Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/10/1981 - Regular MeetingC U AAE B RS s 9 �G s s -o ROLL CALL Sn D 1 r REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: August 10, 1981 MINUTES R9f T.1 Permaplaqued Certificates of Appreciation were pre- sented to the following persons for their devoted service: PLANNING COMMISSION Timothy P. Haidinger CIVIL SERVICE BOARD Paul E. Wickman Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Meeting of All Ayes July 27, 1981, was waived, approved with the following correction, and filed: The vote to appoint Rae Cohen to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission (Volume 35 - Page 213) to reflect Mayor Heather as voting aye. Motion x C. The reading of all ordinances and resolutions All Ayes under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Heather opened the continued public hear- GPA /80 -3 ing regarding GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 80 -3, a (45) request initiated by the City of Newport Beach, to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, and the acceptance of an environmental document. A report from the Planning Department, was pre- sented. Letters regarding the expansion of Newport Center were presented. A letter from Newport Center Medical Buildings, was presented. The City Clerk advised that, after the printing of the agenda, she had received a letter from Mrs. Eleanor Forsyth, resident of Irvine Terrace, expressing concerns on proposed amendment. The Planning Director summarized the responses to questions raised at the last Council meeting with respect to Environmental Significance; Cost/ Reveune; Ultimate Buildout of Newport Center; Bicycle Trails; Marriott Hotel's share of Roadway Improvements; Jamboree Road /Noise Wall Fund; Coast Highway Noise Wall, as set forth in the staff report. Volume 35 - Page 219 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCkkkPop MINUTES ROLL CALL August 10, 1981 INDEX Council Member Strauss requested that the staff GPA /80 -3 report back on the status of Pacific Mutual's long -range plan, which was approved by the City Council approximately two or three years ago. Council Member Hummel stated that he had a number of questions for the staff, which he requested be included in the minutes for the record. Question: What does the City Charter say about goals for the residential quality of our City? Answer: The City Attorney stated he would research, and report back later in the meeting. Question: We have a traffic phasing ordi- nance. How can this Council ap- prove the proposed General Plan Amendment 80 -3 which, in my read- ings, shows great dependence upon some arterials, i.e., San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Corona del Mar Freeway and others, necessary to satisfy the impact of certain intersections within our City? Answer: The Planning Director stated there are two parts to General Plan Amendment 80 -3: 1) the request of the Marriott Hotel to expand its existing facility, and the request of The Irvine Company. The Marriott Hotel passed the "test" with respect to the City's traffic phasing ordinance, and there has been no "test" with respect to The Irvine Company. However, as a part of the submittal to the City, The Irvine Company has prepared a Transportation Management Study Plan which has been reviewed by the staff on a preliminary basis and the Planning Commission. The staff is recommending that the Transportation Management Plan not be considered in the City Council' action this evening because of the complexities, and that this be a separate item for future considera- tion. There has been no action to attempt to circumvent the require- ments of the City's traffic phasin ordinance. Volume 35 " Page 220 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL M9EM8 RS MINUTES R01 Cal I �n August 10, 1981 iuncy Question: Have there been hearings to resolve the GPA /80 -3 problems cited in the EIR for 80 -3 that cannot be mitigated? Answer: The Planning Director stated that the • Planning Commission has held a number of public hearings on General Plan Amendment 80-3, commencing in March of this year, in which all environmental impacts were cited. Some had mitigating measures, which would reduce the impacts, and others were cited as not being miti- gatable. The action of the Planning Com- mission at a public hearing to require that the staff prepare a Statement of Overriding considerations, was one of the actions taken. It will be up to the Cit Council to determine whether those addi- tional impacts have been mitigated, Question: Why hasn't the citizens Traffic Affairs Committee evaluated the impact of the roads proposed in the Down Coast develop- ment and advised the City Council. Answer: The City Engineer stated that, at the last meeting of the Traffic Affairs Com- mittee, the topic of discussion was not relative to the subject issue. However, at the end of the meeting, the staff was requested to give a presentation concern- ing the Down Coast area. A specific tim • has not been scheduled. Question: Which document provides information on the total economic benefits to the City for the existing General Plan, including that which is provided to the City by the residential construction that is proposed and approved in the existing General Plan? Answer: Reference was made to Attachment No. 17 of the staff report, Cost /Revenue Surplu (Future Development),which was explained by Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Admini- strator. Question: Do office buildings generally become a. positive or negative fiscal advantage to the City? Answer: The Planning Director responded that there is a positive revenue to the City in the approximate amount of $23 per 1,000 square feet. Question: Has the City analyzed the problems associated with the Avocado /MacArthur Road couplet? Volume 35 - Page 221 C UNCIL RAE 8 RS ti �� � G ti s ROLL CALL wit+ P • 0 7 ri, Aueust 10. 