HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO082_CIRCULATION AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT IIGIIII IIII III II I IIIIIII IIIII II�II IIII III ICI
TP0082
RESOLUTION NO. 92.88
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND
ADEQUATE THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 14§ FOR THE CIRCULATION IMPROVE•
MENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 148 provided
environmental impact assessment for the proposed Circulation Improvement and Open
Space Agreement, and
WHEREAS, the DEIR was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and Council Policy K-3;
and
WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated to the public for comment and review;
and
WHEREAS,written comments were received from the public during and after
the review period; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach
conducted a public hearing to receive public testimony with respect to the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to through
Response to Comments and staff reports submitted to the Planning Commission and City
Council; and
WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were fully and adequately
responded to in the manner set forth in California Administrative Code Section 15088 (b);
and
WHEREAS, as a result of the additional information provided in the
Response to Comments, a supplemental EIR was prepared and circulated for public
comment; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and Council Policy K-3;
and
WHEREAS,written comments were received from the public during and after
the review period; and
WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to through
Response to Comments and staff reports submitted to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, such comments ,and testimony were fully and adequately
responded to in the manner set forth in California Administrative Code Section 15088 (b);
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed all
environmental documents comprising the EIR and has found that the EIR considers all
environmental impacts of the , proposed Circulation Improvement and Open Space
Agreement completely and adequately and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the certified final EIR in making its decision on the proposed Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the project; and
WHEREAS,the City Coundilby this Resolution adopts the Statement of Facts
and Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Sections 15091 and 15093•of the
State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, Section 21002.1 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the State CEQA
Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following Findings prior
to the approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed, identifying one or more
significant effects of the project, along with Statements of Facts supporting each Finding:
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects
thereof as identified in the EIR.
FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the Finding.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
2
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
EIR; and
WHEREAS, Section 15092 provides that the City shall not decide to approve
or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless it has
(A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the
environment where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091, and
(B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment
found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding
s
concerns as described in Section 15093; and
WHEREAS, Section 15093 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the
City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and
WHEREAS,Section 15903 (b)of the State CEQA Guidelines requires,where
the decision of the City Council allows, the occurrence of significant effects which are
identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, the City must state in writing the reasons to
support its action based on the EIR or other information in the record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach that:
1. The City Council makes the Findings, contained in the Statement of
Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR, together with the
Finding that each fact in support of the Finding is true and based upon substantial evidence
in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto as Exhibit
1 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
2. The City Council finds that the Facts set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations are true and supported by substantial evidence in the record,
including the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as
Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant
environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential environmental
impacts not addressed in the Final EIR.
1
4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set
forth in the Statement of Facts.
5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain
significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant
effects that can be feasibly avoided or mitigated, have been avoided or mitigated by the
imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures
as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR and enforced by the mitigation
monitoring program.
6. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures and project
alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible,based upon specific
economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the
Final EIR.
7. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impact of the
project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that has not been reduced to a 'level of
insignificance has been substantially reduced in impact by the imposition of Conditions on
the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures. The City Council finds that
the remaining unavoidable significant impact is clearly outweighed by the economic, social
and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
8. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable
alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, even
when those alternatives might impede the attainment of other project objectives and might
be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to
incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives
were considered in the review process of the Final 13IR and ultimate decisions on the
project.
9. The City Council finds that the project should be approved as modified
by the design alternative described in the Statement of Facts and Findings, and that any
alternative to this action should not be approved for the project based on the information
contained in the Final EIR,the data contained in the Statement of Facts and for the reasons
stated in the public record and those contained in the Statement of Overriding Consider-
ations.
.r
4
10. The City Council finds that a good faith effort has been made to seek
out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR as
indicated in the public record on the project, including the Final EIR.
11. The City Council finds that during the public hearing process on the
Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement, the Environmental Impact Report
evaluated a range of alternatives. The City Council has considered the recommendation of
the Planning Commission in its decision on the project.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
certify the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 148 for the Circulation Improvement and
Open Space Agreement as complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental
effects of the proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines. Said Final Environmental
Impact Report is comprised of the following elements:
1. Draft EIR and Technical Appendices
2. Responses to Comments
3. Supplemental EIR and Technical Appendices
4. SEIR Responses to Comments
5. Planning Commission Staff Reports
6. Planning Commission Minutes
7. Planning Commission Resolutions, Findings and Conditions for
Recommended Approval
8. City Council Staff Reports
9. City Council Minutes
10, City Council Ordinances, Resolution and Findings and Conditions for
Approval
11. Comments and Responses received prior to final action and not
contained in 1 through 10 above.
All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning
Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California 92659-1768, (714) 644-3225.
ADOPTED THIS 24th day of August , 1992.
r'
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Q PtJh,�e
CITY CLERK O M y
_ n
Attachments: Exhibits 1 & 2 b� r PLT.,.\ED\E1R\EIR148.RS1
�ALA FQV-
5
EXHIBIT 1
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 148
CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT
I. BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines(Guidelines)
promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has
been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects
of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for
each of those significant effects'accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmen-
tal effect as identified in the Final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdic-
tion of another public agency and not the agency making the finding.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can-and
should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible,the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR
(Section 15091 of the Guidelines)."
The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project should be approved.
A description of the project to be approved is provided below.. Because the proposed
actions constitute a project under CEQA, and the Initial Study determined that the project
could have significant effects on the environment, the City of Newport Beach has prepared
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR indicates that there will be significant
impacts as a direct result of the project in the area of land use, biological resources and
public services and utilities (fire protection services);and that significant effects in the areas
of aesthetics and air quality will occur on a cumulative basis as a result of the project in
conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The
Findings and Facts set forth below explain the City's reasons for determining that the project
should be approved as proposed.
EM113rr 1 Page 1 of 47.
0 • ,
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES - C1Ty OBJECTIVES
The City of Newport Beach has several means which it uses to fund park land
acquisition and circulation system improvements. These procedures often rely
on the development of land in the City. In determining to pursue the
possibility of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement with
The Irvine,Company, the City,Council saw the possibility of implementation
of General Plan circulation improvement goals in advance of the build-out of
land uses allowed by the General Plan. In addition, the City-Council saw the
possibility of acquiring open space above the General Plan requirements and
In advance of when it could otherwise be acquired.
The specific objectives of the City of Newport Beach are:
1. To achieve the dedication of significant public open space consistent
with the goals of the General Plan at no financial cost to the City.
2. To the greatest extent feasible, to achieve the dedication of important
and meaningful public open space in excess of the minimum require-
ments of the General Plan.
3, To identify and achieve dedication of all or a portion of one or more
sites-appropriate for passive and active recreational purposes.
4. To achieve dedication of environmentally sensitive areas.
5. To identify and achieve dedication of all or a portion of certain sites
appropriate for the provision of necessary public facilities such as
streets and highways, utility easements, a fire station, and similar
facilities which may be identified in the future,
6. To alter entitlement whenever possible in ways which will improve the
jobs/housing balance in the City.
7. To approve residential develbpment,with sufficient density to provide
for a maximum amount of affordable housing in the community,
8. To provide appropriate housing for all economic segments of the
community.
4
9. To maintain and improve the City's'financial ability, to provide a full
range of services to its constituents and to expand and improve those
services when desirable.
10. To maximize public access to important public open spaces and
resources so that residents and visitors may enjoy the benefits of living
in or visiting a unique coastal community consistent with the provisions
of the Coastal Act of 1976 and the City's Local Coastal Program,Land
Use Plan.
11. To provide a mechanism for the early funding and construction of
significant components of the City's Master Plan of Streets qnd
Highways. This mechanism includes:
a. Early payment of Fair Share Fees by The Irvine Company for
their remaining development on the subject sites.
M=rr 1 Page 2 of 47.
b. A commitment by The Irvine Company to construct all required
frontage improvements related to the approved entitlement.
C. An advance of funds by The Irvine Company to allow the City
to construct important circulation system improvements as
quickly as possible.
d. To make available funds in order to place the City in a superior
position to obtain outside matching funds for improvements.
