molding which is approximately 12 inches beyond the chimney base. He stated that -2- COMMISSIONERS .a o June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL Ll INDEX Chimney No. 1 could be reduced 12 inches and still preserve the proposed decorative chimney cap. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker regarding why the applicant is requesting an additional 4 -1/2 feet for Chimney No. 2, Mr. Wallace explained that the style of proposed Chimney No. 2 requires the additional footage. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Wallace explained that the request is for the purpose of aesthetics. Commissioner Edwards suggested that the Commission consider adding the subject review process to the powers and duties of the Modifications Committee. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that in 1990 he supported an amendment to Title 20 to allow additional chimney height for spark • arresters and decorative chimney caps so as to provide a more effective design and to improve the appearances of chimneys; however, he indicated that he had previously expressed a concern regarding the height and width of chimneys. Motion Motion was made to deny Planning Commission Review No. 17 subject to the findings in Exhibit "C. Commissioner Debay indicated that Exhibit 'B" allows a cast stone finial to exceed the permitted height limit; however, the dimensions and height of the two chimneys would be restricted to Ordinance Substitute requirements. Substitute motion was made to approve the findings Motion * and conditions in Exhibit 'B ". All Ayes Commissioner Edwards supported the substitute motion. Substitute motion was voted on to approve Exhibit "B ". MOTION CARRIED. Findings: . 1. That the proposed chimneys are provided adequate design relief by Section 20.02.060 of the Municipal Code to accommodate architectural features. -3- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M ROLL CALL I l l f i l l l I INDEX • • 2. That the proposed heights of the chimneys and related decorative chimney caps may obstruct views from residential properties located across Kings Road from the subject property. 3. That the proposed cast stone finial is a minor architectural feature that does not adversely intrude on views, light or air from adjoining residential properties. 4. That the approval of the proposed height of the chimneys and related chimney caps could set a precedent for the approval of other similar requests that would be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare, and detrimental or injurious to property or improvements elsewhere in the City. 5. That the approval of this request would be contrary to the intent of Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code, would also be in excess of the allowable height and the allowable overall dimensions as adopted by Amendment No. 725 which was intended to provide adequate design parameters for these types of architectural features, and further, would be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, and detrimental or injurious to property or improvements elsewhere in the neighborhood, and the general welfare of the City. 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved roof plan, elevations and dimensions, except as noted in the following condition. 2. That the chimneys and related decorative chimney caps shall conform with the City's Building Code and the Uniform Building Code, and to the height and dimensions permitted in Section 20.02.060 of the Municipal Code. :_: 0 COMMISSIONERS ,p d June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3447 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to permit the establishment of a take -out and delivery UP3447 restaurant with no incidental seating on property located in the C -1 Approved District The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off -street parking spaces. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel map 574 (Resubdivision No. 397), located at 3305 Newport Boulevard, on the westerly side of Newport Boulevard between 32nd Street and Finley Avenue, across from the Newport Beach City Hall. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Burrells Newport Beach, Inc., Irvine • OWNER: Jeff Pence Family Trust, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, suggested that the area in front of the counter be reduced in size inasmuch as the requested 514 square feet could provide an area for tables and chairs, and there is no parking on the site to accommodate a restaurant. Commissioner Glover pointed out that the floor plan indicates a handicapped restroom, and she questioned if said restroom is required for a take -out restaurant. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the new handicapped requirements may require a handicapped restroom for all establishments that provide restrooms. Commissioner Debay addressed the parking demand for the dry cleaning establishment and the take -out restaurants located on the property, and she determined that adequate parking would be available inasmuch as the dry cleaning establishment would be closed during the evening hours when the take -out restaurants are the busiest. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that staff recommended that the proposed floor plan be redesigned so that the customer waiting area shall not exceed 150 square feet in area -5- COMMISSIONERS °3 • c� June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX based on the adjacent pizza take -out restaurant's waiting area of about 80± square feet. Commissioner Merrill requested a clarification of Condition No. 15, Exhibit "A", stating that the establishment would not increase the need for on- street parking along Newport Boulevard and would agree not to contest the removal of parking for the restriping of Newport Boulevard. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that if there would be a further need for an additional lane on Newport Boulevard, on- street parking may be eliminated, and the condition informs the applicant that on- street parking may not always exist. The public bearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jeff Pence, property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pence explained that State and City requirements require establishments that have restrooms to install • handicapped restrooms. Mr. Fred Burrell, Burrell's BBQ, Inc., 14962 East Sand Canyon, Irvine, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Burrell expressed the following concerns regarding conditions in Exhibit "A ": Condition No. 5, requiring grease interceptors. He explained that only paper goods would be used and the cooking process does not require a dishwashing process, and the grease is disposed of by way of pickup. Condition No. 8, regarding no on -sale or off -sale of alcoholic beverages. He requested that only off -sale alcoholic beverages be permitted inasmuch as it would provide a convenience for the customers. Staffs suggested Condition No. 19, requesting that the customer waiting area not exceed 150 square feet in area. He explained that because of the proximity of the inside window there may be a conflict with the Fire Code, and he further explained that antiques would be located in the waiting area so as to create a specific decorative atmosphere. He suggested a condition indicating that no seating be allowed on the premises. In reference to the foregoing Condition No. 5, Mr. Hewicker pointed out that the grease interceptors are required unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. He explained that the applicant needs to justify to the 6- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Building Department and the Public Works Department why the grease interceptors are not required in the facility. In reference to the foregoing Condition No. 8, Mr. Hewicker explained that the Commission has not allowed take -out restaurants to sell on -sale or off -sale alcoholic beverages. In reference to staff's suggested aforementioned Condition No. 19 and the applicant's concern with respect to the inside window, Mr. Hewicker explained that the Commission does not have the authority to address Building and Fire Codes. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the request for a large waiting room wherein he said that the Commission should not interfere with the applicant's desire to have antiques in the waiting area. Mr. Hewicker explained that the intent of the condition is to point out there could be a future problem that tables and chairs could be installed in the waiting area. In response to a question posed by • Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that there would be a concern regarding the parking if food would be consumed on the property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Burrell explained that he would agree to reduce the size of the waiting area to 300 square feet. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy acknowledged Mr. Burrell's compromise to reduce the size of the waiting area to 300 square feet. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3447 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", and adding Condition No. 19 stating that the proposed floor plan shall be redesigned so that the customer waiting area shall not exceed approximately 305 square feet in area In response to a request by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Burrell reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he accepted the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" , and added Condition No. 19. All Ayes Motion was voted- on, MOTION CARRIED. -7- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed take -out restaurant is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program land Use Plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project has no significant environmental impact. 3. That the proposed uses on the subject property represent a decrease in the overall parking demand when compared to the previous uses. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, landscaping, and a portion of the required parking will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3447 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDMONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That the development standards pertaining to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, and a portion of the required parking spaces shall be waived. 3. That this approval is for a food service facility whose operational characteristics include delivery and take -out food items. There shall be no seating permitted within the subject restaurant, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 8 COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WROLLCALLIJI Jill I I INDEX I ( ( I I I I I4. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 5. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the take -out restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 6. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. I I I I I I 11 7. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 8. That no on -sale or off -sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted on the premises unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. 9. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 10:00 am. and 12:00 midnight daily. I I I I I I I 110. That delivery vehicles shall park within the on -site parking lot and shall not be parked within the alley or the street for the purpose of picking up delivery orders. I I I I I ( I 111. That the employees of the subject facility shall park their vehicles on -site at all times. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and alleys and from adjoining properties. I I I I I I I 113.. That the door at the rear of the facility shall remain closed at all times, except for deliveries. 14. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system • and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 0 COMMISSIONERS p dip tn�0'�a� June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 15. That the applicant shall agree that the proposed development will not increase the need for on- street parldng along Newport Boulevard and that the applicant agrees not to contest the removal of parking for the restriping of Newport Boulevard on the grounds of loss of on- street parking. 16. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits or occupancy of the take- out restaurant facility. 17. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 18. 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. 19. That the proposed floor plan shall be redesigned so that the customer waiting area shall not exceed approximately 305 square feet in area. A. Development Agreement No. 6 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to adopt a Development Agreement for the Circulation Develop. Improvement and Open Space Agreement for eleven sites in the Agree. City of Newport Beach. The proposal also includes the acceptance No. 5 of an environmental document. AND . B. Traffic Study No. 82 (Continued Public Hearing) TS No. 82 Request to approve a traffic study consistent with the provisions of Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for eleven -10- COMMISSIONERS � o June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL J INDEX sites addressed in the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement. AND C. Amendment No. 763 (Continued Public Hearin Amend. No. 763 Request to amend the Harbor View Hills Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow for the (Res• construction of 48 additional dwelling units. 1300) LOCATION: Property located at 1501 Ford Road, adjacent to the easterly side MacArthur Boulevard, between Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, in the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. ZONE: P-C AND D. Amendment No. 764 (Continued Public Hearing) amend. No. 764 Request to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and (Res. Development Plan for Upper Castaways. This request would 1301) provide for the construction of 151 dwelling units. LOCATION: Property located at 900 Dover Drive, on the southeasterly side of Dover Drive between the Westcliff Drive and West Coast Highway. ZONE: P -C AND E . Amendment No. 765 (Continued Public Hearin Amend. No. 765 Request to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan for Newporter North / Newporter Knoll. This (Res. 1362) request would provide for the construction of 212 dwelling units on Newporter North and open space on Newporter Knoll. -11- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Property located at 1501 Jamboree Road, on the northwesterly side of Jamboree Road between San Joaquin Hills Road and the Newporter Resort. ZONE: P-C AND F. Amendment No. 766 (Continued Public Hearin) Amend. No. 766' Request to amend the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow for the (Res. construction of 300 additional dwelling units. No. iso3) LOCATION: Property located at 3200 University Drive, on '. the northeasterly comer of Jamboree Road and University Drive South, in the North Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P-C AND G. Amendment No. 767 (Continued Public Hearin) Amend. No. 767 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 37 so as to reclassify property from the U (Unclassified) District to the P -C (Res. District. Also requested is the adoption of Planned Community No. iso�) District Regulations and Development Plan for Bayview Landing. This request would provide for the construction of either a 10,000 sq.ft. restaurant or a 40,000 sq.ft. athletic club. LOCATION: Property located at 951 Back Bay Drive, on the northwesterly side of Jamboree Road between Back Bay Drive and East Coast Highway, across from the Villa Point Planned Community. ZONE: Unclassified AND -12- COMMISSIONERS � o June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX H. Amendment No. 768 (Continued Public Hearing) Amend. No. 768 Request to amend portions of Districting Maps No. 44 and 66 so as to reclassify property from the U (Unclassified) District to the (Res. P -C (Planned Community) District. The proposal also includes a No. 1305) request to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan so as to provide for open space and public facility use of the subject property. LOCATION: Property located at 3600 Jamboree Road, bounded by Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and SR 73, and property known as San Diego Creek North located at 3500 Jamboree Road, bounded by the San Diego Creek, Jamboree Road and SR 73. • ZONE: Unclassified AND I Amendment No. 769 (Con in d Public Hearin Amend. No. 769 Request to amend the Block 800 Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow the construction (Res. of 245 dwelling units or senior citizen housing. No. 1306) LOCATION: Property located at 855 San Clemente Drive, on the southeasterly corner of San Clemente Drive and Santa Barbara Drive, in Block 800 of Newport Center. ZONE: P -C AND Amend. J. Amendment No 770 (Continued li H n No. 770 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 48 so as to (Res. • reclassify property from the O -S (Open Space) and U No. 1307) (Unclassified) Districts to the P -C District. Also requested is the adoption of Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan for the Corporate Plaza West Planned -13- COMMISSIONERS 01 \-1 June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Community. This request would allow for the construction of an additional 94,000 sq.ft. of office development (115,000 sq.ft. total). LOCATION: Property located at 1050 Newport Center APPROVED Drive, on the northwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive, across from the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Ms. Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the ' subject project consists of a comprehensive set of applications to provide entitlement for remaining undeveloped sites in the City owned by The Irvine Company. The details of the Development Agreement are the result of discussions between .The Irvine Company and an AdHoc Committee of the City Council formed for the purpose of developing the terms of the Agreement for consideration by the City. The Agreement was originally drafted by The Irvine Company; however, it is now the product of the City Attorney with substantial input by The Irvine Company. The three components of the Agreement include the Circulation System Funding Program; an Open Space Dedication Program; and the Provision of Vesting of Entitlement. The subject action would constitute final discretionary actions in the Newport Center area which caused staff to raise the issue of dedication of the Newport Village site from the new Central Library site to San Miguel Road. The AdHoc Committee and The Irvine Company determined that the dedication could be accomplished so long as The Irvine Company was given the ability to use a portion of the San Diego Creek North site between the Bayview Drive extension and San Diego Creek for the mitigation of San Joaquin Transportation Corridor impacts. The concept has been incorporated into the Development Agreement. Ms. Temple addressed the feasibility of expansion of time for the Newport Conservancy to acquire Castaways and Newporter North. The Development Agreement does not address any provisions of -14- COMMISSIONERS ,A d June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX time for the purpose. The allowance of time for acquisition is an agreement between The Irvine Company and the Newport Conservancy. The AdHoc Committee removed the time allocation from the Agreement. The City's interest in keeping the issue removed from the Development Agreement is supported by the fact that the dedication of Newport Village is specifically tied to the issuance of Building Permits on either the Upper Castaways or Newporter North, and the City would not want to delay the dedication inordinately. Ms. Temple addressed concerns expressed regarding the widening of Dover Drive to the Master Plan configuration of six lanes. The project includes the grading out of the roadway; however, construction is not currently proposed. The arterial designation is part of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and also the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Inasmuch as the designation has been on the plans, staff considers the widening as a fronting improvement. The need for the road is not directly related to development above the Castaways; however, it is necessary to assist and accommodate proposed development in the West Newport area and Eastside Costa Mesa. As part of the Traffic Study, the long term need for the improvement was again validated. The arterial designation is necessary to maintain the correlation of the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan that was approved in October, 1988. In addition to the approval of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement, the development proposed would be vested pursuant to the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The approval will be under the long term comprehensive provisions which allow for the use of the concept of net benefit. The balance of the approvals are the adoption or amendment of eight Planned Community texts which set forth development standards for each site. The standards include height limits, setbacks, parking requirements, landscaping requirements and other typical zoning requirements. The Upper Castaways, Newporter North, Block 800, and San Diego Creek South will be subject to further discretionary action through the review of the Site Plan Review in addition to Tract Maps if they are proposed. Certain types of development on Block 800, the development on Newporter Resort, and Bayview Landing will require Use Permits. The development on the Freeway Reservation will be subject to Tract Map approval and -15- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX only Corporate Plaza West would require no additional discretionary action. In reference to page 12 of the staff report, Ms. Temple stated that the local street setback on the Freeway Reservation site should be corrected to 5 feet instead of 10 feet. In reference to page 13 of the staff report, Bluff top setbacks, Ms. Temple indicated that staff is opposed to the concept of allowing a manufactured slope in the 40 foot property line setback area. If it would be allowed, The Irvine Company would essentially be using 20 feet of the 40 feet publicly owned bluff top area to build up the development area. Staff supports the concept of a grade separation between the park and the development area; however, it should occur on private property. The 4:1 slope option was offered for the Commission to consider if the encroachment is deemed appropriate. • Page 17, Suggested Action, Item 5(b) Bayview Landing, Senior Citizen housing with transfer of retail to Fashion Island, Ms. Temple advised that if the action is taken it would include a recommendation to the City Council to initiate a General Plan Amendment. Page 24, Exhibit "A ", Mitigation Measure No. 18, Ms. Temple indicated that for Upper Castaways and Newporter North, No grading, stockpile of soils or operation of equipment shall take place within the 40 foot property line setback area established by the Bluff top Setback Ordinance except that necessary for trail establishment and improvements, erosion control, bluff stabilization, or preparation of the development area The Newporter North contour reference should be revised to refer to the lessor of 60 feet or a line 100 feet from a formally delineated wetland in John Wayne Gulch. The Mitigation Measure currently refers to a 60 foot contour. In reference to the Planning Community Texts, Ms. Temple stated that where sight distance requirements is referred to, staff is requesting to add the phrase unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Staff has requested that driveway lengths for attached residential units be corrected from 20 feet to 18 feet if a roll -up door is installed subject to approval of the City Traffic -16- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Engineer. The references to parkstrip should be corrected to parkway. In reference to the Bayview Landing PC, add to the condition regarding the screening of mechanical equipment screening for the view park area in addition to residential areas and roadways In the San Diego Creek South PC, alter the exhibit so that the full width of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is clearly delineated on the Land Use exhibit. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, referred to Ms. Temple's foregoing comments regarding the bluff top setbacks wherein she indicated that there are concerns regarding the slope's stability and the affect of the additional buildup of the pad that may cause instability to the slope. There is potential liability to the City with respect to slope failure and the area of the slope that is instable would probably be public property. Commissioner Edwards addressed the Development Agreement • whereby he determined that The Irvine Company could not increase development at any time after the adoption of the Agreement. Ms. Flory concurred with the foregoing statement. Commissioner Edwards asked if the Newport Conservancy or another interested party would acquire the property, would The Irvine Company be able to come back to the City for increased expansion of the remaining parcels? Ms. Flory explained that the Development Agreement handles the sale of any parcels of the property and makes subsequent purchasers of the property subject to the terms of the Agreement. The Irvine Company would be bound by whatever parcels they maintain without increased expansion. In response for clarification of the 4:1 slope, Ms. Temple concurred with Commissioner Edwards that if the 40 foot setback is maintained, then the 4:1 slope would not be necessary. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Temple referred to Bayview Landing Planned Community text, Page 4, Item No. 3, Screening, whereby she explained that the item has been modified to read all mechanical appurtenances on building . rooftops and utility vaults shall be screened from street level view, pedestrian area views at the proposed view party and from nearby residential uses in a manner compatible with the building materials -17- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INOEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Ms. Temple explained the Bluff top Ordinance. The bluff top setback provisions in the Planned Community District of the Zoning Ordinance require setbacks from bluffs. The minimum setback is determined to be the most conservative of one of two cases: 40 feet from top of slope or a projection of a line at 2:1 slope from the existing toe of slope, whichever one is the greatest distance. Commissioner Glover requested a clarification of the changes to Mitigation Measure No. 18 as previously stated by Ms. Temple. Ms. Temple explained that the existing condition would not allow The Irvine Company to put any object in the 40 foot setback area during development. The intent of the condition when it was written was to preclude anyone from stockpiling soil in such a manner that it would erode down the bluff face. The suggested change would allow the developer to utilize the setback area for equipment and /or grading within the bluff top area within the 40 foot setback during construction. The commonly accepted buffer area from wetlands is normally 100 feet; however, the biologist selected a 60 foot contour because it would be readily definable. There is not a wetlands delineation study completed for the site. The modified condition would require the 60 foot contour unless The Irvine Company provides the City with a formal delineation in which case The Irvine Company could use the 100 foot setback or 60 foot contour, whichever is less. Commissioner Glover addressed the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement, page 9 (c), regarding an amendment to the Fair Share Ordinance, and the affect that the amendment would have on the small developer. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the City was going to keep the Fair Share Ordinance essentially the way it is written. The City would review the projects at the end of the pipeline to determine if there would be sufficient funds within the program to complete the system. There may be situations where the fees would need to be adjusted. It would not be a disadvantage to any particular property owner. Commissioner Glover requested a clarification of Ms. Flory's foregoing comments regarding the City's liability concerning the manufactured slopes. Ms. Flory explained that the City has a liability under the condition of public property. If The Irvine Company increased the slope over the portion of property go COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX considered public property, in the event of slope failure or any problems that result because of the excess weight over the unstable section, then if there would be any injuries or resulting damage there would be a potential for the City to be liable because it would be public property. The private property vs. the public property are inter - connected. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Glover and Ms. Flory with respect to the affect the 20 foot setback would have on the slope. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that when the City adopted the Bluff top Ordinance it was determined that since the Grading Ordinance established 2 :1 slope as the maximum slope that would be allowed in grading of fills and materials, that it would be an appropriate slope for the coastal bluffs that are adjacent to the area, and the City did not want any houses or construction closer to the top of slope than the 2:1 slope, starting at the bottom going to the top. In situations where there is a coastal bluff, the City determined that if the slope is closer to 2:1 that the City did not want anything • closer than 40 feet to the top of slope. The Irvine Company has requested to go into the 40 foot setback area by at least 20 feet, and the City believes that it is closer to the top of slope that is potentially going to erode in the future. The development may inadvertently cause problems due to the increased moisture because of landscaping in the area and may affect the existing slopes that have been dry for many years. The City is concerned that the 40 feet be maintained free of any surcharge, and it allows the City more room to permit public uses. If there would be an additional slope in the 40 foot area, then there would be drainage that would be concentrated at the toe of slope which is closer to the edge than the City would desire. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and staff regarding the public and private slope area. Mr. Webb stated that a concern would be if the trail system is installed in the 20 foot area inasmuch as the system would have to be at least 12 feet wide. The trail would have to be paved and it would have to be able to support police vehicles, a fire engine, the street sweeper, and landscape maintenance vehicles. It is feasible that the vehicles would be within 4 feet of the top of slope, not leaving enough room for what the City would consider a safe area; therefore, 40 feet is needed to provide for the foregoing needs. Mr. Webb further explained that a 4:1 slope would mean that the trail system would have to be constructed in the 4:1 area to make it feasible, and that -19- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL lil Jill I INDEX would eliminate a portion of the vertical separation The Irvine Company is attempting to establish. Problems would be created in trying to fit the public use in an area that is dedicated for public use. If the trail would be developed in the 4:1 area it may be necessary to construct a retaining wall at the end of the trail. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Webb explained that the Master Plan of Bikeways indicates a bike trail in addition to pedestrian uses, and the bike trail needs to be paved inasmuch as there is a need for a combination maintenance access road and bike trail. In response to a comment posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to maintaining the dedicated area as open space, Mr. Webb explained that it has always been anticipated that the area would be a corridor that would be used for public access, and a trail system is a permitted use as open space. �. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. Raymond Watson, 2501 Alta Vista Drive, Vice - Chairman of The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Watson replied that he had no objections to the findings and conditions for approval in Exhibit "X. Mr. Watson addressed the foregoing concerns regarding the bluff . top. He stated that the idea is to dedicate the bluff top so that it is usable by the public, and The Irvine Company does not want to do anything that would interfere with that purpose. Mr. Watson reviewed his experiences with The Irvine Company over the past 30 years. He indicated that he had suggested that The Irvine Company group the Company's remaining undeveloped properties and submit the project to the City for action for the purpose of future planning for the two institutions. He stated that the advantage to the City is to review the project in a comprehensive fashion, and the advantage to The Irvine Company is to be able to plan for the future. As an incentive to reach a contract, The Irvine Company has offered funds over and above what is required by the developments and the funds would be used at the discretion of the City for whatever traffic improvements the City needs. The alternative would be to continue with the same program that The Irvine Company previously has done which is to -20- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX take one project at a time, and to come to the City without a Development Agreement. The Irvine Company would submit the piecemeal or collective projects in accordance with the General Plan. If the City does not approve the subject application, The Irvine Company would not have an incentive to provide additional funds and would provide only the required funds. Mr. Watson concluded that The Irvine Company met with a wide variety of groups over the past two years. He stated that plans were adjusted throughout the two years to accommodate the views of the public, and at the same time the Company tried to preserve a developable piece of property. He stated that after the public hearings and public comments that both parties will decide whether or not to proceed. Some members of the community would like to acquire some of the properties for open space wherein he stated that The Irvine Company has no objection to the request; however, the Company is asking for some certainty of time for the benefit of all of the parties. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Watson confirmed that the package that is being presented provides for less development than otherwise would be allowable under the present General Plan. Mr. Tom Redwitz, Vice President of Land Development, Irvine Pacific, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Redwitz distributed booklets that gave an overview of the slide presentation regarding the proposed Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement. Mr. Redwitz stated that subsequent to the adoption of the General Plan in 1988, a City Council Adhoc Committee was formed to discuss a comprehensive planning program with The Irvine Company. He stated that in addition to the discussion with the City, The Irvine Company had many discussions with community groups to build a consensus on their plans. The following presentation is a reflection of the plans and compromises over the past 2-1/2 years, including presentations to over 35 community groups. The primary goals of the Agreement under the City's goals were to implement the objectives of the General Plan for circulation system improvements and open space dedications, and to provide community benefits earlier and to a greater extent than with -21- COMMISSIONERS 3 d June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX "piecemeal" planning. The Irvine Company goals were to define their conceptual plans for the undeveloped sites and to establish financial and open space commitments. Mr. Redwitz indicated that The Irvine Company represents about 23 percent of the future residential growth, and about 8 percent of the future commercial growth allowed under the General Plan. In comparison, on a traffic basis with other projects that are allowed under the General Plan and other outside sources, The Irvine Company represents 7 percent. The key elements of the proposed Agreement are a $21.1 million financial commitment for circulation improvements; 140 acres of open space dedicated to the City; and less development is being proposed than the General Plan allows. If the proposal is adopted, The Irvine Company is committing to pre -pay the Fair Share Fees. The Fair Share Ordinance requires developers to pay road improvement fees at the time of the Building Permit. The Company will commit to the frontage improvements. In addition, the Irvine Company is proposing to make available to the City an interest free loan, and to make improvements to widen MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road to three lanes. The terms of the loan is that it is interest free and the City is to determine how the funds are going to be spent on the circulation system improvements. The repayment would be from 50 percent of future non - Irvine Company . standard Fair Share Fees. If after 20 years the loan is not paid back, it would be forgiven. The General Plan requires approximately 71 acres of open space or 29 percent of the total development open area, and The Irvine Company is proposing approximately 140 acres of open space or 57 percent of the total development open area. 162,000 square feet of office space and 28 units from the Freeway Reservation site would be eliminated from the General Plan. Mr. Redwitz addressed the projects as follows: Unner Casta w s 'The General Plan allows for 151 residential units on 35 acres. The Irvine Company would develop 151 . residential units on 26 acres with a density of approximately 5 -1/2 units per acre. The balance would be dedicated to the City as open space areas along the bluff top. The development concept would -22- COMMISSIONERS A O June 18, 1992. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX be similar to the Bluff's project on the east side of the bay and would utilize an internal greenbelt. Ncporter North The General Plan allows for 212 residential units on 45 acres. The Irvine Company would develop 212 residential units on 30 acres. The balance would be dedicated to the City as open space, and The Irvine Company has agreed to minimize impacts to the wetland area as well as propose land for a bluff top view park along the bluff edge. N &porter Knoll The General Plan designates the site for open space and The Irvine Company would dedicate the 12 acres as open space. Nye porter Resort The General Plan allows for an additional 68 hotel rooms. There is no plan to construct the additional rooms; however, The Irvine Company would secure entitlement to build the additional rooms. Jamboree Road /MacArthur Boulevard The General Plan allows for 50,000 square feet of office space. The Irvine Company would relinquish the 50,000 square feet and dedicate the site to the City for open space. San Diego Creek North The General Plan allows for 112,000 square feet of office space. The Irvine Company proposes to dedicate the area for open space and public facilities. The General Plan designates the area for a fire station, and a park and ride lot has been considered because of the proximity to the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. San Diego Creek South The General Plan allows for 300 residential units. The Irvine Company proposes to construct 300 residential units. Open space areas dedicated to the City would be along the San Diego Creek area and Bonita Creek area. Freeway Reservation The General Plan allows for 76 residential units. The Irvine Company proposes to develop a maximum of 48 residential units on two sites. The lower site would consist of 12 single family detached units off of three cul -de -sacs, and a 30 foot setback is proposed off of Newport Hills Drive to the development area. The northern area would consist of a maximum of 36 single -23- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX family detached units, and an open space area would be dedicated to the City. Worate Plaza West The General Plan allows for 94,000 square feet of office space. The Irvine Company proposes to develop the property consistent with the General Plan. The buildings would be compatible with height and scale of other buildings in the lower Newport Center area, or approximately 32 feet in height. Block 800 The General Plan allows for 245 residential units. The Irvine Company is considering a senior life care facility for the site. Bayview Landing The General Plan addresses two sites: the lower pad area allows for 10,000 square feet of restaurant or 40,000 square feet of health club. The Irvine Company proposes to build consistent with the General Plan. The alternative in the ' Environmental Impact Report addresses a low income senior • housing project that The Irvine Company would support. The upper site consists of 11.1 acres and the General Plan considers the area as open space and The Irvine Company would dedicate the area to the City. Newport Village The General Plan addresses a 10 acre museum site and a Central Library is currently under construction on the site. The balance of the parcel is designated as Administrative, Professional and Financial with zero entitlement because the site was a part of the Library Exchange Agreement which transferred office entitlement to Civic Plaza. The Irvine Company proposes to dedicate 12.8 acres to the City for open space use. The benefits to the development would be road improvement funding and more open space. The road improvement funding would consist of pre - paying Fair Share Fees and, in combination with other funding, provides a significant source for circulation improvements. It would place the City in a favorable position for outside matching funds. 69 additional open space acres would be provided that are not included in the General Plan, or 140 total acres. In summary, Mr. Redwitz stated that the proposal consists of 11 sites totaling 246 acres; $21.1 million in financial commitments for circulation system improvements; 140 acres of open space (69 more 24- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES =CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL jil fill I I INDEX acres than the General Plan); less development than the General Plan allows; and significant benefits to the City and the Community. Commissioner Gross asked if The Irvine Company was going to make a contribution to maintain the land the Company is dedicating to the City. Mr. Redwitz negatively replied, and he explained that the land contribution significantly reduces the value of the remaining development areas. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Redwitz replied that The Irvine Company would request a private community on the Castaways property. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Ms. Temple explained that it is the City's practice to assure that the closure of the environmental review period occurs well in advance of the time • the EIR is certified, and the City Council is the body that certifies the EIR. The Planning Commission public hearings are provided as an additional forum for individuals to make continents on the EIR verbally, and the comments would be responded to accordingly. It is a practice that is allowed by the Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Glover addressed the Castaways property and the dedicated land on the bluff top. She indicated that she had determined that the area should be used as a passive area for pedestrians as opposed to a bicycle path. She stated that she had a concern that the proposed uses that would be located in the open space and the housing would be too much for the area, and too much is being proposed for the site. She suggested a natural walkway and to keep the bluffs natural, and not to construct a concrete path. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 and reconvened at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Carl Hufbauer, 20241 Bayview Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of SPON. He asked what are the benefits to the City of the proposed Development Agreement, and what are the most substantial things that the City would get that it would not get if it went about business as usual without the Agreement? The two biggest items would be an interest free loan -25- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX of about $13 million for road projects and eventual dedications of prime acreage on Upper Castaways and Newporter North that are not required by the General Plan. He asked what are the costs to the City and its residents of the proposed Development Agreement? The City would lose its discretion to respond to changing conditions, including endangered species; unacceptable increases in traffic congestion and air pollution; or an intensification of the public's desire to minimize development on such key parcels as Upper Castaways and Newporter North. The Newport Conservancy or like organizations would find themselves under immense time pressure to raise funds or generate acquisition packets for Upper Castaways and Newporter North as the Agreement is now written. Given the costs and given the irreversible damage to Newport Beach's aesthetic character and biological resources, SPON is skeptical whether the proposed Development Agreement as it now stands is in the interest of the City and its residents. He stated that SPON has the following suggestions: 11pner Castaways and Newporter North More generous setbacks from the bluffs; height and bulk limitations so the aesthetics of the area as seen from across the bay are not severely damaged as could occur under the present Agreement; remove language regarding Dover Drive; language regarding acquisition that would give the Newport Conservancy or similar groups two years to generate funds for the purpose of acquisition of Upper Castaways and /or Newporter North. Commissioner Pomeroy responded to the foregoing statement wherein he commented that it does not matter what the Development Agreement states, the Commission does not pre -empt an endangered species. The Irvine Company would not be able to build on the property if they do not mitigate for an endangered species. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Hufbauer replied that he is not a member of the Board of Directors of the Newport Conservancy. In response to a comment posed by Commissioner Gross, Ms. • . Temple explained that the Planned Community texts contain the basic setbacks, height, and parking requirements. Precise development plans indicating the exact layout of buildings, the location of internal roads, and the location of parking facilities that -26- COMMISSIONERS k\o,, o \\ • June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX may be provided for the public places are not addressed. The Planned Community District Standards will be reviewed by the Commission so as to make recommendations that will include height limits and setbacks. Commissioner Debay and Mr. Hufbauer discussed the feasibility that a time limit for the Newport Conservancy or another organization to acquire the Upper Castaways and /or Newporter North be included in the Development Agreement. Reverend Bill Kirlin - Hackett, 1012 East Mayfair, Orange, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church, located at 16th Street and Dover Drive. The church is the only developed parcel on what is considered Upper Castaways. The EIR does not identify the church on the Upper Castaways; however, the EIR for the Castaways Marina does recognize the church as part of the Castaways site. The impacts •. upon the church that would result from the proposal would be that the pre - school children would suffer during construction because of the dust and noise level; the pre - school would be impacted financially if the parents would not enroll the children because of the dust and noise; the children's safety would be a concern because of the proposed traffic on 16th Street; the nearness of homes as a result of the wrap- around layout proposed; noise would become an unneighborly factor between the church and the nearby residences; the worship life and schedule would be impacted because of the unnecessary configuration; a severe impact would occur on the wedding schedule and services; concerns that the church would be enveloped by a secured community with a possible six foot wall; the location of the park presents a problem of noise during wedding ceremonies and there would be a lack of parking in the area; and the loss of weddings would have a severe financial impact. Rev. Kirlin - Hackett suggested that the City, The Irvine Company, and the church come to a clear and firm agreement prior to the approval of the plan. He strongly recommended that the EIR be recognized as insufficient in addressing the impact on the church and its mission. • Commissioner Merrill referred to the foregoing statements and he asked if the church was entitled to more expansion based on the. General Plan. Rev. Kirlin- Hackett replied that he was not aware of further church expansion plans. He indicated that widening of -27- COMMISSIONERS o���� June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INOEX Dover Drive would reduce. some of the church's valuable frontage land. The present plan as configured, has the church surrounded by the passive park border. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Rev. Kirlin- Hackett replied that he had not met personally with The Irvine Company to discuss-the project, and that it would be difficult to contact the residents residing in the closed community without invitation. Commissioner Debay addressed the mitigation measures that have been placed on the Castaways property during the construction phase. Rev. Kirlin- Hackett stated that the mitigation measures do not address the church during construction. Commissioner Glover and Rev. Kirlin- Hackett discussed the concerns that the church has with respect to the children playing and other activities that would occur in the proposed park and the i impact that the noise and parking would have on the church. Commissioner Edwards and Rev. Kirlin- Hackett addressed comments regarding the widening of Dover Drive. Rev. Kirlin- Hackett indicated that the church is concerned that if Dover Drive would be widened that the church would lose some of the parking lot. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. . Webb explained that a six-lane Dover Drive has been in the Master Plan of Street and Highways since 1962. Commissioner Debay referred to the proposed Upper Castaways Planned Community District Regulations, page 6, wherein it states that Noise mitigation programs shall be based upon the recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing w acoustics and be approved by the Planning Department. Dr. Richard G. Vinson, Costa Mesa Citizens Transportation Alternatives Study Group, submitted and read a letter to the Commission dated June 18,1992, from Roy Pizarek, Chairman. He stated that the group requests to preserve the quality of life of • residential neighborhoods; the deletion of the 19th Street and Gisler Street crossings of the Santa Ana River and the deletion or downgrading of East 19th Street as a secondary highway on Orange County's Master Plan of Highways; that Upper Castaways could -28- COMMISSIONERS ,o O June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX result in significant traffic impacts in residential neighborhoods in the east side of Costa Mesa and Dover Shores in Newport Beach; and that the Commission consider alternatives for the proposed Upper Castaways project to compliment rather than degrade the existing residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the 19th Street crossing over the Santa Ana River is essential to improve circulation throughout the Newport Beach /Costa Mesa area. Mr. Robert Webber, 420 Heliotrope, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force. Mr. Webber stated that he had reviewed the City's compliance with the State regulations regarding the housing and planning issues. He complemented staff with regard to the housing issues. He requested that the City not lose the potential housing stock because it has been the policy to use 20 percent of the housing allocation for low and very low cost housing. He indicated that affordable housing is not included in all of the proposed Planned Community texts, and he requested assurance that affordable housing would be reflected in each of the projects. He recommended that the senior housing, the restaurant and the athletic facility be developed at Bayview Landing. Mr. Hewicker stated that there are no proposals to relax the City's affordable housing policy. The terminology in the Planned Community texts allows for the provision of affordable housing either on -site or off - site. Mr. Willis Longyear, 215 Via San Remo, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Conservancy. He stated that the Conservancy is proceeding with an active program to acquire three privately held properties adjoining the Newport Bay Ecology Reserve and Park System in order to protect an ecological balance of the Reserve and to provide citizens of the community with continued access to particular desirable recreational open space. The Conservancy recommends that San Diego Creek South remain open as a corridor for continued wildlife access for Upper Newport Bay from inland open space .. areas, and that Newporter North remain as an open wildlife habitat as an upland breeding and hunting area and an extended habitat for endangered species. The Conservancy requests that Upper Castaways and Newporter North be left undeveloped for at least -29- COMMISSIONERS � o June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX the period of years that would be required for the ecological sites to be assessed and explored in an orderly unhurried manner. The need for recreation and open space will become increasingly important to the City as development continues to "hem" it in, which requires that the Upper Castaways be retained for its present and future value as a particularly desirable parcel of recreational and open space. That Newporter North be carefully planned to provide low impact access for observation of wildlife in its natural habitat. The viewpoint has been born out by a recent City survey in which roughly 85 percent of those interviewed cited that preservation of open space and wildlife habitat are important issues for the City. Preliminary review of the EIR indicates