1981 MINUTES INDEX GPA /80 -3 Answer: The City Engineer replied that the Avo- cado couplet has been on the General Plan since 1974, and the planning that the staff has done on the Circulation Element, looking at various General Plan environmental documents, has been based on that one -way couplet being in place. There have been no additional studies to justify the couplet as a part of this document. The staff has not studied the precise planning of curb cut locations, or subsequent entrances or exits to a site at this point in time. Question: What is the adequacy of the Pelican Hill Road in this development? Answer: Reference was made to Attachment No. 19 of the staff report, General Plan Amend- ment 80 -3 Draft EIR, Additional Comments and Responses, July 31, 1981. The City Manager stated that conditions on the Irvine Coast development require construction of the Pelican Hill Roadway connection to MacArthur Boulevard prior to construction of more than 100 dwell- ing units or 350 hotel rooms inland of Pacific Coast Highway. The Pelican Hill Road (TRC -1) is tentatively slated for construction in 1985. Phase II, San Joaquin Hills Road extension to Pelican Hill Road is tentatively scheduled for 1986. Question: Is it the opinion of the staff that Pelican Hill Road will serve as a bypass to the eastern end of our City? Answer: The City Manager stated that the con- sultant who prepared the traffic studies for the City has given the staff a very black and white figure; the result of the analysis indicates that 30% of the through traffic would be diverted from MacArthur Boulevard to Pelican Hill Road. In response to Council Member Hummel's initial question regarding the residential character of the City and its goals, the City Attorney advised that he could not find any reference in the City Charter. It was indicated that it might appear in the pre- amble of the General Plan, under goals and objec- tives. Volume 35 - Page 222 INDEX GPA /80 -3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL f1AE B RS MINUTES LS s ROLL CAL n� a.,o,.cr to t4>zt - - - -- - -- -- INDEA The following persons addressed the Council and GPA /80 -3 expressed their views with respect to General Plan Amendment No. 80 -3: • Carl Jones, 45 Cambria, Corona del Mar, merchant in Fashion Island, read prepared statement in favor of proposed amendment. Ida Williams, 900 Sea Lane, Corona del Mar, submitted letter regarding State and Federal funding for road improvements. She stated that following contact with State officials, she was advised that: 1) The completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway connecting to San Joa- quin hills Corridor and linked to PeLican Hill Road, will never be completed. 2) Regarding the San Joaquin Hills Cor- ridor, which was originally propose by the County of Orange, no State or Federal funds will be involved. George Oschner, 1834 Leeward Lane, appeared in opposition to General Plan Amendment 80 -3. Carol South, 179 Pine View, Irvine, Executive Vice President of Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, submitted additional petitions with approximately 80 signatures in support of • General Plan Amendment 80 -3. Paul Franklin, President, Newport Harbor /Cost Mesa Board of Realtors, read in full a resolu tion adopted by the Board of Directors of Newport Harbor /Costa Mesa Board of Realtors, going on record as favoring the adoption of General Plan Amendment 80 -3 as proposed by The Irvine Company with the following pro- viso. that The Irvine Company commit them- selves to strongly support the location and construction of a regional airport site as a means of mitigating any increase in air surface traffic in the greater Newport area; and further, that the Board opposes the Plan- ning Commission's recommendation that housing be required in Newport Center. In addition, the Board supports higher density of housing in Newport Beach in areas of lower land costs and better freeway access than Newport Center John Elliott, 1011 Bonnie Doone Terrace, Corona del Mar, spoke with respect to the need for sound walls along Pacific Coast Highway to shield residents of Irvine Terrace from the noise. Volume 35 - Page 223 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL MEMB RS MINUTES ti �q yG�� F ROLL CALL Sn 9 August 10. 