B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES - THE IRVINE COMPANY OBJECTIVES
The general objectives of The Irvine Company are:
1. Establish a program of open space dedications in exchange for vested
approval to allow development of certain properties.
2. Satisfy the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance by providing
significant funding for needed circulation system improvements under
the terms of an Agreement that create a net benefit to the City.
3. Obtain approval of a plan for each of the parcels under a comprehen-
sive planning program that is generally consistent with the General
Plan and allows for a fiscally sound project.
ti
4. Create a balanced community offering a range of housing opportunities
in a variety of locations.
5. Vest land use entitlements and zoning for 956 residential units and
202,000 square feefof non-residential uses on the significant remaining
undeveloped parcels of land in the City owned by The Irvine Company
by obtaining approval of an Agreement to allow construction of the
projects under the terms of the Agreement.
The specific objectives of The Irvine Company are:
1. Castm=:
Vest approval of a community plan that preserves significant areas of
the site for public open space including a view park along the bluff and
an active park adjacent to Dover Drive and maintains a minimum
development area of_26 acres for 151 residential units. This entitle-
ment will allow for an economically viable development of the site.
2. Bayview Landing;
Vest approval to build a 10,000 square foot'restaurant or 40,000 square
foot athletic club on the lower portion of the site. Allow for an
alternate development of 120 affordable senior citizen housing units
with the transfer of 30,000 square feet of retail entitlement to Newport
Center - Fashion.Island. Offer to dedicate the upper portion of the
site to•the City as open space in order to'preserve and possibly
enhance public views to the Bay. This entitlement will allow for an
economically viable development of the.site.
3. N=orter North:
Vest approval of a community plan that preserves areas of the site for
public open space including a view park along the bluff and natural
BxHIBrr 1 Page 3 of 47.
A t
habitat areas and maintain a minimum development area of 30 acres
for 212 residential,units, This entitlement will-allow for an economi-
cally viable development-for the area,
4, San Diego Creek North and Jamboree/MacArthur:
Dedicate these sites to the City or other public agency for open space
and public facility purposes•and,give up office entitlement in order to
provide substantial public benefits in exchange for vesting rights to
develop other sites.
5. San Diego Creek South:
Vest approval of a community plan for 300 residential units on 18.6
acres,, This entitlement will allow for an economically viable develop-
went of the site.
6, Freeway Reservation East:
Vest approval of a community plan for a total of 48 residential units
in two areas on the site totalling 11 acres. Dedicate the remaining
area to the City for open space. This entitlement will allow for an
economically vhabie development of the site.
7. Block 800 - Newport Center:
Vest approval of a community plan for development of 245 residential
units that allows for an economically viable project.
8, Corporate Plaza West:
Vest approval of a community plan for development of an additional
94,000 square feet of office use. This entitlement will allow for an
economically viable development of the site,
9. Ngwnort� er Knoll:
Dedicate the site for open space as part of an agreement to vest
entitlement'on other sites.
10. hTg=orter Resort:
Vest approval to build an additional 68 hotel rooms on-site. This
entitlement will allow for an economically viable addition to the
existing land use of the site.
11. NNe (port Vfllaee:
Dedicate the site between the City's Central Library site and San
Miguel Road for open space as part of an agreement to vest entitle-
ment on other sites and to allow The Irvine Company to maintain
interim ownership of the•portion of the San Diego Creek North site
adjacent to San Diego Creek for the purpose of using it for wetlands
mitigation for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. This
area will ultimately be dedicated to the Transportation Corridor
Agency or other public entity.
Extunrr 1 Page 4 of 47.
C. DISCRETIONARY APPLICATIONS TO BE APPROVED AS PART OF
THE PROJECT
1. General Plan Amendment 92-2 (C)
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan to,provide for an additional land use of affordable senior
citizen housing on the Castaways site, the designation of the lower
portion of Bayview Landing for active recreation, and the addition of
of 30,000 square feet of retail entitlement to Newport Center-Fashion
Island.
2. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 28
Request to amend the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to
provide for an additional land use of affordable senior citizen housing
on the Castaways site and the designation of the lower portion of
Bayview Landing for active recreation.
3. Development Agreement No. 6
Request to approve a Development Agreement for the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement.
4. Traffic Study No. 82
Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of
the development authorized in the Circulation Improvement and Open
Space Agreement.
5. Amendment No. 763
Request to amend the Harbor View Hills Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow for the construction
of 48 additional dwelling units.
6. Amendment No. 764
Request to adopt Planned CommunityDistrict Regulations and
Development Plan for Upper Castaways. This request would provide
for the construction of 151 dwelling units.
7. Amendment No. 765
Request to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and
Development Plan for Newporter North/Newporter Knoll, This
request would provide for the construction of 212 dwelling units on
Newporter North and open space on Newporter Knoll.
8. Amendment No. 766
Request to amend the North Ford Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow for the construction
of 300 additional dwelling units.
9. Amendment 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
MINI`i Page 5 of 47.
District. Also requested is the adoption of Planned Community
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.
10. Amendment 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 P-C
(Planned Community) District. The proposal also includes a 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.
11. Amendment No. 769
Request to amend the Block 800 Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow the construction of
245 dwelling units or senior citizen housing.
12. Amendment No. 770
Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 48 so as to
reclassify property from the O-S (Open Space) and 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 Community. This request would
allow for the construction of an additional 94,000 sq.ft. of office
development (115,000 sq.ft. total).
MWI]3rr i m Page 6 of 47.
III, Fi dDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS REGARDING THF2
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
A. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT
This summary briefly describes those effects which were determined to be
insignificant for all eleven (11) project sites prior to the preparation of the
environmental document.
1. The proposed project will not create changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet, or lake.
2. The proposed project will not create any objectionable odors.
3. The proposed project will not alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or result in any change in climate, either locally or
regionally.
4. The proposed project will not alter the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters.
5. The proposed project will not change the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations.
6. The proposed project will not substantially reduce the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies.
7. The proposed project will not expose people or property to water-
related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves.
8. The proposed project will not reduce in acreage any agricultural crop.
9. The proposed project will not result in a substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area.
10. The proposed project will not alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of the area.
11. The proposed project will not increase the rate of use of any natural
resources.
12. The proposed project will not substantially deplete any non-renewable
natural resource.
13. The proposed project will not involve a risk of an explosion or the
release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil,
pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)in the event of an accident or upset
conditions.
14. The proposed project will not interfere with an emergency response
plan or an emergency evacuation plan.
15. The proposed project will not result in the creation of any health
hazard or potential health hazard.
F-%Mrr 1 Page 7 of 47.
16. The proposed project will not result in the exposure of people to
potential health hazards.
17. The proposed project will not result in the alteration to waterborne,
rail or air traffic.
18. The proposed project will not create a significant need for additional
maintenance of public facilities.
19. The proposed project will not have an effect upon or result-in the need
for other governmental services.
20. The proposed project will not result in the use of substantial amounts
of fuel or energy.
21. The proposed project will not substantially increase the demand upon
existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources
of energy. '
22. The proposed project will not result in an Impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational opportunities.
23. The proposed project will not result in an adverse physical or aesthetic
effect on a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object.
24. The proposed project does not have the potential to cause a physical
change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values.
25. The proposed project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area.
B. EFFECT'S DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
INSIGNIFICANCE
Impacts associated with the following environmental issues will be mitigated
to a level of insignificance upon implementation of applicable standard City
policies and requirements and recommended mitigation measures.
Transportatio _Circulation
Significant Effect:
The proposed'project, in conjunction with other past,present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, will impact peak hour traffic volumes.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated"into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City .policies and the mitigation measures listed
below,
• The City shall prepare a circulation improvement monitoring program
to direct•expenditures of funds received under the Development
err 1 Page 8 of 47.
r
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.
• 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
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in significant short-term construction-related
impacts.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid .or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measures listed
below:
0 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.
• 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,
• During grading and construction activities, the applicant shall
further control fugitive dust emissions using the following
measures:
EXMBrr 1 Page 9 of 47.