strong possibilities that it also supports the initial assessment that development of the foregoing parcels will impose irreparable negative impact on the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and Park System. The Conservancy requests that the City work with the Conservancy to save the City's remaining small and rich heritage of wildlife habitat and recreational open space. The Conservancy requested that the Commission take no action in accepting the EIR or approving the Development Agreement until the response to comments has been completed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Longyear replied that the Conservancy would need approximately $80 million to preserve the aforementioned sites, and they have not begun the fundraising campaign. Mr. Longyear explained that if The Irvine Company developed the foregoing properties that it would take several years to get a return from their investment. The Conservancy's intent is to build enough presence and financial capability to meet The Irvine Company's requirements and they hope to do that within 1 -1/2 to 2 years. It is not expected that the Conservancy would be able to pay The Irvine Company off within that period of time. Commissioner Gross and Mr. Longyear discussed the Conservancy's desire to have additional time to study the EIR with respect to Newporter North. Ms. Temple stated that there are several archeological sites identified on the Newporter North site and that • there is specific mitigation included in the program that will require, prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit, that the investigation and salvage operation be complete. These types of -30- June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX programs are subject to the approval of a Coastal Permit for Cultural Resource Recovery. Mr. Michael J. Daley, 1921 Port Weybridge, appeared before the Planning Commission as President of the Harbor View Homeowner's Association, representing 525 homes. He addressed the Freeway Reservation parcel wherein he indicated that the homeowner's would be most affected by the proposed 36 dwellings at Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. He stated that the Association had a previous concern that Ford Road would become a cul -de -sac and additional houses would impact the community; however, The Association met with The Irvine Company regarding the property and the development was reduced from 76 structures to 36 structures so as to blend the proposed project with the existing community. Mr. Alan Remington appeared before the Planning Commission • representing the Friends of the Santa Ana River. Mr. Remington stated that roads are not the answer to traffic and there is currently no crossing over the Santa Ana River at 19th Street; therefore, there is no traffic. He stated that the residents oppose. a six lane road and the traffic would impact the residents of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. He indicated that 2600 residences proposed in the Santa Ana River area would generate heavy east and west traffic. Commissioner Gross and Mr. Remington discussed the concerns regarding the proposed impact of traffic at the comer of 19th Street and Newport Boulevard; the widening of Dover Drive; and the proposed 19th Street bridge. Mr. Jack Perkins, 474 - 16th Place, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commissions as a member of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church. He stated that the Church moved from a Cliff Drive location to the present location because a freeway was proposed for that location; however, the freeway was never constructed. He stated that sometimes a proposal is not executed as planned wherein he referred to the concerns expressed regarding the expansion of Dover Drive. Mr. Robert Hoffman, a 19th Street resident in Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the East Side Homeowners Association. He submitted and read a letter dated June 18, 1992, to the Planning Commission. He stated that -31- COMMISSIONERS .4 d 3 � June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX their concerns are the increase in traffic because of the proposed development and associated street widening; the safety of the children; and the noise and pollution. The homeowners recommended an alternative to the proposed Upper Castaways project. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Webb explained that the traffic projection does not indicate any change in traffic on 19th Street related to the proposed development. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Webb explained that the proposed widening of Dover Drive that is included in the Circulation Element would be between West Coast Highway and Westcliff Drive. Commissioner Edwards stated that the Commission is not specifically addressing the widening of Dover Drive. Mr. Webb explained that the Commission is only addressing the part of the Development Agreement that requires . The Irvine Company to provide the grading, if necessary. Mr. Webb further explained that if the City Council would change the Circulation Element of the General Plan and downgrade it, the widening of Dover Drive could be eliminated. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Webb explained that the Upper Castaways is one of the small increments that would occur within 20 years that would cause a need for the widening of Dover. Drive. Commissioner Merrill concluded that it is good engineer and traffic planning to have The Irvine Company grade Dover Drive as a requirement as long as the roadway is on the Master Plan. Mr. Webb stated that in the interim the parcel would be landscaped and would provide open space. Mr. Royal Radtke, 330 Mayflower Drive, DeAnza Village, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce and the Bayside Village Homeowner's Association. Mr. Radtke stated that the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce previously had concerns regarding the Upper Castaways site and the area near the Newporter Hotel; however, after examining the proposals, the Board of Directors unanimously supported The Irvine Company's plan. The Bayside. Village Homeowner's Association has made no decision with -32- COMMISSIONERS - o • O * June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX respect to the plan inasmuch as there are concerns regarding the cliff area across from DeAnza Bayside Village which could become a liability for the City should an accident occur within the 40 foot setback. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Radtke explained that the residents are concerned with the liability factor inasmuch as the cliff areas are not properly marked, and the type of development that would be allowed within the 40 foot setback. Mr. Neil Randle, 1848 Port Tiffin Place, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the residents concerned with the southern portion of the Freeway Reservation project. Mr. Randle stated that the residents would prefer that the area remain open space; however, after meeting with The Irvine Company, the AdHoc Committee agreed to a modified project wherein the homes • would front on Newport Hills Drive and the number of structures would be reduced from 15 homes to 12 homes. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Randle explained that the aforementioned AdHoc Committee has been sanctioned by members of the Board of Directors of the Newport Hills Community Association. Discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of purchasing the property for open space. Mr. Gary Drew, 223 Monte Vista, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission as a member of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church and Council President. He stated that the Church has requested that specific clarifications be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report regarding the Upper Castaways site, i.e.: the inconsistencies of the Castaways Marina EIR and the Open Space Circulation Agreement EIR. The Church is addressed in the Castaways Marina EIR, and the Church is mentioned in a minor way in the Open Space Circulation EIR, Visual Character Section. The Church has further requested that the EIR address mitigation measures similar to the Castaways Marina EIR, Section 5.1, page 5.1 -9, Land Use: To mitigate potential short term impacts [the Church would request long term impacts] to Church activities, the project applicant or designated representative, shall coordinate/ communicate with officials of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church -33- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES I& M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX I I I I I I I to establish a schedule... and plan to work out the logistics of the I development as it impacts the Church. Commissioner Merrill indicated that the Castaways Marina provided for a haul road, and inasmuch as the haul road would be constructed around the Church, the Church was specifically addressed in the Castaways Marina EIR. Mr. Drew concurred; however, he explained that the Castaways Marina is mentioned many times with respect to the impact that the Marina would have on the Church. Ms. Temple stated that the general construction impact conditions apply to everyone; however, staff has no problem with incorporating specific references to the Church and will respond to the foregoing comments in Response to Comment. The full scope of mitigation will be reviewed with the Church prior to submittal to the City Council. r Mr. Drew stated that the Church requests that prior to Tract Map approval or submittal, a resolution be worked out between the City, The Irvine Company, and Newport Harbor Lutheran Church. A specific resolution would be in place prior to the approval of a Tract Map, that the resolution shall contain that any private or public development assure the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church that it will not be impacted to affect their ability to service the community, to adhere and to continue their mission's statements and programs that are currently offered to the community. That no impact be made that would affect the Church's physical site with any constraints, including security, access, identity, that the Church now enjoys. Ms. B. J. Johnson, 23 Canyon Crest, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed Development Agreement. She explained that the Agreement provides needs and economic benefits for the City, and she supported the Newport Conservancy's request to purchase the Upper Castaways site. - Mr. Ed Benson, 1028 Westwind Way, President of the Dover Shores Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. He submitted a written text of his testimony to the Commission expressing the Association's support of the -34- COMMISSIONERS � o O , June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Development Agreement and the benefits the City would acquire as a result of the proposed project. Ms. Janet Remington, 1154 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. She addressed the West Newport OR project located adjacent to the Santa Ana River and 19th Street, and the circulation pattern to Dover Drive. She stated that a six lane highway would be constructed through the wetlands to Dover Drive if the West Newport Oil project would be developed from West Coast Highway to 19th Street in Costa Mesa, and she expressed concerns regarding the impact the traffic would have on the residents residing adjacent to the proposed roadway. Commissioner Gross, Commissioner Pomeroy, Commissioner Merrill and Ms. Remington discussed the feasibility of removing the expansion of Dover Drive from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and her concerns regarding Dover Drive and the 19th • Street Bridge. Mr. Webb stated that a study is currently going on with the County of Orange that will review the traffic in the Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Newport Beach areas that will evaluate the needs for 19th Street, Gisler Street, and Wilson Street bridges as well as the status of the East 19th Street link. The recommendations that come out of the study will be forwarded to the cities. He stated that he has been designated to participate in the study. The group participating in the study are trying to quantify some of the problems that are currently being addressed and to try to determine where the traffic is coming from and going to. The results of the study will be submitted to the City Council at a later date. Mr. Allen Beek, 2007 Highland, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Beek stated that the Development Agreement gives advance approval to projects that may be done many years in the future, and it is simply a way of the City abdicating responsibility in the future to maintain its vigilance over protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community. It is improper for the City to give away the future years, the rights of future City Councils, and the right of the people at the polls to make their fundamental planning decisions for the City. It has been justified that the City would get some streets built and paid for by The Irvine Company; however, he said the City has no need for the -35- COMMISSIONERS 0 June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL A I I INDEX, Company would be responsible for the restoration and re- establishment of the slopes in those areas. Absent their willingness to make the improvements themselves, then their development line would be defined by the existing top of slope, which is in some areas quite irregular. With The Irvine Company's willingness to make those improvements, they could smooth out their development line and make use of the new line. Provisions have been made for both - the restoration of the erosion and the overall stabilization of the bluff on both sides. In the case of the restoration of the erosion areas, the cost would be the responsibility of The Irvine Company, and the overall bluff stabilization is currently the responsibility of the City. Mr. Dean Reinemann, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he is on the Costa Mesa Transportation Committee; although he is a Newport Beach resident. He expressed his concerns regarding the standard policy that the City uses to submit • comments regarding the EIR. Chairman Di Sano explained that the comments on the EIR continue until July 18, 1992. Mr. Reinemann stated that the removal of open space around the Back Bay is the primary concern of the individuals attending the public hearing. Mr. Don Harvey, 2039 Port Weybridge, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Harvey addressed Mr. Beek's foregoing comments and the inappropriateness of the Development Agreement, and he concurred that each project should be considered on an individual basis. He said that the Development Agreement would allow traffic to increase, and the result is that there would be more pressure from the public for open space. He requested not to take away for future representatives, the power to respond to future conditions. Mr. Harvey stated that the reason why the widening of Dover Drive does not show on the traffic count is because, subsequent to an extensive conversation with Cal - Trans, that the street width does not enter into projections. The Development Agreement is based implicitly on projections of what is going to happen in the future. Mr. Webb commented that it was his impression that the aforementioned statement indicates that the • traffic models do not take into consideration the number of lanes and roadways wherein Mr. Webb replied that the statement is incorrect. Mr. Webb explained that the traffic model does indicate the number of lanes and it is a constrained model. Mr. Harvey -37- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES 0 M "Q 0 �\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I I I I INDEX streets, and he suggested more intersection capacity and not more lanes. He suggested that the Circulation Element be amended to remove the additional lanes. In reference to the proposed Upper Castaways project, Mr. Beek stated that the bluff is eroding, that some of the runoff from the top of the bluff runs over the face and down the bluff, and is carving gullies. One of the requirements of the project should be that the gullies should be filled and restored, and that a berm be established along the drainage. There should be public bicycle and pedestrian access from 16th Street to the bluff top development. He opposed the proposal to construct a 10 foot berm or mound adjacent to the residential development and the open space inasmuch as the houses in back want a view and the houses in front should be kept low and not built up, and they should be restricted in height, so the neighbors behind can see over the lower structures. The proposed 32 foot height limit is completely out of character, at least for the front row of houses. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Beek explained that The Irvine Company is taking every last dwelling unit they are entitled to, on the Castaways, the Newporter North, and San Diego Creek South. He stated that what The Irvine Company is giving in open space is around the freeway, and that area cannot be developed. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gross, Ms. Flory explained that the change in density would require a change in the General Plan, and it is a matter of creating zoning for the applications that currently exist. Mr. Hewicker explained that prior to the time that there are homes on the site, the zoning has to be established. Mr. Beek responded that the general outline would be established with the subject Development Agreement and the City would not be able to go back on the things that were given away with the Development Agreement. Mr. Beek commended staff and the City Attorney's office on the work that has been done with the subject Development Agreement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Ms. Temple explained that the comprehensive set of mitigation • measures require that the bluffs on the Castaways and Newporter North undergo a stabilization program. In addition, staff set up a program whereby in order to make use of the restored top of slope in the areas where there are erosion swells, that The Irvine -36- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1492 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX responded that in the Cal- Trans' models and projections, the lane structure was not considered because it was not clear what that would be. Mr. Harvey and Commissioner Gross discussed the feasibility of a change in future zoning, density, and development. Mr. Gordon Glass, 2024 Avenida Chico, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Glass addressed Newporter North, the EK the Planned Community text, and public view corridors. He commented that Newport Conservancy will hopefully be able to raise enough money to purchase the Newporter North property. If the Conservancy does not succeed, then he recommended a view corridor which would not drastically impact The Irvine Company's ability to develop the property. If there would be a view plane and view corridor established downward to the water level to about where East Coast Highway is, there would be a perpetual view that thousands of people a day can enjoy. He proposed a view corridor approximately 1200 feet south from the intersection of Santa • Barbara and Jamboree Road; establish a site plane as viewed from Jamboree Road at 4 feet above street level or the eye height of a driver passing downward toward the water level; and no trees or trees that could be controlled.. He proposed that as a part of the Site Plan Review in the PC text that the aforementioned be given serious consideration. Ms. Temple explained that within the provisions of the Development Agreement, action could not be taken to reduce the number of units. Dr. Jan VanderSloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. VanderSloot commended The Irvine Company for the sensitivity in addressing the smaller wetlands that are located on the subject properties, and their appreciation for the value of wetlands as open space. He expressed a concern that after the wetlands are dedicated to the City, is the City committed to preserving the areas as wetlands, are there any safeguards or restrictions, or anything that would make sure that the wetland areas that are dedicated actually remain wetlands for perpetuity. He stated that the wetlands located at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard may be impacted by the San Joaquin Hills Corridor, the Newporter North site may be impacted by the access • road to the Corridor, and the Dover Drive wetland would be impacted by the widening of Dover Drive. He recommended that the Commission delay their decision until after the public comment period is over because the Commission cannot be fully educated -38- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES o 6, d • �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX until after reviewing the comments or the biological affects of Newporter. North until the Commission has read what the Fish and Game Department and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service have to report. He said that the Bolsa Chica Mesa EIR has suggested that cats not be allowed within the houses because cats will disturb the wildlife within the wetlands. He recommended that The Irvine Company give the Newport Conservancy additional time to come up with the necessary funding, possibly up to five years. Dr. VanderSloot stated that the Upper Castaways development would impact 16th Street even though it is not stated in the EIR, and there has been no noise study on East 16th Street. He pointed out that developing an active park on Upper Castaways would not be compatible with adjacent residences. He concluded that residential developments do not generate enough property taxes over the long run to pay for the services that are needed. Mr. Jim Kociuva, 5105 - 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that Upper Castaways would generate more traffic for the eastside neighborhoods, and he opposed the proposed circulation plan. He addressed the traffic congestion at the intersection of 17th Street and Irvine Avenue, and he suggested an additional left turn lane for the east /west traffic. Mr. Tom Redwitz reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Redwitz addressed the testimony during the public hearing regarding Newport Conservancy, and he responded that The Irvine Company would sell one or more of the subject properties so long as the property was sold at fair market value and within a reasonable time period of 12 to 18 months. He stated that The Irvine Company has an 'open door' policy regarding the issue, and the Company has cooperated with the Conservancy to discuss the acquisition of the sites. In response to concerns posed during the public hearing regarding Newporter North, Mr. Redwitz explained that SPON requested the preservation of a view corridor from Jamboree Road; therefore, the shape of the Newporter North development pulls back from Jamboree Road going southbound to open up a view corridor to the lower bay. In response to public testimony regarding the proposed Development Agreement as 'piecemeal' • opposed to projects, Mr. Redwitz explained that The Irvine Company considers comprehensive planning to be the most beneficial way to consider properties, and the method is consistent -39- June 18, 1992 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX with the way The Irvine Company has previously developed properties. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was. closed at this time. Mr. Redwitz reappeared before the Planning Commission in response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the bluff restoration. Mr. Redwitz explained that the setback of the development area would be 40 feet, and The Irvine Company is not proposing to develop into the 40 foot setback. The proposal was originally that The Irvine Company would be allowed to grade into the area, but not build into the area. Ms. Flory explained that the concern is not whether the bluffs are restored, the concern is the extra weight on the manufactured slope, or the additional weight of the pad as it builds up in the extra 20 feet. Mr. Hewicker explained that during the processing of grading, raising the elevation, and creating the pad, The Irvine Company would be developing within the 40 foot setback and that would include the additional height of the land and the weight of the earth. Mr. Hewicker stated that development can be considered dirt or structures. Ms. Temple explained that the restoration of the bluff face does not affect the liability issues identified in relationship to the creation of the manufactured slope. Mr. Watson reappeared before the Planning Commission in response to the foregoing comments wherein he explained that by The Irvine Company coming 20 feet into the 40 feet, and if something that The Irvine Company wants to do would cause an unstable condition on the bluff, The Irvine Company would be responsible to correct what they have caused. Mr. Watson further explained that to do any development, grading, etc. and if the City would indicate that what is being done would cause instability to the bluff, then The Irvine Company would correct what they are doing or they would pay for it. Ms. Flory stated that the City Attorney's Office would be looking at an assumption of liability if there would be 20 feet into the 40 feet. Commissioner Edwards suggested the foregoing as a condition that could be added to the project. Mr. Watson concurred with comments made by Commissioner Merrill that The Irvine Company would like to intrude on the setback with a slope easement. Mr. Watson explained that The Irvine Company has only indicated that there is a possibility that they would want to grade into the area. Commissioner Merrill stated that by elevating -40- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH = ROLL CALL 11 I I 1 I I I l INDEX I the lots it is feasible that The Irvine Company may be able to mitigate the intrusion from the open space corridor into the backyard which could present a problem, so if the property could be elevated, and construct a wall at the top of the four foot fill, a 10 foot high barrier could be constructed and it would depress the traffic. Chairman Di Sano asked Mr. Redwitz if The Irvine Company would support a 20 foot setback and if they would indemnify or hold harmless the City. Mr. Redwitz concurred. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding Mr. Beek's comments with respect to a 32 foot height limit, Ms. Temple explained that the 32 foot height limit is common in Planned Community texts, and the standard Residential Districts are either 24 feet or 28 feet. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding . the safety factor of a 10 foot encroachment as opposed to 20 feet into the 40 foot bluff top, Ms. Flory explained that there would be the same safety concerns based on the additional weight over the portion of the bluff that supports the weight. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would not support a very rigid straight wall going at the 40 foot setback which would be unattractive, and would not be to the benefit of the City. However, he agreed with previous comments that a 20 foot area is inadequate for access, that a 10 foot encroachment and 2:1 slope would be somewhat of a compromise, and 20 feet adjacent to the bluff is not enough of a level area. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Flory replied ,that the City Attorney's Office has not discussed cross - indemnification with The Irvine Company. Ms. Flory further replied that the suggestion could be voted on by the Commission and the City Attorney's Office could address the issue with The Irvine Company. Commissioner Gross stated that any agreements made with The Irvine Company regarding the encroachment into the setback area and issues of liability could be over -ridden by a future geo- technical study. Mr. Webb concurred that a geo - technical study would be the ultimate guide and if it would be geo - technically incorrect The Irvine Company would not develop on the property. I I I I I 11 1 -41- COMMISSIONERS O' .,pG, June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Merrill addressed the encroachment issue from a planning concept whereby he determined that further permits, i.e. an Encroachment Permit or Grading Permit, would require geo- technical studies. Ms. Flory concurred that the Commission should make recommendations for planning, and the liability and agreement would be handled between the City Attorney's Office and The Irvine Company and it would go to the City Council in that form. Chairman Di Sano asked if The Irvine Company would make best efforts at the point of Site Plan Review to accommodate the concerns of parking, sign direction, sidewalk, etc. that would be specifically for the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church? Mr. Redwitz agreed with the foregoing statement. Ms. Temple stated that an additional point of decision would be included in the Site Plan Review for the Upper Castaways Planned Community text. In response to a by Commissioner Debay, Ms. question posed Temple stated that the purpose of requesting that the Commission make a determination regarding an active park on Castaways is that there had been some concerns regarding an active park and the reference is specifically for the 4 to 5 acre facility which is on the comer of 16th Street and Dover Drive. The definition in the Planned Community text is that there would be an active recreation facility on the site; however, there are limitations such as there would be no night lights. Commissioner Merrill stated that an active park would be the determination of Parks, Beaches and Recreation, or he would be interested in an inventory of the existing parks. Ms. Temple stated that The Irvine Company reviewed the Site Development Plans with the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and an active ark is the result of their input in addition to the input of the Cliff Haven Community. Chairman Di Sano stated that he would be supportive of an active park as the result of an Outreach Meeting. Commissioner Debay stated that many of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church's concerns would be eliminated if the active park as removed from the request. Ms. Temple suggested that a • control mechanism could be placed on the use of the active park inasmuch as the PB &R Commission has the ability to impose use restrictions based on time of day and day of week. -42- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Glover requested a directive where there would be a concerted effort to work with the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church and staff, including PB &R and The Irvine Company, to come up with an agreement so the Site Plan Review would indicate that all of the interested parties would feel comfortable. Ms. Temple concurred that a requirement in the Site Plan Review would include a resolution which clearly involves the agreement of all parties. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the supplemental data from the EIR, Earth Resources, wherein it is stated that the City's minimum setbacks may not necessarily be adequate from a geo- technical viewpoint concerning bluff slope instability. Appropriate safe bluff top setback recommendations should be determined by the project geo- technical consultant at the tentative tract map review phase to the satisfaction of the City. He stated that the language would go far in • solving problems. Ms. Temple stated that the foregoing is in the required mitigation measures. Mr. Redwitz reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated that The Irvine Company would make every effort to cooperate with the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church to come up with a viable solution regarding the Church's concerns; however, The Irvine Company would not accept a condition that required prior to the Site Plan Review submittal that there would be an agreement. The Commission took the following straw vote actions on the proposed project: Green is Yes - Red is No Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement: L Should The Irvine Company be allowed to use the restored top of slope as the point of beginning for the measurement of property and building setback lines if the erosional swales on Castaways and Newporter North are restored by TIC? . * ** Green Red -43- June 18, 1992 COMMISSIONERS • c� Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 2 Is the additional dedication of the remainder of Newport Village in combination with exchange of the southerly portion of San Diego Creek North for ultimate dedication to the TCA acceptable? * * ** Green Red Castaways 3. Shall there be an active park on Castaways? * Green * * Red • Castaways/Newporter North: 4. Shall TIC be allowed to encroach 20 feet into the 40 foot bluff top property line setback area with a manufactured slope? In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, the Commission modified No. 4 to encroach 10 feet instead of 20 feet. * k k k Green Red a. If yes, shall the maximum slope be 2:1 or 4:1? * Green: 2:1 Red: 4:1 b. That any encroachment would include appropriate arrangement between the City and The Irvine Company relative to full indemnification of encroachment. • Mr. Webb suggested that the foregoing be modified to include a requirement to maintain the slope. Discussion ensued regarding the responsible party(ies). Commissioner Merrill stated that Community Association's should not be asked to maintain property -44- June 18, 1992 COMMISSIONERS 0 \4, S\N \, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX on 'the other side of the wall'. Commissioner Edwards suggested that The Irvine Company maintain or compensate the City for the maintenance of the encroachment. * Green * Red Bayview Landing.. 5. What shall be the permitted land use on the lower portion of Bayview Landing? a. Restaurant /Athletic Club b. Senior Citizen housing with transfer of retail to Fashion Island • c. Active Park with transfer of retail to Fashion Island In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gross, Ms. Temple explained that the problem with not taking action on the foregoing item would be that Item 5 (b) requires a General Plan Amendment Initiation. It is specifically structured not to be restaurant or athletic club or senior citizen housing because with respect to senior housing, The Irvine Company is desirous of transferring a certain amount of retail into Fashion Island in conjunction with the approval. Ms. Temple furtber explained that The Irvine Company requested a restaurant /athletic club; however, they would accept senior citizen housing with transfer to Fashion Island. Mr. Redwitz reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he indicated that affordable senior citizen housing would be a good project and they would be supportive of that type of development. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Watson reappeared before the Planning Commission and he replied that The Irvine Company would prefer senior citizen housing; however, if it would be infeasible to develop senior citizen housing he asked if the restaurant /athletic club would be acceptable? Ms. Temple explained that the General Plan Amendment could be structured so as to have a fall back land use. • Mr. Redwitz stated that the Planned Community text was drafted with the restaurant /athletic club use, and an alternative would be to allow a senior citizen housing project on the site and in the event, transfer the entitlement to Newport Center. It is not -45- COMMISSIONERS 0 no�� \ June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX necessarily eliminating the use on the Bayview Landing site for the restaurant /athletic club use but providing an option to develop a senior citizen housing project on the site. Chairman IN Sano suggested that Item 5 (c) be modified to state Senior Citizen Housing with transfer of retail to Fashion Island or the restaurant /athletic club. Ms. Temple concurred with the foregoing suggestion. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Ms. Temple explained that on the subject site the proposal would be for affordable senior housing addressing low and very low income housing. Mr. Redwitz concurred. He stated that the zoning that would be approved on the property would allow one of the uses. In the event the affordable senior housing project is built, that it would be the ability through a General Plan Amendment to transfer the entitlement off of the site to Newport Center. Ms. Temple stated that it would be at the discretion of The Irvine • Company to determine what would be the best development given the scope of permitted land uses. The Planned Community text only allows the restaurant and athletic club. The Commission's action would change the PC text as it goes forward to the City Council to show the third available land use as affordable senior citizen housing. Green- Restaurant /Athletic Club White- Senior Citizen housing with transfer of retail to Fashion Island * * * * * * Red - Affordable Senior Citizen housing with transfer of retail to Fashion Island or restaurant /athletic club. Block 800 - Newport Center. 6 Shall the potential senior citizen housing be subject to the review and approval of a Use Permit? In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Ms. . Temple explained that senior citizen housing is the type of use here the operational characteristics are of interest in terms of controlling life care facilities. Mr. Redwitz stated that The Irvine Company would not have an objection with a use permit. -46- COMMISSIONERS 0 \4 t\N \' June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX * * Green - Use Permit * Red- No Use Permit Motion Motion was made to approve Development Agreement No. 6, Traffic Study No. 82, Amendment No. 763 (Resolution No. 1300), . Amendment No. 764 (Resolution No. 1301), Amendment No. 765 (Resolution No. 1302), Amendment No. 766 (Resolution No. 1303), Amendment No. 767 (Resolution No. 1304), Amendment No. 768 (Resolution No. 1305), Amendment No. 769 (Resolution No. 1306), and Amendment No. 770 (Resolution No. 1307) according to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W', as modified by the revisions suggested by staff. Commissioner Gross stated that there would only be one reason why he would be against voting for the project and that would be Dr. VanderSloot's comment regarding the Environmental Impact Report. However, knowing that the EIR is not certified by the Commission but by the City Council at a later date prior to the closing of the draft comments, he would vote in favor of the project. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the Commission has met on a consistent basis over a two year period with The Irvine Company and the Commission has offered their own suggestions as Commissioners as ways of enhancing the benefits to the City, particularly in the view park area and open space area. Commissioner Edwards concurred with Commissioner Gross' comment regarding the EIR. He stated that the only reason he would vote against the project would be that the City is essentially giving up a certain amount of discretion. The benefits that would be derived from the arrangement outweighs the difficult decision. Commissioner Glover stated that a very good intensive Site Plan Review has been outlined by the staff, and almost all of the projects will come to the Commission through the public hearing • process. Commissioner Merrill compared open space with setbacks. He stated that setbacks are generally located on private property and maintained by the property owner. The Irvine Company is giving -47- COMMISSIONERS n O June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX open space which will help the City. He indicated that it would be difficult for the Newport Conservancy to raise the funds to purchase the open space properties; therefore, he suggested that the Conservancy raise money to improve some of the open spaces and the ongoing maintenance could be born by the Conservancy money. Commissioner Debay stated that based on the benefits to the City, the number of required mitigation measures, the review on several different tracts, and it is a phase development, that she would support the project. Chairman Di Sano stated that he would support the project. He addressed meetings between The Irvine Company, the Commissioners, members of Community Associations, and Outreach meetings. He stated that the proposed Development Agreement as written by the City Attorney's Office is a document that the City can live with and it is not a 'give away'. All Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Impact Report No. 148 Findings: 1. That a Program Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That all potential significant environmental effects which could result from the project have been identified and analyzed in the EIR. 3. That based upon the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report, mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project to reduce potentially significant environmental effects to a level of insignificance, except in the areas of Aesthetics /Light and Glare, Biology, and Public Services and Utilities, and that the remaining environmental effects are significant only on a cumulative basis. Further, that the economic and social -48- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES 0 \1 P,0\N1 \\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX benefits to the community override the remaining significant environmental effect anticipated as a result of the project. 4. That the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report has been considered in the various decisions made relative to this project. Mitiyation Measures: Aesthetics/Ught and Glare 1. In conjunction with site plan review, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed temporary grading and landscape plan for the bluff top setback area for the purpose of minimizing bluff erosion. If graded slopes from a development area extend into the bluff top setback area, as proposed by the PC Text, the project proponent shall prepare detailed final grading and landscape plans for the bluff top setback area. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, Planning Department, Public Works Department, and Building Department. Transportation /Circulation 2. The City shall prepare a circulation improvement monitoring program to direct expenditures of funds received under the Development Agreement to make improvements and to monitor the status of those improvements. The list of improvements to be implemented shall initially be based on those identified on Table V, with prioritization established based on technical need and ability to implement them in a timely manner. Flexibility to add or delete projects on the list should be maintained to respond to actual changes in traffic volumes and the ability of the City to accomplish improvements so long as the projected Net Benefit to the circulation system is maintained. Thereafter, a review of the improvements' priority and • implementation status shall be done in conjunction with the City's annual Congestion Management Program and Growth Management Program analysis and the annual review of the Development Agreement. -49- • COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH = ROLL CALL J J Jill I I INDEX 3. The applicant or successor in interest shall construct or post bond for all frontage improvements identified in the Development Agreement and listed in Table B of the Program EIR. Air Quality 4. All grading related to the project shall be conducted in . accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. This mitigation measure shall be made a condition of all grading permits related to the project. 5. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations while construction activities are being conducted, fugitive dust emission shall be controlled using the following procedures: • Graded sections of the project that will not be further disturbed or worked on for long periods of time (three months or more) shall be seeded and watered or covered with plastic sheeting to retard wind erosion. • Graded sections of the project which are undergoing further disturbance or construction activities shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. These mitigation measures shall be made a condition of all grading permits related to the project. 6. During grading and construction activities, the applicant shall further control fugitive dust emissions using the following measures: • On -site vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. Entrances to all on -site roads shall be posted with a sign indicating the maximum speed limits on all unpaved roads. • All areas with vehicle traffic shall be periodically watered. -50- COMMISSIONERS d June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX • Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept as needed to remove silt which may have accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent accumulations of excessive amounts of dust. These mitigation measures shall be made a condition of all grading permits related to the project. 7.. Office and commercial development on the Corporate Plaza West and Bay View Landing site shall also participate in the Centerride program currently in operation in the Newport Center area. Evidence of intent to participate shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of occupancy permit. 8. Bicycle racks shall be required in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Transportation Demand Ordinance. 9. Construction of related frontage improvements shall include bus turnouts and shelters if determined to be necessary and desirable by the Orange County Transit District and /or the City of Newport Beach. Prior to final design and construction of any frontage improvements, the City of Newport Beach shall contact the Orange County Transit District to determine if any bus turnouts or shelters will be required. 10. All development shall include street and security lighting (in parking lots and pedestrian walkway areas) which is energy conserving. A lighting plan shall be submitted for all development which demonstrates compliance with this measure. The plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and approved by the Department of Public Works. 11. Residential, commercial and office development shall be landscaped with an emphasis on drought resistant plant • species which will shade buildings and reduce water and energy consumption during the summer. A landscape plan shall be submitted for all development which demonstrates compliance with this measure. The plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and approved by the -51- COMMISSIONERS .o 0 June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Department of Public Works prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Noise 12. The applicant shall ensure that all residential lots and dwellings are sound attenuated against present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 65 dB CNEL in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms. Evidence shall be prepared under the supervision of a City certified acoustical consultant which demonstrates that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations and submitted as follows: • A. Prior to the recordation of a final tract /parcel map or prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, at the sole discretion of the City, an Acoustical Analysis Report shall be submitted to the City's Advance Planning Manager for approval: The report shall describe in detail the exterior noise environment and preliminary mitigation measures. Acoustical design features to achieve interior noise standards may be included in the report in which case it may also satisfy "B" below. B. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, an acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical design features of the structures required to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitted to the Advance Planning Manager for approval along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report(s) have been incorporated into the design of the project. C. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, all freestanding acoustical barriers must be shown on the projects plot plan illustrating height, location and -52- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX construction in a manner meeting the approval of the City's Advance Planning Manager. D. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy, field testing in accordance with Title 25 regulations may be required by the Planning Director to verify compliance with STC and HC design standards. 13. All non - residential structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined impact of all present and projected noise from exterior noise sources to meet the interior noise criteria as specified in the Noise Element. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence shall be prepared under the supervision of a City certified acoustical consultant that these standards will be satisfied • and shall be submitted to the Manager, Advance Planning in the form of an Acoustical Analysis Report describing in detail the exterior noise environment and the acoustical design features required to achieve the interior noise standard and which indicate that the sound attenuation measures specified have been incorporated into the design of the project. 14. All freestanding acoustical barriers shall be a berm, wall or combination berm and wall. Walls shall not contain holes or gaps. Walls shall be constructed of slumpstone or other masonry material. Final acoustical barrier heights and locations shall be determined when final grading plans are developed showing lot locations, house/building setbacks and precise pad elevation. Biological Resources 15. Pursuant to Section 1601 -1603 of the State of California Fish and Game Code, the California Department of Fish and Game shall be notified of any alterations to streambed habitats. The applicant or any successors in interest shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Fish and Game regarding any grading related to residential development and associated improvements on the San Diego Creek -53- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES 0. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL i;0EX South, Upper Castaways, Newporter North, and Freeway Reservation sites which would alter streambed habitats. The applicant or any successor in interest shall notify the Department of Fish and Game and obtain any necessary permit prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Copies of proper notification and necessary permits shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of a grading permit. The City of Newport Beach shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Fish and Game regarding any grading related to any public improvements (e.g. trails, recreational facilities, roads, drainage facilities, etc.) in areas designated for open space, public facilities, and /or parks which would alter streambed habitats. The City of Newport Beach shall notify the Department of Fish and Game and obtain any necessary permits prior to commencement of any grading which could alter the streambed habitat. The permits issued by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Sections 1601 -1603 may require additional mitigation measures deemed necessary by the Department. 16. Wetland delineation studies in accordance and conjunction with the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting processes shall be performed for any wetland which will be impacted by grading and construction activities. The applicant or any successor in interest shall.be responsible for conducting the wetland delineation studies for wetlands impacted by residential development or associated improvements on the Newporter North and Upper Castaways sites. If residential development or associated improvements on the San Diego Creek South or Freeway Reservation sites encroach into the Bonita Creek wetland, the applicant or any successor in interest shall be responsible for conducting the wetland delineation study. The City of Newport Beach shall be responsible for conducting the wetland delineation studies for wetlands impacted by any public improvements /facilities in areas designated for open space, public facilities, and /or parks which will encroach into wetlands. The studies shall occur at the time specific site plans and grading plans are available and prior to issuance of any grading permits or commencement of grading activities in areas containing wetland habitat. -54- COMMISSIONERS � o June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 17. Public use and related facility development for areas proposed for natural open space and passive park uses within the Upper Castaways, Newporter North, Newporter Knoll, Bay View Landing, Freeway Reservation, and Jamboree /MacArthur sites shall be designed to be sensitive to existing biological resources. To this end, facility plans and public uses for these areas shall be prepared in consultation with a qualified biologist who shall determine that such plans and uses do not adversely impact sensitive resources identified on these sites (e.g. wetlands, coastal sage scrub, etc.). If necessary, additional environmental documentation shall be prepared at the time facility plans are prepared to determine if significant adverse impacts beyond those anticipated in this Program EIR will occur. If new significant adverse impacts are identified, additional mitigation measures shall be adopted. 18. Grading, earthmoving, and any related construction activities related to residential development and associated improvements on the Upper Castaways, San Diego Creek South, Bay View Landing, and Newporter North sites shall be restricted as follows: Upper Castaways and Newporter North - No grading (except that necessary for trail establishment and improvements, erosion control or bluff stabilization), stockpiling of soil or operation of equipment shall take place within the bluff top setback area established by the Bluff Top setback Ordinance. San Diego Creek South - No grading, stockpiling of soils, or operation of equipment shall encroach into the area of Bonita Creek beyond the existing 15 foot elevation contour. Newporter North - No grading, stockpiling of soils or operation of equipment shall take place below the existing 60 foot elevation contour surrounding the John Wayne Gulch freshwater marsh. Bay View Landing - no grading, stockpiling of soil or operation of equipment shall encroach into the hillside above the 25 -foot contour of the lower development area. • 19. Prior to grading and /or constructing any public facility on the San Diego Creek North site which will encroach into the on -site freshwater marsh, the City of Newport Beach (or other public agency responsible for development of the -55- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX public facility) shall approve and begin implementation of a plan which shall offset the loss of wetlands. This plan shall reflect all mitigation requirements of any State or Federal agency having jurisdiction over the affected wetlands. Offsets shall be achieved by either creating a new freshwater marsh on -site or enhancing and expanding an existing freshwater marsh in or near the San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. 