1981 iunccv Jean Wegener, 440 Rivera Terrace, Corona del GPA /80 -3 Mar, Co- Chairman of Airport Action Associates, expressed concerns she felt would impact John Wayne Airport. She also suggested the Council • take straw votes on each separate proposal for General Plan Amendment 80 -3. LaVina Hayden, 235 Poppy Avenue, Corona del Mar, addressed the need for road improvements and the "down coast" traffic to Newport Center. Debbie Gray, 407 Evening Stir Lane, spoke In favor of the proposed amendmenL. She indi- cated she felt the added revenue could pro- vide additional law enforcement, as well as paramedics. Katherine Jorgensen, 1517 Highland, read a prepared statement in opposition to General Plan Amendment 80 -3. Don Collinge, 318 Amethyst, Balboa Island, stated his concerns were primarily for the preservation of the quality of life for the youth in the community. Glen Martin, 4807 Portland Drive, Corona del Mar, appeared in support of General Plan Amendment 80 -3. John McNabb, 14 Harbor Island, stated he felt the City needed a "luxury" type hotel, as well as economic growth, and urged the Council to approve General Plan Amendment 80 -3. Chris Street, 619 Heliotrope Avenue, Corona del Mar, member of Environmental Quality Com- mittee, spoke in favor of General Plan Amend- ment 80 -3. Jerry Stewart, President of Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce, stated her concerns re- garding traffic through the Corona del Mar business district. She also stated their Board has requested that the construction of Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road be a condition of approval of General Plan Amendment 80 -3. Jeff Schulein, 4533 Tremont Street, Corona del Mar, stated that he was concerned with the proposed time - table of road improvements and suggested a more "speclIle" schedule be required of The Irvine Company. Volume 35 - Page 224 C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES R01 CAI I �'n Aucust t0_ 1981 INDFX Allan Beek, 2007 Highland Drive, expressed his GPA /80 -3 concerns with respect to traffic, housing, and aircraft noise, which would be impacted as a result of General Plan Amendment 80 -3. • Louise Greeley, 16 Swift Court, stated that she was opposed to General Plan Amendment 80 -3 at this time because of its potential impact on traffic, as well as the airport. Susie Ficker, 110 -9th Street, Balboa, indicated she was opposed to the proposed amendment because of its impact on water quality and pollution. Dee Dee Masters, 140 Fernleaf, Corona del Mar, addressed the issue of proposed road improvements, i.e., Pelican Hill Road /San Joaquin Hills Road connection. Frank Jank, 1741 Irvine Avenue, expressed his concerns with respect to traffic, and indicated he felt it should be addressed in Phase I of develop- ment. Jean Harrington, 2007 Highland Avenue, stated that her concerns dealt with the impact on traffic and John Wayne Airport. Elaine Linhoff, 1760 Ocean Boulevard, Balboa, stated that she was concerned with the increasein in traffic General Plan Amendment 80 -3 would generate. • Bobby Lovell, 1242 Ocean Front, representing SPON, requested the Council not make a decision on General Plan Amendment 80-3 until Council reviewed the "decision- making tools used by the City." She stated that SPON has questioned the accuracy of numbers generated for airport demand, and the numbers of employees which are the basis for the traffic generation figures. Most importantly, SPON is confused over the cost /benefit tool, and the analysis report included in the packet. She presented an exhibit showing uses which generate revenue. Dick Cannon, representing The Irvine Company, com- mented that Pelican Hill Road is a condition of Phase II of the Irvine Coastal project. Before the 101st lot, or before the 351st hotel room, Pelican Hill Road must be in from the highway to MacArthur Boulevard. Assuming all approvals are received from the governing jurisdictions for the Coastal project and the alignment, and assuming General Plan Amendment 80 -3 is approved, they would construct Pelican Hill Road concurrent with the first development occuring north of Pacific Coast Highway. Volume 35 - Page 225 C UNCIL PAE B kP 'VA RS s yG� � ROLL CALLS ss 9 • • • 56 ft& I MINUTES August 10 1981 INDEX GPA /80 -3 Mr. Cannon explained the effect of Pelican Hill Road by displaying two charts: . Pacific Coast Highway P.M. Peak Hour Southbound Traffic at Marguerite. . Average Daily Traffic on Pelican Hill Road at Ultimate Six Lanes. Mr. Cannon stated that assuming there are no "road blocks" in their approval process of their Coastal project, or in the Pelican Hill Roadway alignment, Pelican Hill Road could conceivably be in the 1984 -85 time- frame, which is very close to when the first buildings would be occupied. Robert Shelton, Vice President, Government Rela- tions, The Irvine Company, read and submitted a prepared statement on The Irvine Company's views regarding expansion of John Wayne Airport. In response to questions raised by Council. Member Rummel regarding noise reducLion, Mr. Shelton stated that it is their assumpLion the sLandards intended to be met in the Airport Master Plan are reasonable objectives. It is the County's intent to achieve 7.5 decibels and to reduce the noise impacted area considerably. The Irvine Company is concerned with the linkage between noise reduction and number of flights. If there is going to be increased activities, the ground facilities should be increased commensurate with that activity. With respect to terminal