• 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.
• 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,
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in significant emissions from mobile
(vehicular) sources, combustion of natural gas, on the generation of electric
energy.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EM.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measures listed
below:
• Office and commercial development on the Corporate Plaza West and
Bayview 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.
0 Bicycle racks shall be required in accordance with the City of Newport
Beach Transportation Demand Ordinance.
0 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.
• 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 demon-
strates compliance with this measure. The plan shall be reviewed by
the Planning Department and approved by the Department of Public
Works:'
• 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
munerr 1 Page 10 of 47.
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 Depart-
ment of Public Works prior to issuance.of an occupancy permit.
Noise
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in significant short-term noise impacts due
to construction and grading activities.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the mitigation measure and standard City requirement listed
below:
• At the time specific site plans and grading plans are prepared and
submitted for review and approval by the City, the City shall review
the plans in conjunction with the environmental review process to
confirm that the mitigation measures provided will adequately control
construction impacts potentially impacting the Newport Harbor
Lutheran Church, especially its pre-school operations, If necessary,
additional conditions related to construction activities may be placed
on the project.
• Pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section
10.28.040, no person shall,while engaged in construction, remodeling,
digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or other related
building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner
which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of
normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday
except between the hours of 7:00 am. and 6:30 p.m., nor on any
Saturday except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., nor on
any Sunday or Holiday.
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will exceed acceptable noise levels on-site affecting
residential development on the San Diego Creek South, Upper Castaways,
Newporter North, Block 800, and Freeway Reservation sites.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
EXHIBrr 1 Page 11 of 47.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been.substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measures listed
below:
• 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 shall be
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 projeces plot plan
illustrating height, location" and 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
$TC and IIC design standards.
• 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,
axainrr 1 Page 12 of 47.
ti 0
• All freestanding acoustical bairiers shall be a berm, wall or combina-
tion 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
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in the possible loss of wetland habitat on the
San Diego Creek South, San Diego Creek North, Jamboree/MacArthur,
Upper Castaways, Newporter North, and Freeway Reservation sites.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measures listed
below:
• 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
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.
• 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 conduct-
ing the wetland delineation studies for wetlands impacted by residen-
tial development or associated improvements on the Newporter North
and Upper Castaways sites. If residential development or associated
BXH1Bn•1 Page 13 of 47.
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 commence-
ment of grading activities in areas containing wetland habitat.
• 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, Bayview 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 environ-
mental 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.
• 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 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.
• Prior to grading and/or construction 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.
• 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.
mnnnrri Page 14 of 47.
• 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.
• The City of Ne"ort Beach- shall consult with the Transportation
Corridor Agency'prior to final design and approval of any public
facility or recreational facility on the San Diego Creek North site to
determine feasible design and landscaping measures which will avoid
interfering with the viability of the San Diego Creek Northern Marsh
Creation site as wildlife habitat. If the Bayview Way extension is not
extended across the site, a landscaped buffer area will be provided
between any recreational or public facility uses and the Marsh
Creation project site.
• 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 New-
porter North-No grading(except that necessay for trail establishment
and improvements, erosion control, bluff stabilization or preparation
of the development area),,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 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; or below
the lessor of the 60 foot elevation contour or a line 100 feet from a
formally delineated wetland in 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.
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in the significant introduction of light and
glare on the San Diego Creek South site which would impact wildlife
movement along Bonita Creek and San Diego Creek.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR:
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measure listed
below:
Exmarr i Page 15 of 47.
• Development of the San Diego Creek South site shall be designed so
as to reduce the amount of light and glare which could potentially
spillover•into the wetland habitats of Bonita Creek and San Diego
Creek and which could also impact the functioning of these creeks as
wildlife corridors.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.
• At the time of adoption of a parcel/subdivision map for the San Diego
Creek South Site, the property line/development area boundary shall
be established at a minimum of 20 feet from the toe of the existing
slope adjacent to Bonita Creek. This distance,in combination with the
required building setback of 5 feet, will create a minimum 25 foot
buffer from Bonita Creek
Earth Resources
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in impacts related to faulting and seismicity.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporateddnto,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measures listed
below:
• Buildings four stories in height or higher shall be designed in accor-
dance 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}ssuance of a building permit.
i
• Buildings less than four stories In height shal 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.
BxHMrr 1 Page 16 of 47.
Structural ,lans including seismic design calculations/parameters,shall
P g
be approved by the City Building Department prior to issuance of
building permits.
• Habitable buildings shall not be placed adjacent to (above or below)
slopes or bluffs where seismic induced slope or 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 thb 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.
• In accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, a
Registered Geologist shall further evaluate and make recommenda-
tions regarding the potential for ground surface rupture affecting
proposed development on-sites where "Potentially Active Faults" have
been identified (Bayview 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.
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in impacts related to liquefaction on the San
Diego Creek North, San Diego Creek South, Upper Castaways, Bayview
Landing, Newporter North, and Newporter Resort sites,
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measure listed
below:
• 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 geotechnical consultant shall provide mitigation
measures which could include mechanical densification of liquefiable
rxrnsrr 1 Page 17 of 47.
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.
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in impacts related to erosion on any of the
eleven (11) sites.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required•in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measures listed
below:
• 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.
• All fill slopes shall be properly compacted during grading in confor-
mance 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.
• 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.
• 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
compiefl{ on of grading, stripped areas shall be covered with artificial
substances approved by the City Grading Engineer.
• Drainage of 'both surface.and subsurface water over or toward the
bluffs on'the Upper Castaways and Newporter North sites shall be
MWIFIrr i Page 18 of 47.
minimised, Thou some drainage,
rains e'of rainwater over the bluff face
Though g
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
minimi a 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.
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in impacts associated with bluff and slope
stability on any of the eleven (11) 'sites.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measures listed
below:
• 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.
• 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.
• Though the City has established a Bluff Setback Criteria for develop-
ment 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, appropri-
ate 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.
ten•1 Page 19 of 47.
• 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.
0 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 shall be signed by a Certified Engineering
Geologist and a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be approved by
the City Grading Engineer.
• 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 New-
porter North-No grading(except that necessary for trail establishment
and improvements, erosion control, bluff stabilization or preparation
of the development area),stockpilingof 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 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; or below
the lessor of the 60 foot elevation contour or a line 100 feet from a
formally delineated wetland in 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.
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in impacts related to compressible/collapsible
soil conditions on any of the eleven (11) sites.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measure listed
below:
mausrr x Page 20 of 47,
.I
• 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 compress-
ible/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.
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in impacts related to expansive/corrosive soil
conditions on any of the eleven (11) sites.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measure listed
below:
• 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.
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in impacts associated with near surface
groundwater potential in the Upper Castaways, Newporter North, Bayview
Landing, Newporter Knoll, Newporter Resort, Corporate Plaza West, Block
800, and Freeway Reservation sites.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Exaiarr i Page 21 of 47.
t
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measure listed
below:
• The project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall prepare
written site-specific review 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 dewa-
tering 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 satisfac-
tion of the City Grading Engineer prior to a issuance of a grading
permit, All recommendations of the reports shall be incorporated into
the grading, site, and building design to the satisfaction of the City
Grading Engineer and City EhgIneer.
Water Re o �rrna
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in significant short-term impacts to water
quality from construction-related sediment erosion.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened .to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policie4 and -the mitigation measures listed
below:
• 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.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the applicantAall incorporate
the following erosion control methods into grading plans and opera-
tions 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.
BXHMrr 1 Page 22 of 47.
b. Air-borne and vehicle-borne sediment shall be controlled during
construction by: the regular sprinkling of exposed soils; and the
moistening of vehicles loads.
C. An 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 concentrat-
ed 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. If 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.
• Prior to the issuance of grading permits, L, 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(i.e.,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.
• 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.
• 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 be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance
of grading permits. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Grading Engineer.
• 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.
• Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant or successor in
interest shall prepare a plan for approval by the City of Newport
Beach Grading Engineer for the control of accidental spills,litter, and
solid waste disposal during grading and construction. Existing policies
and standards of the City of Newport Beach and Fire Department shall
be incorporated. The plan shall be implemented as necessary during
grading and construction activities.
MlBrr i Page 23 of 47.
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in significant impacts due to increased
drainage on an already inadequate system.
Finding.
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporatedinto,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
Identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding.
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of -the standard City policies and the mitigation measure listed
below:
• 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:
Significant Effect:
The proposed project,in conjunction with other past present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, will have a significant short-term impact on the
water quality in Newport Bay due to sediment from construction after
mitigation.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the, significant environmental effect as
identified'in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measures listed
below:
• Prior to the issuance of gradingpermits, 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.
• Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall incorporate
the following-erosion control methods into grading plans and,opera-
tions 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.
BXi-IIBrr 1 Page 24 of 47.
li Il • •
b. Air-borne and vehicle-borne sediment shall be controlled during
construction by: the regular sprinkling of exposed soils; and the
moistening of vehicle loads.
C. An 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 concentrat-
ed 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. If 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.
• 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(i.e.,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.
• 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.
• 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 be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance
of grading permits. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Grading Engineer.
• 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.
MIBrr i Page 25 of 47.
Cultural Resources
Archaeology —
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in significant impacts to unknown archaeolog-
ical resources on any of the eleven (11) sites.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measures listed
below:
• 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.
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, display and study by qualified
scholars. All material shallbe transferred to the approved facility after
laboratory analysis and a report.have been completed. The appropri-
ate local institution shall be approved by the Planning Department
based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist.
• 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.
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in significant impacts to archaeological
resources in the Upper Castaways, Bayview Landing, Newporter North,
Newporter Knoll,Block 800,Corporate Plaza West,and Freeway Reservation
sites.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as
Identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
sxtnnrri Page 26 of 47.
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measures listed
below:
UPPER CASTAWAYS
• Prior to any grading related to development of the bluff trail system,
open space uses or bluff stabilization which could impact CA-Ora-49
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 deter-
mine 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 E1R. A report
shall be prepared detailing all findings and recommendations and
submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing
test excavations.
aAYVIEW LANDING
• 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.
• 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 shall be prepared detailing all
findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of
completing test excavations.
• 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 Bayview 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 submit-
ted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing the test
excavation.
NEWPORTER NORTH
• 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.
• 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 archaeol-
ogist. 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.
• Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall conduct a
data recovery of program CA-0ra-64 on the Newporter North site.
EXHIBIT 1 Page 27 of 47.
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.
• Prior to issuance of a grading permit for residential development or
any bluff stabilization, a qualified 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.
MMORTBR KNOLL
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
exists. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted
to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing surface
collection test excavation.
BLOCK 8W
• 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 madden
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.
coRroRATR PLAZA WM
• 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 deposits. A report shall be prepared
detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within
90 days of completing sub-surface testing.
• 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 distur-
bance. A report shall be prepared,detailing all findings and submitted
to the Planning Department,within 90 days of completing the surface
examination.
FRBBWAY ROBRVA71ON
• 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.
BxHIBrr 1 Page 28 of 47.
Significant Effect:
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past,present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects will result in significant impacts to archaeological
resources after mitigation.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measures listed
below:
• 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.
• 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, 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 appropri-
ate local institution shall be approved by the Planning Department
based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist.
• 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
• Prior to any grading related to development of the bluff trail system,
open space uses or bluff stabilization which could impact CA-Ora-49
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 deter-
mine 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.
BAYWBW LANDING
• 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
BxHMrr 1 Page 29 of 47.
report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the
Planning Department within 90 days of completing test excavations.
• r
• 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 shall be prepared detailing all
findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of
completing test excavations.
• 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 Bayview 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 submit-
ted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing the test
excavation.
M WPORMRNORTH
• 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.
0 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 archaeol-
ogist. 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.
• 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.
• Prior to issuance of a grading permit for residential development or
any bluff stabilization, a qualified 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.
NMORTBR KNOLL
• 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
exists. Ayeport shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted
axHMrr x Page 30 of 47.
l
...... .... ............... .....:::.::::::::r::::::•::.>m
to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing surface
collection test excavation.
BLOQC 8W
• 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
• 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 deposits. A report shall be prepared
detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within
90 days of completing sub-surface testing.
• Prior to the issuance of a 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 distur-
bance. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted
to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing the surface
examination.
FREEWAY RESERVATION
• 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
Significant Effect:
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past,present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects will result in significant impacts to paleontological
resources.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and the mitigation measures listed
below:
EXHIBrr 1 Page 31 of 47.
• Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a collection plan shall be
gt' 8 P ,
prepared and implemented by a City approved, qualified aleontologi-
cal monitor for known exposed fossil localities on Bayview 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.
• 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,
• 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.
• 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.
Public Services and Utilities
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in impacts to school system services, water,
law enforcement, or wastewater.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level
by virtue of the standard City policies and mitigation measures listed below:
Law Enforcement
• 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
• Prior to issuance of grading permits for the development site's, 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
sxxn3rr i Page 32 of 47.
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 Furrent district or-City policies dictate otherwise.
The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior
to issuance of grading permits.
Wastewater
• 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 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.
C. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
Listed below are the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided
if the project is implemented. These effects have been reduced to the extent
feasible through the requirements and mitigation measures described below.
The remaining unavoidable significant effects have been determined to be
acceptable when balanced against the economic, social, or other factors set
forth in the attached Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B).
Aesthetics/Light and Glare
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in the alteration of the natural coastal bluffs
due to stabilization for public areas on the Upper Castaways, Bayview
Landing, and Newporter North sites.
Findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project
alternatives identified in the Fina1.EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the standard
City policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
• 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.
ExHn3rr i Page 33 of 47.
0
Significant Effect:
The proposed project,in conjunction with other past,present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, will result in the loss of vacant/open space areas
providing visual relief due to development of sites surrounding Newport Bay.
This loss is a significant impact,
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project
alternatives identified in the Final Ella.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the standard
City policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
0 Prior to approval of a site plan review for the Upper Castaways site,
the applicant or successor in interest shall provide evidence that they
have consulted with the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church regarding
the•design of the residential development. Design issues to be
addressed include, but are not limited to:parking, access, location and
placement of structures, directional signage, and landscaping.
The proposed project defines development areas for sites currently vacant,
The development areas have been defined to maximize the open space
dedications,particularly on sites near Upper Newport Bay. The development
areas defined are considered to be the minimum necessary to insure the
economic viability of the development proposals.
Preservation of one or more of the sites proposed for development will
require acquisition by the City or another agency, such as the Newport
Conservancy. The costs of acquisition in total is substantial. This project will
allow for dedication of a maximum amount of open space with no acquisition
costs to the general public.
Transportation/Circulation
Significant Effect:,
The proposed project will add measurable traffic congestion to several
Intersections in the airport area in conjunction with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects,
Findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR,
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project
alternatives identified in the Final MR.
EXMBrr 1 Page 34 of 47.
r
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the standard
City policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation
measures:
• 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.
• 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.
The Irvine Company has made a commitment to the funding of circulation
system improvements which will provide significant, long-term benefits to the
City which is greater than that which would be made available absent the
Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement.
Although the incremental increase in adverse transportation/circulation
effects as a direct result of the project is considered minor, it is viewed as a
cumulative significant impact within the context of on-going regional growth.
This unavoidable significant effect is considered acceptable when balanced
against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Other public agencies with jurisdiction to' effect regional solutions to
cumulative impacts identified in the Final EIR include the surrounding'local
cities, the County of Orange, the Southern California Association of
Governments and the California-Department of Transportation.
Air Quali
Significant Effect:
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past,present, and reasonably
foreseeable future project emissions, will contribute to a impact on regional
air quality.
Findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
EXHIBrr 1 Page 35 of 47.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant.effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the standard
City policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation
measures:
• Office and commercial development on the Corporate Plaza West and
Bayview handing 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.