20. Prior to grading and /or constructing any residential development or associated improvement on the Upper Castaways site which will encroach into the on -site freshwater marsh, the applicant or successor in interest shall prepare and begin implementation of a plan which shall offset the loss of wetlands. This plan shall reflect all mitigation requirements of any State or Federal agency having jurisdiction over the affected wetlands. Offsets shall be achieved by either creating a new freshwater marsh on- site or enhancing and expanding an existing freshwater marsh in or near the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. A copy of the plan and all related permits shall be presented to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of a grading permit. 21. Prior to grading and /or constructing any residential development or associated improvement on the Newporter North site which will encroach into the on -site freshwater marsh, the applicant or successor in interest shall prepare and begin implementation of a plan which shall offset the loss of wetlands. This plan shall reflect all mitigation requirements of any State or Federal agency having jurisdiction over the affected wetlands. Offsets shall be achieved by either creating a new freshwater marsh on -site or enhancing and expanding an existing freshwater marsh in or near the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. A . copy of the plan and all related permits shall be presented to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of a grading • permit. 22. Development on the San Diego Creek South site shall be designed so as to reduce the amount of light and glare which could potentially spill over into the wetland habitats -56- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M ROLL CALL I i I J i l l I I INDEX • 0 of Bonita Creek and San Diego Creek. This can be achieved by a variety of means including a combination of sensitive siting of lighted buildings; use of lighting systems which conceal the light source and minimize light spillage and glare; screening walls/berms; and dense landscaping along the edge of the development. Any landscaped edge screening shall include non - invasive trees and shrubs. The plant palette for the screening vegetation shall consist of dense, evergreen species which, when mixed, achieve canopy and understory of elements to provide as much screening as possible. The site plan and landscape plan for this edge shall be prepared in consultation with a City- approved, qualified biologist. The site plan and landscape plan shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to commencing grading, all wetlands habitat in areas intended for preservation shall be temporarily fenced. This measure shall pertain only when grading, stock - piling, or other construction activities are proposed within 100 feet of the boundaries of the wetland area. A plan identifying the wetland area and the location of the fencing shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any grading permit. This measure shall apply to the Newporter North, Newporter Knoll, Bay View Landing, Upper Castaways, San Diego Creek South and San Diego Creek North sites. Revegetation of cut and fill slopes, bluff stabilization /remediation areas, fuel modification zones and other graded areas adjacent to existing sensitive habitat areas (e.g. at the edge of development of residential, public facilities, or recreational areas) shall be accomplished with plant palettes containing predominantly native species. Steeper slopes (greater than 2:1) shall be revegetated with a mixture of coastal sage scrub species including California sage brush which now dominates coastal sage scrub used by California gnatcatchers. Portions of more level areas shall be revegetated with species of native perennial grasses in an attempt to establish native grassland. An expert in landscape revegetation, who is knowledgeable and qualified in native plant mixtures shall provide consultation into the -57- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES 03 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH [-ROLLCALLIJIINDEX preparation of landscape plans to ensure that this measure is complied with. Landscape plans shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits for private development or commencement of grading for public facilities and public recreational uses. 25. All non - emergency grading related to bluff stabilization /remediation on the Newporter North and Bay View Landing sites shall occur during the non - breeding season for the California gnatcatcher. The non - breeding season is from August 1 to January 31. E I I I I I I I I Faulting and Seismicity 26. Buildings four stories in height or higher shall be designed in accordance with requirements for seismic zone 4 as outlined in Chapter 23 of the Uniform Building Code and /or with the benefit of a site specific seismic ground response spectrum study which would be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant and structural engineer to allow matching of building period with site period. The structural plans and /or ground response study shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 27. Buildings less than four stories in height shall be designed by a Structural Engineer in accordance with UBC Chapter 23 requirements for Seismic Zone 4. Non - critical structures shall be designed to withstand strong ground shaking that may accompany a maximum probable earthquake along the Newport - Inglewood Fault. Critical structures (i.e., hospitals, fire /police facilities, schools, etc.) shall be designed to withstand strong ground shaking associated with a maximum credible earthquake on the Newport- Inglewood Fault. Structural plans, including seismic design calcula- tions/parameters, shall be approved by the City Building Department prior to issuance of building permits. 28. Habitable buildings shall not be placed adjacent to (above or below) slopes or bluffs where seismic induced slope or -58- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES 3 � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX bluff failure could occur. Though the City has established a Bluff Setback Criteria for development on the top -of -bluff (Development Policy D.2.b.1 of the Newport Beach General Plan, January 21, 1991, and Newport Municipal Code section 20.151.080), the City minimum setbacks may not necessarily be adequate from a geotechnical viewpoint concerning bluff /slope instability during an earthquake. Areas potentially prone to such failures shall be identified and further evaluated by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the Tentative Tract Map review and Grading Plan review stage. The evaluation shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. Grading and building plans shall reflect the recommendations of the evaluation to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 29. In accordance with the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone i. Act, a Registered Geologist shall further evaluate and make recommendations regarding the potential for ground surface rupture effecting proposed development on -sites where "Potentially Active Faults" have been identified (Bay View Landing and Freeway Reservation sites) or on any other of the sites where Potentially Active Faults are identified in the future. The study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Building Department and shall be prepared prior to approval of a tentative tract map or grading permit whichever. comes first. Grading and building plans shall reflect the recommendations of the study to the satisfaction of the Building Department. Liquefaction 30. Sites where the potential for liquefaction has been identified, or any other site where the potential for liquefaction may be encountered during subsequent investigations, shall be further evaluated by a geotechnical consultant. The evaluation shall include subsurface investigation with standard penetration testing or other • appropriate means of analysis for liquefaction potential. The project geotechnical consultant shall provide a statement concerning the potential for liquefaction and its possible impact on proposed development. If necessary, the -59- June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX geotechnical consultant shall provide mitigation measures which could include mechanical densification of liquefiable layers, dewatering, fill surcharging or other appropriate measures. The Geotechnical Consultant's report shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of Grading Permit. Grading and building plans shall reflect the recommendations of the study to the satisfaction of the Building Department. Erosion 31. Any necessary diversion devices, catchment devices, or velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the City Grading Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Berms or other catchment devices shall be incorporated into the grading plans to divert sheet flow runoff away from areas which have been stripped of natural vegetation. Velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the design, especially where drainage devices exit to natural ground. 32. All fill slopes shall be properly compacted during grading in conformance with the City Grading Code and verified by the project Geotechnical Consultant. Slopes shall be planted with vegetation upon completion of grading. Conformance with this measure shall be verified by the City Grading Engineer prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 33. Berms and brow ditches shall be constructed to the satisfaction and approval of the City Grading Engineer. Water shall not be allowed to drain over any manufactured slope face. Top-of -slope soil berms shall be incorporated into grading plans to prevent surface runoff from draining over future fill slopes. Brow ditches shall be incorporated into grading plans to divert surficial runoff from ungraded natural areas around future cut slopes. The design of berms • and brow ditches shall be approved by the City Grading Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. -60- COMMISSIONERS � d 03 � June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 34. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, appropriate artificial substances shall be recommended by the project landscape architect and approved by the City Grading Engineer for use in reducing surface erosion until permanent landscaping is well established. Upon completion of grading, stripped areas shall be covered with artificial substances approved by the City Grading Engineer. 35. Drainage of both surface and subsurface water over or toward the bluffs on the Upper Castaways and Newporter North sites shall be minimized. Though some drainage of rainwater over the bluff face cannot be avoided, drainage control devices shall be designed to direct excess water from site improvements away from the bluff face. Irrigation shall be controlled to prevent excessive infiltration into the subsurface. The project Civil Engineer shall design grading plans to minimize surface runoff over the bluff faces. The project Geotechnical Consultant shall provide recommendations to minimize subsurface water migration toward the bluff faces prior to approval of Tentative Tract maps or site plans. All design criteria for the control of surficial and subsurface water shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer. Bluff and Slope Instability 36. The project geotechnical consultant shall review the tentative tract map and grading plan for each site and prepare a report addressing all salient geotechnical issues related to bluff and slope stability of any existing bluff or slopes. These reports shall include: 1) detailed analysis of field data including surface and subsurface geological mapping; 2) laboratory testing results; 3) stability analysis of existing bluffs and proposed slopes as illustrated on the tentative tract map or rough grading plan; 4) conclusions; 5) recommendations for mitigation of any identified unstable bluffs or slopes and /or for additional investigation. These reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. -61- COMMISSIONERS .a d 3 � June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 37. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project geotechnical consultant and /or civil engineer shall make written recommendations for manufactured slope stabilization including, but not limited to, buttressing, rock bolting, grouting, slope gradient laybacks, or retaining walls. All necessary recommendations shall be included in the grading plan to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer. 38. Though the City has established a Bluff Setback Criteria for development on the top -of -bluff (Development Policy D.2.b.1 of the Newport Beach General Plan, January 21, 1991, and Newport Beach Municipal Code section 20.151.080), the City minimum setbacks may not necessarily be adequate from a geotechnical viewpoint concerning bluff /slope instability. Prior to issuance of grading permits, appropriate safe bluff top setback recommendations shall be determined by the project Geotechnical Consultant based on the evaluation required by Mitigation Measure 3 to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer. 39. During grading a geotechnical consultant shall monitor grading operations to ensure that recommendations for slope instability mitigation are implemented. Additionally, the geotechnical consultant shall evaluate slopes as they are . graded through geologic mapping and analysis to ensure that no unanticipated conditions are present. Slope stability mitigation recommendations may require modification during grading. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the Building Department. 40. Prior to issuance of building permits, the geotechnical consultant shall prepare a Rough Grading Report and As- Graded Geotechnical Map for each graded site at the completion of grading of that site. The Report shall summarize and document compliance with all mitigation measures. The Rough Grading Report shall include a statement regarding the adequacy of the manufactured slopes for their intended use and a statement regarding the adequacy of the recommended bluff setbacks. The report -62- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be approved by the City Grading Engineer. Compressible /Collapsible Soil 41. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, written recommendations for the mitigation of compressible /collapsible soil potential for each site shall be provided by the geotechnical consultant. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for the site- specific tentative tract maps and grading plans to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis. Mitigation, if necessary, could include: removal and recompaction of identified compressible /collapsible zones, fill surcharging and settlement monitoring, compaction grouting, or foundation design which utilizes deep piles, or other recommended measures. The geotechnical consultant's site - specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil Engineer, and shall be approved by the City Grading Engineer. Expansive /Corrosive Soil 42. Written recommendations for the mitigation of expansive and corrosive soil potential for each site, shall be provided by the project corrosion consultant, geotechnical consultant and /or Civil engineer. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis and shall be incorporated into final building plans prior to issuance of building permits. The geotechnical consultant's site - specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered City Engineer, and shall be approved by the City Grading Engineer. -63- COMMISSIONERS � o June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Near Surface Groundwater 43. The project geotechnical consultant and /or civil engineer shall prepare written site - specific reviews of the tentative tract maps and grading plans addressing all salient geotechnical issues, including groundwater. These reports shall provide findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding. near - surface groundwater and the potential for artificially induced groundwater as a result of future development, and the effects groundwater may have on existing or future bluffs, slopes and structures. The reports shall also address the potential for ground subsidence on the sites and properties adjacent to the sites if dewatering is recommended. The geotechnical consultant and /or civil engineer's reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil Engineer and shall be ' completed to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Water Resources Water Quality 44. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall provide to the Building and Public Works Departments haul route plans that include a description of haul routes, access points to the sites and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of the haul operation. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Copies of the plans shall be submitted to the City's Planning Department. 45. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall incorporate the following erosion control methods into grading plans and operations to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer and Building Department. a. An approved material such as straw, wood chips, plastic or similar materials shall be used to stabilize graded areas prior to revegetation or construction. b. Air -borne and vehicle -borne sediment shall be controlled during construction by: the regular -64- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX sprinkling of exposed soils; and the moistening of vehicles loads. C. As approved material such as rip rap (a ground cover of large, loose, angular stones) shall be used to stabilize any slopes with seepage problems to protect the top soils in areas of concentrated runoff. d. During the period of construction activity, existing vegetation which will be retained on -site shall be protected from traffic by the use of fences. N appropriate, buffer strips or vegetative filter strips, such as tall stands of grass, can be used as an alternative and /or supplementary method to protect against sediment buildup. 46. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project geotechnical consultant and /or civil engineer shall develop a plan for the diversion of stormwater away from any exposed slopes during grading and construction activities. The plan shall include the use of temporary right -of -way diversions (Le., berms or swales) located at disturbed areas or graded right -of -ways. The plan will be approved by the City Engineer and Building Departments and implemented during grading and construction activities. 47. The applicant shall provide a temporary gravel entrance located at every construction site entrance. The location of this entrance shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. To reduce or eliminate mud and sediment carried by vehicles or runoff onto public rights -of -way, the gravel shall cover the entire width of the entrance, and its length shall be no less than fifty feet. The entrance plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Grading Engineer concurrent with review and approval of grading plans. 48. The applicant shall construct filter berms or other approved device for the temporary gravel entrance. The berms shall consist of a ridge of gravel placed across graded right -of- ways to decrease and filter runoff levels while permitting construction traffic to continue. The location of berms shall -65- COMMISSIONERS ,0 0 June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Grading Engineer. 49. During grading and construction, the applicant shall provide a temporary sediment basin located at the point of greatest runoff from any construction area. The location of this basin shall be incorporated into grading plans. It shall consist of an embankment of compacted soils across a drainage. The basin shall not be located in an area where its failure would lead to a loss of life or the loss of service of public utilities or roads. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Grading Engineer. Drainage Patterns 50. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the master plans of water, sewer and storm drain facilities shall be approved by the City Engineer. Any systems shown to be required by the review shall be the responsibility of the developer, unless otherwise provided for through an agreement with the property owner or serving Agency. Cultural Resources Archaeology ALL PROJECT SITES 51. All sites shall be mitigated pursuant to Council Policy K -5. Where further testing or salvage is required, the applicant shall select a City- approved qualified archaeologist to excavate a sample of the site. All testing and salvage shall be conducted prior to issuance of grading permits or use of an area for recreational purposes. A written report summarizing the findings of the testing and data recovery program shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of the completed data recovery program. • 52. The applicant shall donate all archaeological material, historic, or prehistoric, recovered during the project, to a local institution which has the proper facilities for curation, -66- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX display and study by qualified scholars. All material shall be transferred to the approved facility after laboratory analysis and a report have been completed. The appropriate local institution shall be approved by the Planning Department based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist. 51 Any excavation of a site located within the Coastal zone of more than two surface meters of dirt shall require a coastal development permit prior to commencing the excavation. All provisions of the California Coastal Commission guidelines shall be complied with. UPPER CASTAWAYS 54. Prior to any grading related to development of the bluff trail • system, open space uses or bluff stabilization which could impact CA -Ora49 and CA -Ora -186 on the Upper Castaways site, the sites shall be subjected to test excavations by a City approved archaeologist (experienced in both historic and pre - historic archaeology) to determine site integrity, extent and significance. The methodology of the test excavation shall reflect the recommendations contained in the Cultural Resources report prepared for this Program EIR. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and recommendations and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing test excavations. BAY VIEW LANDING 55. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, CA -Ora -1098 shall be surface collected and subjected to test excavations by a City approved archaeologist to determine site integrity, extent and significance. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing test excavations. 56. Prior to grading for the new park, the project sponsor shall retain a City approved archaeologist to conduct a surface collection and subsurface test excavation of CA- Ora -66 to determine site extent, integrity and significance. A report -67- COMMISSIONERS •c June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing test excavations. 57. Prior to grading for the view park, the project sponsor shall retain a City approved archaeologist to place a test unit on top of the knoll on the Bay View Landing site in the area containing shell scatter, to determine if the shell is representative of a subsurface archaeological deposit. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing the test excavation. NEWPORTER NORTH 58. Prior to the use or development of the open space areas for passive recreational uses, CA- Ora -51 and CA- Ora -518 on • the Newporter North site shall be surface collected and subjected to test excavations to determine site extent and significance. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing test excavations. 59. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall conduct a surface collection of the eastern extension of CA- Ora -100 which would be impacted by grading and /or development of residential uses. The surface collection shall be conducted by a city approved archaeologist. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings of the surface collection and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing the surface collection. 60. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall conduct a data recovery of program CA- Ora -64 on the Newporter North site. The program shall be conducted by a City approved archaeologist. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing the data recovery program 61. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for residential development or any bluff stabilization, a qualified -68- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL .INDEX archaeologist shall review grading and drainage plans to determine if there are any indirect or direct impacts to CA- Ora -51, 52 and 518. If impacts are identified, test excavations shall be conducted to determine site extent, integrity and significance. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing test excavations. KNOLL 62. Prior to any grading or use of the site, the City shall conduct a surface collection of archaeological material present on the top of the hill of the Newporter Knoll, with test units placed on the hill to determine site significance and boundaries. One unit shall be placed in the recorded area of CA- Ora -50 to determine if a portion of the site still I I I I I I ( exists. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and •. submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing surface collection test excavation. 63. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a qualified City approved archaeologist shall conduct a surface collection of CA- Ora -136 on the Block 800 site and subject the site to test excavations to determine site extent and significance. A test unit.shall also be placed in the northern portions of the parcel to determine if a sub - surface midden is under the asphalt and trash. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing test excavations. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST 64. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a City approved qualified archaeologist shall dig post holes in the areas containing surface shell on the Corporate Plaza West site to determine if the shell represents sub - surface archaeological I I I I I I I I deposits. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings I* and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing sub - surface testing. COMMISSIONERS .a d June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 65. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the surface near the southern section of the property shall be examined by a City approved qualified archaeologist after removal of brush and prior to any ground disturbance. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing the surface examination. FREEWAY RESERVATION 66. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the northern development area (Lot 2), a City approved qualified archaeologist shall examine the surface of areas previously identified as CA -Ora -216. The examination shall be conducted after removal of brush but prior to grading. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing the surface examination. Paleontology 67. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a collection plan shall be prepared and implemented by a City approved, qualified paleontological monitor for known exposed fossil localities on Bay View Landing, Newporter North, and Upper Castaways. Because of the small nature of some fossils present in these rock units, matrix samples shall be collected for processing through fine mesh screens. The collection plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. 68. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall make provisions for the preparation and curation of all fossils possibly recovered from the sites during grading. This shall be done in a manner approved by the City's Planning Department. 69. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall • identify a repository approved by the City's Planning Department which shall receive all fossils collected from the sites. -70- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 70. Cliff faces along Upper Newport Bay that have served as a reference section for micro - paleontological studies should be protected from alteration. If bluffs along Newport Bay need to be altered for bluff stabilization purposes, detailed measured sections and samples shall be made before and after alteration. Samples shall be prepared and analyzed as part of these efforts. The City of Newport Beach shall be responsible for retaining a qualified paleontologist to conduct the comparative study and sampling. A report shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days. Law Enforcement 71. The project proponent shall work in conjunction with the City of Newport Beach Police Department to ensure that crime prevention features are included in building design and construction. The City of Newport Beach Police . Department shall review all site plans and access plans. Water 72. Prior to issuance of grading permits for the development sites, the applicant shall be responsible for preparation of a Master Plan of Utilities. The Master Plan of Utilities will determine any necessary expansion of facilities and /or any modifications, upgrades or extensions to the existing water systems resulting from this project. All necessary expansions of facilities and /or upgrades or extensions of existing water systems needed as a result of the project will be the responsibility of the developer, unless current district or City policies dictate otherwise. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Wastewater 73. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer will provide a Master Plan of Utilities facilities for the on -site development in order to determine the exact necessary modifications or extensions to the existing sewer systems, if needed. All necessary expansions of facilities and /or upgrades or extensions of existing water systems needed as -71- COMMISSIONERS .o d June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX a result of the project will be the responsibility of the developer, unless current district or City policies dictate otherwise. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. B. Development Agreement No. 6 Findings: 1. That the Development Agreement is in compliance with California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45. 2. That adoption of the Development Agreement would not preclude the City from conducting future discretionary reviews in connection with the project, nor would it prevent the City from imposing conditions or requirements to mitigate significant impacts identified in such reviews provided that the measures do not render the project infeasible. Condition: 1. Once every 12 months from the date of execution of the Development Agreement, the project proponent or his successor in interest shall prepare and submit for review by the City Council a report demonstrating compliance with the terms of the Agreement, as required by Section 15.45.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. C. Traffic Study No. 82 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1. 2. That the project is a comprehensive phased land use development and circulation system improvement plan with -72- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX construction of all phases not anticipated to be completed within 60 months of project approval. 3. That the project is the subject of a development agreement which requires the construction of major improvements early in the development program. 4. That the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan are not made inconsistent by the impact of traffic generated by the project in that the project proposed eliminates certain planned and anticipated development through the dedication of certain sites for permanent open space, and the other development sites are to be developed consistent with or less than that allowed by the General Plan. 5. That an unsatisfactory level of service will not be caused or made worse at any intersection for which there is an identified improvement. 6. That the benefits to the circulation system resulting from the major improvements substantially outweigh the increased traffic at impacted but unimproved intersections. 7. That there is an overall reduction in ICU at impacted intersections, taking into account peak hour traffic volumes at those intersections, and that the reduction is caused by the improvements associated with the project. Conditions: 1. That the Irvine Company shall make available to the City the monies specified for circulation system improvements consistent with the provisions of Development Agreement No. 6. 2. That the City of Newport Beach shall utilize the monies provided by The Irvine Company to construct in as timely .. manner as possible major circulation system improvements. These improvements shall be designed to insure that the anticipated overall improvement in ICU anticipated in the traffic study is achieved. -73- COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES .e d \01 \\ OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX D. Amendment No. 763 Adopt Resolution No.-1300—recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 763. E. Amendment No. 764 Adopt Resolution No.-1301—recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 764. F. Amendment No. 765 Adopt Resolution No.-1302—recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 765. G. Amendment No. 766 •. Adopt Resolution No.-1303—recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 766. H Amendment No 6 Adopt Resolution No.-1304—recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 767. I. Amendment No. 768 Adopt Resolution No.-1305—recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 768. J. Amendment No. 769 Adopt Resolution No.-1306—recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 769. K. Amendment No 770 Adopt Resolution No.-1307—recommending City Council • approval of Amendment No. 770. -74- COMMISSIONERS � . o June 18, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX - Amendment 1 (Public HeanLn4 Item No.4 A761 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport, Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to the design of permitted bay window and greenhouse window encroachments into required yard (Res. setbacks in residential districts. No. lsoa) INITIATED BY. The City of Newport Beach Approved In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that greenhouse windows are allowed on second floors in the front and rear yards, but they are not allowed in the side yards unless approved by the Modifications Committee. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There • being no one to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Amendment No. 761 .All Ayes (Resolution No. 1308) recommending to the City Council the changes to Title 20 of the Newport Beach. Municipal Code. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ITEM: Disc. Item Amendment No. 762 No. 1 Request to consider amendments to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code pertaining to permitted height, number and yard A�6z encroachments of accessory buildings in residential districts. PH set Motion Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public hearing All Ayes on July 23, 1992. MOTION CARRIED. -75- COMMISSIONERS vO o June 18, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Addl Business Motion was made and voted on to direct staff to prepare an Motion amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code for Commission All Ayes . review so as to revise the power and duties of the Modifications Committee regarding the heights of chimneys. MOTION CARRIED. 12:47 a.m. Adjourn NORMA GLOVER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -76-