size, they are not expert in airport terminals, but do realize that what presently exists is not satisfactory. However, with minor improvements, the terminal could be made acceptable. More important, they feel that full development would be premature at this time until more is known about the alternatives, etc. The impact of converting John Wayne Airport to an even more active airport would have the same impact that John Wayne Airport has on the Cities of Tustin and Newport Beach, and they are not going agressively after any one alternative until all have been examined. Thomas C. Edwards, President, Mariners Community Association, commended The Irvine Company on the position they have taken with respect to John Wayne Airport, even though their association does not support it totally. They too, share the concern as to whether or not the Orange County Master Plan is ever a solution. They also ques- tion the use of the DC -9 -80, and feel a regional airport is, in fact, a solution to the City and County needs. Volume 35 - Page 226 INDEX GPA /80 -3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL IwE B RS MINUTES \CAL ROLL Sn �A AItaiiRt- 10. 19.91 iainrV uyVl/ Council Member Hummel asked The Irvine Company GPA /80 -3 what their plans were with respect to improving housing, transportation and water. Dick Cannon responded that there are two forms of • traffic mitigation. One is a Traffic Management Plan which is meant to deal with peak hour traffic problems. They are proposing to accept the mea- sure of that program to achieve a 20i reduction in peak hour traffic from environmental impact report statistics as a goal and obligation under that program. They are not only dealing with the 20% new offices to be placed in Newport Center, but are retrofitting the plan to the 80% offices that already exist today. In addition, he is unaware of any other source of funding which would essen- tially complete the City's circulation system easterly of the bay, which they are publicly com- mitted to, in the approximate amount of $8 million dollars. Relative to housing, Mr. Cannon stated that there is a proposal for housing in their general plan process. There are also other opportunities for housing in the City as well. Council Member Hummel asked Mr. Cannon, "how much retail /commercial vs. acres per 1,000 residents do you think is right for Newport Beach ?" Mr. Cannon responded that there are 20,000 sq. feet which will be used for two restaurants in the Avocado area as a part of their plan. The office • occupant is a very important customer to Fashion Island, and their records indicate that the office occupant represents about 15% of the sales gener- ated by Fashion Island merchants. Mr. Cannon displayed a chart relative to the importance of proposed Block 600 Development to Fashion Island which showed land uses translated into sales dollars from Fashion Island. Council Member Hummel asked Mr. Cannon, "If your company is granted the total remaining buildout for Newport Center, how do you accommodate the 80,000 square foot medical building that is not before us at this time ?" Mr. Cannon responded, "that property owner's rights are like any other property owner's rights, and he needs to engage in the legal public process which is set forth in the City's staff report as a matter of a future general plan amendment, which the City Council will have to consider on its own merit." Volume 35 - Page 227 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UN CIL s ' � RS MINUTES ROLL C � Aupust 10. 1981 Council Member Hummel referred to a newspaper CPA /80 -3 article from the Los Angeles Times, dated June 19, 1981 (which he made part of the record), relative - to "Traffic Jams Seen as Threat to Economy," and • asked Mr. Cannon to comment. Mr. Cannon stated that there was no question whatso ever that Newport Beach has a major traffic and transportation problem, which the private sector can play a very important role in solving. The Irvine Company is attempting to solve the local roadway problems as evidence of their commitment; however, there are certain roadway problems that they cannot unilaterally solve. The Irvine Company has always maintained that the phasing of the completion of Newport Center is consistent with their own objectives and certainly with the commu- nity's at large. Their phasing program will allow them to develop Block 600. It will provide over $6 million dollars of local roadway improvements before any Phase II will occur. The benefits to the City are very significant. Council Member Strauss made reference to the pre- pared statement read by Robert Shelton regarding The Irvine Company's views on the expansion of John Wayne Airport, and indicated he would like The Irvine Company to consider taking a strong position against the expansion of the airport. Mr. Cannon indicated the request would be con - sidered, and he would report back within a reason- able time. M a x Following discussion, Council Member Hummel made a motion to continue the public hearing to August 24, or the following meeting in September. William Ficker, Architect and Planner, and Appli- cant in General Plan Amendment No. 80 -3 for the Marriott Hotel, addressed the Council regarding his previous request that the Council consider the removal of two conditions imposed by the Planning Commission: 1) the permanent division of the junior ballroom; and 2) the contribution to traffic or noise walls which was assessed ($300,000). Mr. Ficker stated he would like to meet with the City staff to discuss an alternative to the pro - posed contribution as set forth in his letter of August 6. Mr. Picker further stated that he felt sure that the Marriott Hotel would go on record as opposing the expansion of John Wayne Airport and would, therefore, so advise its lessees of such position. Volume 35 - Page 228 C UNCIL fiAE 8 RS � G s. s ROLL CALL` J+� Motion Ayes Noes • Motion • . _ . v Anoust 1.0. 