• Bicycle racks shall be required in accordance with the City of Newport
Beach Transportation Demand Ordinance.
• 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.
• 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 demon-
strates compliance with this measure. The plan sball be reviewed by
the Planning Department and approved by the Department of Public
Works.
• 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 Depart-
ment of Public Works prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.
The project proposed will entitle less development than that allowed by the
Newport Beach General Plan. A small number of residential dwelling units
will not be constructed. However,a substantial amount of office/commercial
development will be abandoned. This will improve the,jobs to housing ratio
In the City of Newport Beach. Improved jobs/housing balance is considered
by the Southern California Association of Governments and the South Coast
Air Quality Management District to be valuable in the attainment of air
quality requirements in the region.
Although the incremental increase in adverse air quality effects as a direct
result of the project is considered minor, it is viewed as a cumulative
significant impact within the context of on-going regional growth. This
unavoidable significant effect is considered acceptable when balanced against
the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Other public agencies with jurisdiction to effect regional solutions to
cumulative impacts identified in the Final EIR-Include the surrounding local
cities, the County of Orange, the Southern California Association of
Governments, South Coast Air Quality Management District ,and the
California Air Resources Board.
mcmnrr t J Page 36 of 47.
r
Blolorry
Significant Effect:
The proposed project may `impact California gnatcatcher habitat in the
Bayview Landing and Newporter North sites due to bluff stabilization and
remediation and grading related to erosion control and development of open
space uses.
A
Findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the standard
City policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation
measures:
• This measure shall apply to the Newporter North, Newporter Knoll,
Bayview 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 residential development,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 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.
• All non-emergency grading related to bluff stabilization/remediation
on the Newporter North and Bayview Landing sites shall occur during
the non-breeding season for the California gaatcatcher. The non-
breeding season is from August 1 to January 31.
• Prior to approval of site plans or subdivision and/or City approval of
a park development plan (whichever comes first), the City shall retain
a biologist to further assess the potential for human and pet intrusion
into the coastal sage scrub habitat supporting the California gnat-
catcher population. This assessment shall be at the cost of the
developer if related to site plans of subdivision, or, at the cost of the
City if related to the park development plan. If the level of expected
intrusion is considered to be of sufficient magnitude to significantly
impact the California gnat catcher populations on site, mitigation
measures shall be designed and placed as conditions on the project to
FXHIerr x Page 37 of 47.
0
reduce the impact to the extent feasible. Such design and operational
measures could include perimeter fencing, homeowner and community
educational programs about the potential impact of cats on wild birds,
programs for trapping and removing problem animals.
• The precise details of any revegetation / replacement program will be
developed in conjunction with review and approval of design and
grading plans when the exact nature and extent of impacts are known.
Any such programs will be subjected to full environmental review
pursuant to CEQA. Consultation with all interested and effected
resource agencies will occur as part of formulating and evaluating
revegetation programs. Given recent successful revegetation programs
in•Orange County,such as those conducted in Crystal Cove State Park,
It is fully reasonable to expect that a properly prepared revegetation
program will be successful in mitigating impacts.
• 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 New-
porter North-No grading(except that necessary for trail establishment
and improvements, erosion control,bluff stabilization or preparation
of the development area),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 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; or below
the lessor of the 60 foot elevation contour or a line 100 feet from a
formals delineated'wetland in John Wayne c y yn 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.
The proposed project defines development areas for sites currently vacant.
The development areas have been defined to maximize the open space
dedications,particularly on sites near Upper Newport Bay. The development
areas defined are considered to be the minimum, necessary to insure the
economic viability of the development proposals.
Preservation of one or
more of the sites proposed for development will
require c q e acquisition by the City or another agency, such as the Newport
Conservancy.` The costs of acquisition in total is substantial. This project will
allow for dedication of a maximum amount of open space with no acquisition
costs to the general public.
Significant Effect:
The proposed project will result in the loss of upland habitat (introduced
annual grassland) on the Newporter North site which could potentially result
in the elimination of coyotes from all or.a portion of the Upper Newport Bay.
The proposed'project will also result In an overall reduction in the general
botanical and wildlife resources of the area through habitat loss, the
fragmentatiom of habitats,interruption of wildlife movement, and a reduction
of genetic exchange among wildlife populations in the area.
axuiarr i Page 38 of 47.
t
---- --- .. ... ............. ._. . .m
Findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially.lessenthe significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the standard
City policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation
measures:
• This measure shall apply to the Newporter North, Newporter Knoll,
Bayview 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 residential development,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 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.
All non-emergency grading related to bluff stabilization/remediation
on the Newporter North and Bayview Landing sites shall occur during
the non-breeding season for the California. gnatcatcher, The non-
breeding season,is from August 1 to January 31.
• Prior to approval of site plans or subdivision and/or City approval of
a park development plan (whichever comes first), the City shall retain
a biologist, at the developers expense, to further assess the potential
for 'human and pet intrusion into the coastal sage scrub habitat
supporting the California gnatcatcher population. If the level of
expected intrusion is considered to be of sufficient magnitude to
significantly impact the California gnatcatcher populations on site,
mitigation measures shall be designed and placed as conditions on the
project to reduce the impact to the extent feasible. Such design and
operational measures could include perimeter fencing,homeowner and
community educational programs about the potential impact of cats on
wild birds, programs for trapping and removing problem animals.
• The precise details of any revegetation/replacement program will be
developed in conjunction with review and approval of design and
grading plans when the exact nature and extent of impacts are known.
Any such programs will be subjected to full environmental review
pursuant to CEQA. Consultation with all interested and effected
resource agencies will occur as part of formulating and evaluating
EXHIBrr 1 Page 39 of 47.
revegetation programs. Given recent successful revegetation programs
In Orange County,such as those conducted in Crystal Cove State Park,
It is fully reasonable to-expect that a properly prepared revegetation
program will be successful in mitigating impacts.
The proposed project defines development areas for sites currently vacant.
The development areas have been defined to maximize the open space
dedications,particularly on sites near Upper Newport Bay. The development
areas defined are considered to be the minimum necessary to insure the
economieviabilfty of the development proposals.
Preservation of one or more of the sites proposed for development will
require acquisition by the City or another agency, such as the Newport
Conservancy. The costs of acquisition in total is substantial. This project will
allow for dedication of a maximum amount of open space with no acquisition
costs to the general public.
Water Resources
Significant Effect:
The proposed project,in conjunction with other past,present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, will have an incremental long-term impact on
water quality in Newport Bay due to increased urban pollutants.
Findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in;or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project
alternatives identified in the Final EEk.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue,of the standard
City policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation
measures:
• 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.
• Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall
l incorporate
the following erosion control methods into grading plans and opera-
tions 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.
HMMrr t Page 40 of 47.
r.
b. Air-borne and vehicle-borne sediment shall be controlled during
construction by: the regular sprinkling of exposed soils; and the
moistening of vehicles loads.
C. An 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 concentrat-
ed 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. If 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.
• 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(i.e.,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.
• The applicant shall provide a temporary gravel entrance located at
every construction site entrance. 'lie 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.
• 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 be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance
of grading permits. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Grading Engineer.
• 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.
• Any recorded CC&Rs shall incorporate mandates to the Homeowner's
Associations, commercial properties management and apartment
management companies regarding:
Fertilizer/Pesticide/Herbicide management practices
Irrigation Management Practices
Street sweeping requirements: vacuum truck, fall cleaning, etc.
BxaiBrr i Page 41 of 47.
0
- Signage and catch basin stencil maintenance.
Annual distribution of informational brochures (see Mitigation
Measures #77).
These mandates shall be reviewed and approved by .the City of
Newport Beach prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
• The City of Newport Beach,homeowners associations,andcommercial
and apartment property management companies shall maintain legible
stenciling on any catch basin that they maintain. Stenciling shall use
selected letters and/or symbols approved by the City of Newport
Beach notifying the reader that the catch basin drains to the Newport
Bay and to warn against dumping.