1981 MINUTES INDEX GPA /80 -3 x Substitute motion was made to close the public x x x x x x hearing. x Council Member Cox expressed his observations with respect to General Plan Amendment No. 80 -3, and how he felt it would benefit the City. x Motion was made by Council Member Cox to sustain the recommendations of the Planning Commission on General Plan Amendment No. 80 -3, with the follow- ing modifications: Airport Alternatives - To read, "The increased City revenues generated by development pur- suant to this project, shall be considered by the City Council for an Airport Alternatives Fund." Avacado /MacArthur - Item 2 to read, "The Orange County Transit District facility will be located in the approximate vicinity of San Nicholas Drive extended. Item 3 to be eliminated. Pacific Coast Highway Frontage - To retain the 57 residential units as designated in General Plan Amendment No. 79 -1, and leave in the 145 floating units also as set forth in General Plan Amendment No. 79 -1. Block 400 /Medical Office - "The adoption of General Plan Amendment 80 -3 is without pre- judice to the approval or disapproval of an 80,000 square foot medical office building in Block 400, which is under process in General Plan Amendment 81 -2." Block 900 /Marriott /Granville - There be no division of the junior ballroom, and the contribution towards the completion of the circulation system to be worked out with the City staff and approved by City Council prior to construction. John Wayne Airport - Policy statement to be added to read "To support and encourage an accellerated effort to solve the County transportation system that encompasses the utilization of other existing airports other than John Wayne Airport and the development of a new site within or beyond Orange County.' Block 600 - Office towers (450,000 sq. ft.) to be accepted as well as 300 room hotel, plu 150 residential units within said hotel complex. Volume 35 - Page 229 INDEX GPA /80 -3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UMCIL RAE B RS MINUTES R01 I CAI Anonst 10_ 1981 -- � IIaVGA -Phasing - Phase I - Permit the construction of GPA /80 -3 one office tower consisting of 225,000 sq. ft. in Block 600, and the 300 room hotel with the attendant 150 residential units, and the con- struction of the 165 additional hotel rooms in the Marriott Hotel. Included with this, $4 million dollars in traffic circulation system improvements as required by this project and selected by the City. In addition, The Irvine Company to make every possible effort to start and complete the construction of Pelican Hill Road at its earliest possible date. Phasing - Phase II — Permit the remaining development, with the condition that the remaining road improvements are constructed and that the construction will have started on Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road before any Phase II development commences. Further to be included in the motion: The Irvine Company and the City to explore the feasibility of a development agreement. The City Council should determine if this is really in the best interest of the City. The City Council to review all site plans for the hotel project. Staff directed to include the results of this motion in preparing the necessary documents for placement on the August 24 agenda, includ- . ing:. 1) The Final Environmental Impact Report; 2) The Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR: 3) The Statement of Overriding Consider- ations; 4) The List of Mitigation Measures to be incorporated into the project; 5) Adopt a resolution approving amend- ments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and 6) Any other document necessary for the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 80 -3. Volume 35 - Page 230 C UNCIL I49ENI8 RS ti ROLL CALL ion • Motion fZ111T Aueust 10. 1981 MINUTES INDEX GPA /80 -3 Council Member Strauss expressed his views with respect to General Plan Amendment No. 80 -3, and its impact on the City. x Substitute motion was made by Council Member Strauss to sustain the recommendations of the Planning Commission with the following modifica- tions: Avocado /MacArthur - Office space to be in- creased to 175,000 sq. ft. Transit facility to remain as submitted. Newport Village - Delete 208,750 office space, and add 125 residential units. The 20,000 sq. ft, for two restaurants to remain. Block 600 - Accept 225,000 sq. ft. (0) and 525,000 sq. ft. (R), but delete the 115 (R). Block 900 /Marriott /Granville - Change the pro- posed 165 additional rooms to 110 additional rooms. Block 700/800 - No change. Corporate Plaza - Change 123,400 sq. ft. (0) to 75,000 sq. ft. (0) and 40 residential dwell ing units. Pacific Coast Highway Frontage - To remain with 145 (R) as recommended by Planning Com- mission. Pacific Coast Highway /Jamboree - Change the 80,000 sq. ft. (0) to 50 (R). Council Member Strauss stated that he was in sup- port of the Planning Commission's recommendations for Phasing, but would like to see the language "tightened" for Pelican Rill Road improvements. X substitute motion was made by Council Member Plummer to sustain the action of the Planning Com- mission and approve General Plan Amendment 80 -3, amending the Land Use, Residential Growth and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, with the following modifications: Block 900 /Marriott Hotel - Eliminate the pro- vision pertaining to the capacity of the ball rooms. Block 600 - Eliminate the residential struc- ture containing 300,000 sq. ft.; eliminate the construction of 115 dwelling units; add to allow the construction of a 300 room luxury hotel. Volume 35 - Page 231 INDEX GPA /80 -3 C UNCIL ME 8 RS yG�r A G ROLL CALL J+ -P • MINUTES August 10. 1981 INDEX GPA /80 -3 Pacific Coast Highway Frontage - No changes from existing General Plan (57 DU's permitted). The 145 floating transfer units would continue to float in Newport Center. Height limit provision to remain. Block 400 /Medical Office - The adoption of General Plan Amendment 80 -3 is without prej- udice to the approval or disapproval of an 80,000 sq. ft. medical office building (in addition to densities already in existence) in Block 400 which is under process in General Plan Amendment 81 -2. Circulation System Improvements - Marriott Hotel contribution shall be $219,481. Phasing of Development - Phase I - Develop- ment Allowed - Add construction of a 300 room hotel in Block 600. Condition on Development - Delete Item (d) concerning Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road and add the following condition: That construction be commenced on the following roads prior to oc- cupancy of the office building in Block 600. 1. The widening of Pacific Coast Highway to three lanes in each direction between its inter- section with Bayside Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. 2. Pelican Hill Road from Pacific Coast Highway to Bonita Canyon; Bonita Canyon Road widened fro Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur Boulevard; San Joaquin Hills Road extending from its termi- nus to Pelican Hill Road. Commencement of construction shall mean award of a contract, which includes the roadway grading, roadway drainage and at least two lanes of paving t arterial highway geometric standards and extensive pass- ing lanes. That sufficient funding ($300,000) be contributed to the Coast Highway noise wall at Irvine Terrace be- tween Jamboree Road and Zahma Street. Volume 35 - Page 232 INDEX GPA /80 -3 C9T Y OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL rtNE ® RS MINUTES 9 �G R01 \CA11 G�9 August 10, 1981 IMI3FY Phase II - Conditions on Development - That GPA /80 -3 construction be completed on Pelican Hill Road as described in the above, prior to the issuance of building permits for any Phase II development. Staff directed to include the results of this motion in preparing the necessary documents for placement on the August 24 agenda, together with the August 10 agenda actions 1 through 6. Included in the motion, Council Member Plummer deleted the proposed Airport Alter- natives Fund, substituting the language pro- posed by Council Member Cox, "To support and encourage ........ other than John Wayne Airport and the development of a new site within or beyond Orange County." Council Member Plummer clarified her motion with respect to Block 600, stating she was proposing one 225,000 sq. ft. office tower, one 225,000 residential tower, and one 300 room luxury hotel. Following discussion with respect to the 150 resi- dential units as a component to the 300 room hotel, Council Member Plummer amended her motion to include 100 residential units, with the condi- tion that the City Council review the site plan prior to construction. Discussion ensued with respect to Phasing, wherein the City Engineer indicated it was his estimate that it would take one and one -half years to com- plete Pelican Hill Road, once construction com- menced. Council Member Cox referred to Council Member Plummer °s motion regarding Phase II, and suggested the conditions be changed to read, "Phase II development shall not begin until the construction has begun on Pelican Hill Road." Motion x During course of discussion, Mayor Heather made a motion to reopen the public hearing for a brief statement from the President of The Irvine Company. Hearing no support for the motion, said motion FAILED. Volume 35 - Page 233 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C AU'1 F N CIL � BgAF E q G B f n �R S � MINUTES ROI I IUpFX Council Member Cox indicated he needed clarifica- GPA /80 -3 tion of the motion on the floor with respect to Pelican Hill Road and Phase II. on x In view of the lateness of the hour, motion was A x x x x x made to adjourn. Noes x x The meeting adjourned at 2:00 a.m., August 11, 1981. Xo ATTEST: City Clerk Volume 35 - Page 234