• Brochures (such as the 'Nonpoint Source Pollution' brochures
published by the Orange County Flood Control District) shall be
distributed at the time of initial sale or lease of residential and
commercial properties. These brochures shall include a discussion of:
Impacts of improper solid waste practices and littering.
Proper use and management of fertilizers, herbicides and,other
harmful chemicals.
Impacts of dumping oil, antifreeze, pesticides, paints, solvents,
etc, into storm drains.
Effective housekeeping prac$ces such as use of bio-degradable
cleaning compounds and adsorbents.
Benefits of preventing excessive erosion and sedimentation.
Benefits of proper landscaping.practices
Benefits of minimizing non-stormwater runoff or adverse
impacts of over-irrigation.
These brochures shall be reviewed and approved by the City of
Newport Beach prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
The development areas defined as part of the project maximize.the dedication
of open space and thereby reduces the impermeable surfaces associated with
the development of these sites. This will, therefore, increase absorption and
minimize the incremental increase in urban pollutants In Newport Bay.
Although the incremental increase in adverse transportation/cIrculation
effects as a direct result of the project is considered minor, it is,viewed as a
cumulative significant impact within the context of on-going regional growth.
This unavoidable significant effect is considered acceptable when balanced
against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Other public agencies with jurisdiction to effect regional solutions to
cumulative impacts identified in the Final EIR include the surrounding local
cities, the County of Orange, the Southern California Association of
Governments and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Public Services and Utilities,
Significant Effect!
The proposed project will result in an impact on fire protection services.
axcnnrr z Page 42 of 47.
r
t • •
Findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially.lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
While the proposed project does not provide for the actual construction of a
new fire station, a site has been identified and will be dedicated to the City
which allows for the construction of a fire station. The City of Newport
Beach is currently conducting a Clty-wide fire services study,which will assess
the provision of fire and emergency services to the City and identify the
optimal locations for fire stations, Subsequent to this study, the City may
elect to construct a fire station on the San Diego Creek North parcel.
IV. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Analysis
Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe "a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could
feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits
of the alternatives."
Seven alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in Section VI of the Final
EIR. Two of the alternatives were further broken down into a number of sub-
alternatives, for a total of 14 actual alternatives studied. These alternatives were
developed with the intent of finding ways to avoid or reduce the environmental
effects of the proposed project while attaining the basic objectives of the project,
even if those alternatives might impede the attainment of other project objectives and
might be more costly. The City Council has determined that all but one of these
alternatives are infeasible, in that they would not satisfy the basic project objectives
or they would not substantially reduce the environmental effects as compared to the
proposed project, with exception of the no development alternative. A summary of
the alternatives considered, along with an explanation of why each alternative was
rejected is presented below. The Project Objectives are presented in Section II.A.
& B., above.
1. No Proj�No Development
This alternative assumes that no residential, commercial, office or public facility
development will occur on any of the sites, It also assumes that the sites will stay in
private ownership until and unless the sites are acquired by the City of Newport
Beach or-another public or quasi-public entity. The no development alternative
avoids certain environmental effects associated with development of the proposed
project. It would also result in environmental effects which do not result if the
project is approved. These effects are:
• The loss of funding for circulation system improvements which could cause
unacceptable levels of traffic service on local roadways.
• Loss of dedication of open space.
EXHMrr i Page 43 of 47.
• Potentially high costs to the City's General or Parks and Recreation funds if
acquisition is mandated. This could affect the overall fiscal solvency of the
City.
• An adverse effect on the City's jobs/housing balance.
• Increased cost to the City in obtaining a site for a new fire station.
• Continued erosion of the bluffs on Upper Castaways and Newporter North.
Due to these adverse environmental effects which result from the alternative,it is not
considered to be environmentally superior and is rejected by the City of Newport
Beach on that basis.
2 No Proje Agreement Developm n Under Existing General,Plan
Under this alternative, the proposed Agreement would not be approved and
development for each site would be pursued separately under the provisions of the
General Plan'Land Use Element. This alternative will result in all of the adverse
impacts associated with the proposed project. The alternative would also result in
the following additional adverse environmental effects:
• Less land dedicated for open space and parks.
• Loss of early circulation system improvement funding, including the advance
of funds.
• Development of an additional 162,000 square feet of office development.
• Development of an additional 28 residential dwelling units.
• 20% more traffic generation than the proposed project.
• Significant adverse impact on the wetlands 4 on the Jamboree/MacArthur site.
Due to these adverse environmental effects which result from the alternative,it is not
considered to be environmentally superior and is rejected by, the City of Newport
Beach on that basis.
3. Reduced Development -No Agmement
This alternative would reduce the allowed development from the proposed project
on Bayview Landing, Upper Castaways, Newporter North, and San Diego Creek
South. This alternative would result,in a greater amount of open space than the
proposed project. Housing units would be reduced from 956 to 641. The reduction
In development would reduce but not fully avoid the adverse effects of the proposed
project. In addition; the following adverse effects would result from this alternative:
• Less land dedicated for open space and parks.
• Loss of early circulation system improvement funding, including the advance
of funds.
• An adverse effect on the jobs/housing balance in the community with the
resulting impact on air quality.
This alternative was identified as environmentally superior to the proposed project.
This alternative was rejected by the City of Newport Beach because the significant
economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the increased
W=rr 1 Page 44 of 47.
environmental effects, specifically, the actual dedication of significant open space to
the City at no cost to the taxpayers and the advance funding of significant circulation
system improvements.
4 Partial Transfer of Development from Newporter North to Newport Center (No
Agreement)
This alternative assumes that 92 of the 212 residential units are transferred from
Newporter North to Newport Center, either in Block 600 or Block 800. The transfer
of dwelling units to Block 600 would require a General Plan Amendment because
the area is designated for office uses. The primary intent of this alternative is to
reduce or avoid impacts to the small fresh water wetland on the site near the
intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive.
This alternative is rejected by,the City of Newport Beach for two primary reasons.
The site access point for a smaller residential development on Newporter North will
still be at the existing intersection on Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive. This
is due to the fact that it is the best and most safe ingress/egress point. Grade
differentials between the site and San Joaquin Bills Road or Back Bay Drive
preclude access from either of these two roads. The distance between existing
intersections and site distance limitations due to grade differentials and curves dictate
the access point as proposed.
Additionally, the project proponent has determined that the residential projects
within Newport Center resulting from the transfer would be economically infeasible.
This alternative with no agreement will result in the increased adverse environmen-
tal, economic and social effects engendered by the other alternatives which assume
no agreement.
5. Design Alternatives
Three project design alternatives were analyzed, all of which would affect the uses
on the Bayview Landing Site and one of which would also alter the development
proposal on the Upper Castaways Site. Alternative A would replace the lower
Bayview Landing use with an active park and transfer 30,000 sq.ft. of retail
entitlement to Newport Center - Fashion Island. Alternative B would transfer the
active park from Upper Castaways to Bayview Landing and increase the development
area on the Upper Castaways for residential development. Alternative C would
allow for senior citizen housing (120 units) on Bayview Landing and transfer 30,000
sq.ft. of retail entitlement to Newport Center - Fashion Island.
Altemative A: The City of Newport Beach elects to adopt this alternative an
environmentally superior alternative.
Altemative B. The City of Newport Beach elects to adopt a variation of this
alternative by placing the activity park on the Bayview Landing site and designate a
portion of the Upper Castaways site for additional residential development in the
form of an affordable senior citizen housing project as an environmentally superior
alternative.
Altemadve C: The City of New Beach elects to adopt a variation of this
alternative. Senior Citizen housing facilities are needed in the City and are
appropriate on the Castaways site due the proximity of the area to transit routes,
medical services and shopping. Additional development in Fashion Island will
increase the economic viability of the center.
MMMrr 1 Page 45 of 47.
0
6. Alternative Agreement - Use of Funds for Open Space Acq ai i m
This alternative would use the interest free loan for acquisition of parks and open
space rather than for circulation system improvements.
The City of Newport Beach rejects this alternative as infeasible because the findings
to approve e pp the project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance cannot be made
without the improvements which will be made with the circulation funds. Therefore,
the development agreement cannot be approved and the advance which is part of the
agreement would not be made.
7. Design Alternatives
Six design alternatives were rejected as infeasible through the environmental review
process. These alternatives are:
A: Intensification of residential PP Castaways.
develo ment on Upper s.
P Y
B: Transfer of all development to Newport Center.
C: Additional active park on Bayview Landing with night lights and on Newport
Village.
D: Alternative site access on Upper Castaways.
R Additional access on Upper Castaways.
F. Alternate site access on Newporter North.
The City of Newport Beach rejects alternatives 7.A. & B. Due to the fact that they
would require significant amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and
would not reduce the environmental effects associated with the approval of the
proposed project, as modified.
The City of Newport Beach rejects alternative 7.C. due to the conflict of night lights
with surrounding residential development near B'ayview Landing,and incompatibility
of active park development on Newport Village with the Newport Center Sight Plane,
The City of Newport Beach rejects alternatives 7.D., B.&F.for specific public safety
considerations. In each case the alternate access points were determined to be
inadequate and unsafe by the-consulting traffic engineers and the City's Public Works
Department.
Additional Alternative
During the public review and hearing process an additional alternative was identified.
This would provide for the dedication as neighborhood park and open space of the
Newport Village site in exchange for maintenance of ownership by The Irvine
Company of the portion of San Diego Creek North immediately adjacent to San
Diego Creek. This alternative would not change the allowed land use of the San
Diego Creek North site, but would allow The Irvine Company to utilize the area as
mitigation for a portion of their obligation related to the construction of the San
Joaquin Hills'Transportation Corridor. The dedication of the Newport'VMage site
would be for local neighborhood park uses which would not result in the anticipated
conflicts of an active recreation park as described in Alternative 7.C.
In the consideration of the project and the alternatives to the project, the City
Council has incorporated certain changes to the development standards in order to
reduce the significant effects of the proposed project. These include eliminating the
RXIMrr 1 Page 46 of 47.
F
grading encroachment of the development areas on Castaways and Newporter North,
requiring compliance with site distance requirements as determined necessary by the
City Traffic Engineer, giving the City broader discretion regarding the height limits
on Castaways and Newporter North and requiring vehicular and pedestrian access
to the parks on Castaways via 16th Street or Cliff Drive, if feasible..
Conclusion
J
On the basis of the information presented above, the City Council has determined
that the project as modified will accomplish the project objectives while substantially
reducing the environmental impacts of the project. The Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Exhibit 2)presents the reasons why the City Council has determined
that the proposed project should be approved, even though it will contribute to
significant project related and cumulative effects that cannot be fully mitigated.
PLT:..\ed\eir\EIR148.fnd
EXMIT I Page 47 of 47.
0 �► Y
EXHIBIT 2
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency to balance the benefits
of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether
to approve the project. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the unavoidable
risks of she Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Project are acceptable
and are clearly outweighed by specific social and other benefits of the project. The benefits
of the proposed project which outweigh the unavoidable environmental risks are the
following:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Land Use Plan of
the Local Coastal Program for most of the sites and as amended for the Ba gr yview
Landing site.
2. The proposed project will insure no development occurs on sensitive habitat areas
of coastal bluffs and will preserve and provide access through park and openspace
dedications to ocean and bay views.
3. The proposed project will contribute$21.1 million dollars towards local and regional
circulation improvements pursuant to the City's Fair Share Traffic Contribution
Ordinance, development site frontage improvements and additional improvements
pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A portion of these monies is in the form
of an interest free loan which will be repaid by the City over a term of 20 years from
50% of collected fair share fees. If the loan is not repaid within the 20 year term,
the outstanding balance is forgiven. The proposed project, as a result of this funding
mechanism, will place the City in a superior position for competitive roadway
improvement funds through the provision of a source of money for matching funds,
and will also provide funds for the construction of roadway improvements for which
there is no identified funding source.
4. The proposed project will result in the dedication of the Jamboree/MacArthur, San
Diego Creek North and Newporter Knoll site in total, and partial dedication of
Upper Castaways, Bayview Landing, Newporter North, Newport Village, Freeway
Reservation East and•San Diego Creek South. These dedications total 140 acres,
which is 69 acres more than that envisioned in the General Plan.
5. The proposed project provides potential locations for senior citizen housing in the
P P P J P P g
community.
6. The proposed project will provide affordable housing as required by the Newport
Beach Housing Element.
7. The proposed project will improve the jobs/housing balance in the community.
8. The approval of the agreement will lower the potential acquisition costs of the Upper
Castaways and Newporter North sites due to the reduction of the allowable
development area.
9. The development agreement provides a location for a new City fire station.
10. The development agreement provides a loeatilnfor a potential park and ride facility
in close proximity to the HOV access lanes of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation
Corridor.
11. The proposed project eliminates 162,000 sq.ft. of office development anticipated to
the Newport Beach General Plan.
12. The proposed project eliminates 28 dwelling units anticipated in the Newport Beach
General Plan...
PLT....\ED\n1R\EI1U4&0RC
i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACRO
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
August 24, 1992
ROLL CRLL INDEX
3. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing The Irvine
on the application of The Irvine Company Company
for a series of approvals related to the
Circulation Improvement and Open Space
Agreement - Development Agreement No. 6.
Site specific approvals are also
included, as follows:
General Plan Amendment 92-2(C): Request GPA 92-2(C)
to amend the Land Use Element of the (45)
Newport Beach General Plan to allow for
an optional permitted land use of
affordable senior citizen housing on the
Bayview Landing site in association with
the transfer of 30,000 sq.ft. of retail
commercial entitlement to Fashion Island
in Newport Center. The proposal also
includes the acceptance of an
environmental document;
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 28: LCPA No. 28
Request to amend the Local Coastal
Program, Land Use Plan to allow for an
optional permitted land use of
affordable senior citizen housing on the
Bayview Landing site in association with
the transfer of 30,000 sq.ft. of retail
commercial entitlement to Fashion Island
in Newport Center;
Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-35, being, Ord 92-35
Dev Agm
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL No. 6
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AND THE IRVINE COMPANY FOR THE
CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN
SPACE AGREEMENT (Development
Agreement No. 6);
Traffic Study No. 82: Request to Trfc Study
approve a traffic study consistent with No. 82
the provisions of Chapter 15.40 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code for eleven
sites addressed in the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement.
Planning Commission Amendment No. 763 - PCA 763
Request to amend the Harbor View Hills
Planned Community District Regulations
and Development Plan so as to allow for
the construction of 48 additional
dwelling units; property located at 1501
Ford Road, adjacent to the easterly side
of MacArthur Boulevard, between Ford
Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, in the
Harbor View Hills Planned Community;
Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-36, being Ord 92-36
Upr Casta-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL ways
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR UPPER
CASTAWAYS (PLANNING COMMISSION PCA 764
AMENDMENT NO. 764);
Request would provide for the
construction of 151 dwelling units;
property located at 900 Dover Drive, on
the southeasterly side of Dover Drive
between Westcliff Drive and West Coast
Highway;
Volume 46 - Page 262
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACP
COUNCIL MEKBERS MINUTES
�� ' August 24, 1992
ROLL CRLL `A INDEX
Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-37, being, Ord 92-37
Newporter
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL North
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NEWPORTER
NORTH/NEWPORTER KNOLL (PLANNING
COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 765); PCA 765
Request to provide for the construction
of 212 dwelling units on Newport North
and open space on Newporter Knoll;
property located at 1501 Jamboree Road,
on the northwesterly side of Jamboree
Road between San Joaquin Hills Road and
the Newporter Resort;
PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 766 - PCA 766
Request to amend the North ,Ford Planned
Community District Regulations and
Development Plan so as to allow for the
construction of 300 additional dwelling
units; property located at 3200
University Drive on the northeasterly
corner of Jamboree Road and University
Drive South, in the North Ford Planned
Community;
Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-38, being, Ord 92-38
Bayview
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Landing
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT RE-ZONING
THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
BAYIVIEW LANDING FROM THE U
DISTRICT TO THE P-C (PLANNED
COMMUNITY) DISTRICT AND ADOPTING
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN pCA 767
FOR BAYVIEW LANDING (PLANNING
COMMISSION AMENDMENT 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
District. Also requested is the
adoption of Planned Community 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; 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.
Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-39, being, Ord 92-39
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL ego
Cre
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Creek No.
ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT RE-ZONING
THE PROPERTIES COMMONLY KNOWN AS
SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AND
JAMBOREE/MACARTBUR FROM THE U
DISTRICT TO THE P-C (PLANNED
COMMUNITY) DISTRICT AND ADOPTING
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH-JAMBOREE PCA 768
MACARTHUR (PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDMENT NO. 768);
Volume 46 - Page 263
i
4 CITY OF N WORT BEACH*
COLKIL MEMBERS MINUTES
�f August 24. 1992
ROLL C LL INDEX
Request to amend portions of Districting
Maps No. 44 and 66 so as to reclassify
property from the U (Unclassified)
District to the P-C (Planned Community)
District. The proposal also includes a
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; property located at 600
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;
PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 769 - P.CA 769
Request to amend the Block 800 Planned
Community District Regulations and
Development Plan so as to allow the
construction of 245 dwelling units or
senior citizen housing; 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;
Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-40, being, Ord 92-40
Corp Plaza
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL West
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT RE-ZONING
THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
CORPORATE PLAZA WEST FROM THE U
DISTRICT TO THE P-C (PLANNED
COMMUNITY) DISTRICT AND ADOPTING
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGUTATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CORPORATE PLAZA WEST (PLANNING
COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 770); PCA 770
Request to amend a portion of
Districting Map No. 48 so as to
reclassify property from the O-S (Open
Space) and 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 Community.
This request would allow for the
construction of an additional 94,000
sq.ft. of office development (115,000
sq.ft. total); property located at 1050
Newport Center Drive, on the
northwesterly corner of East Coast
Highway and Newport Center Drive, across
from the Corporate Plaza Planned
Community.
Report from the Planning Department.
Letters of concern about the subject
agreement from Newport Harbor Lutheran
Church, Leon J. and Audrey E. Misiolek,
Brad and Michelle A. Hanford, Betty C.
M. Messmer, Fred H. Joyner (dba Tide
Office Supply, Inc.), Grace Rosengren,
Lynne L. 0. Prechel, Cully Sutherland,
Joseph E. and Florence Stasch, Nancy
Kerr, Betren I. and Viola M. Smith,
Cathleen Himel, Paul T. and Virginia L.
Hawker, E. P. Benson, and H.R. Pearson.
Volume 46 - Page 264
CITY OF NEWP'ORT BEACP
CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES
�f August 24, 1992
ROLL CPLL INDEX
Letters in support from Citizens for a GPA 92-2(C)
Better Newport, and W. Lee Spencer.
Letters expressing support for the City
to purchase the open Space: Kimberly
Jansma, Nancy Rayl, M. Garncoa, Lester
Packard, J. Coates, S. Carlson, Shirley
Packard, Priscilla M. Groth, Doris D.
Conroy, Richard Knox, Jenell Wales, Mary
Sanders, Catherine S. Wales, J. E.
Groth, Henrietta Fletcher, Louis Ballas,
Niki Kinkel, and Louise R. Day.
The City Clerk advised that after the
agenda was printed, additional letters
were received concerning the subject
proposal:
Support - (telephone message) Bob Cooper
Concern/Opposition - Mr. and Mrs. Arthur
Courteau, Patricia Fonkalsrud (telephone
message), Alan Blum, David Williams,
George M. Crall (FAR), Shelley Spurgeon,
Ann and Lloyd Dietz, Robert M. Barton.
In Favor of Open Space/Purchase - Mrs.
Joann M. Sprenger, Shirley Clemens, Abby
Loubet, Jay and Ann Rhorton, Donald and
Frances Burdorf, Pernel and Mary Ann
Barnett, Dell F. Kahan, The Newport
Conservancy, Jean Wilson Clouse, H. R.
Nyholm, Tayna Tarr, Kip and Jamie Kula,
Louise Marscellas, Carl L. DeVries,
Candi Hubert, Mr. and Mrs. Lynn
Friedman, Sue and Charles Turner, Billy
Jencks, Mark G. Hoglund (Cliff Haven
Community Association), 33 signatures -
"Behalf of All Intelligent Newport Beach
Residents," Diana Black, Lauri
Mendenhall, Mrs. William H. Spurgeon
III, Mrs. Lawrence E. Gates, Suzy
Picker, Angela Ficker White, and
Patricia and Hans Bode.
Patricia L. Temple, Advance Planning
Manager, in summarizing the proposal
noted the following:
"This project is composed of a
comprehensive set of applications
to provide entitlement for the
remaining undeveloped sites in the
City owned by The Irvine Company.
The primary approvals are the
adoption of the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space
Agreement, Development Agreement
No. 6, and the vesting of the
proposed development pursuant to
the City's Traffic Phasing
Ordinance. The agreement will be
outlined in detail in the
presentation by The Irvine
Company. The details of the
agreement are the result of
exhaustive discussions between the
company and an ad hoc committee of
the City Council formed for the
purpose of developing the terms of
the agreement. The committee was
composed of the Mayor and two City
Council members with support from
,the City Attorney, Public Works
and Planning Departments. The
Volume 46 - Page 265
*CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
August 24, 1992
ROLL CALL INDEX
agreement is a product of the City GPA 92-2(c)
Attorney with substantial input
from The Irvine Company.
"There are three primary
components of the agreement: 1)
Circulation Funding Program, 2)
Oppen Space Dedication Program, and
3) Provisions for the Vesting of
Entitlement.
"In preparing the analysis of the
project, staff noted that the
project would constitute the final
discretionary actions in the
Newport Center area. As a result,
very late in the process, the
staff raised the issue of
dedication of Newport Village from
the Library site to San Miguel
Road. The City Council ad hoc
committee and The Irvine Company
determined that the dedication
could be accomplished so long as
the company was given the ability
to use a portion of San Diego
Creek North between the Bayview
Drive extension and the Creek for
mitigation of San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor impacts as
discussed in the staff report.
This concept has been incorporated
into the Development Agreement.
"In addition to the approval of
the agreement, the development
will be vested pursuant to the
provisions of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance. This approval is under
the long-term comprehensive
project provisions which allow for
the use of the net benefit
concept. 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 , landscaped
standards, etc. , for four sites of
the Castaways, Newporter North,
Block 800 and San Diego Creek
South, and will be subject to site
plan review and tentative tract
map approval. Development on
Block 800, Newporter North, and
Bayview Landing will be subject to
use permit requirements. Develop-
ment on Freeway Reservation East
will be subject to additional
tract map approval; the only site
for which there is no discretion-
ary action is Corporate Plaza
West.
"Subsequent to preparation of the
staff report, the need for minor
alterations to two of the
mitigation measures were
identified. Additionally, The
Irvine Company has met with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and has identified an additional
mitigation measure. These are
Volume 46 - Page 266
CITY OF NMORT BEACP
COUNCIL MEMBERS MIMJTES
+� � \\\
August 24, 1992
ROLL CFLL INDEX
described in the Supplemental GPA 92-2(C)
staff report to the Council, and
should be incorporated into the
final action of the City Council,
if it is taken this evening. In
addition, some minor modifications
to the findings prepared for
certification of the Environmental
Impact Report have been
identified. The list of
discretionary actions on page 5
(staff report page 306) should be
amended to include Local Coastal
Program Amendment No. 28 and the
related approval in concept. The
significant effect on biological
resources identified on page 36
(staff report page 337) should be
revised from will to may, to
accurately reflect the language in
the text of the EIR.
"The staff would like to note for
the City Council the additional
requirement that has been
incorporated into the P-C Text
Amendment for the southern portion
of the Freeway Reservation East
site (Harbor 'View Hills Planned
Community). This measure will
require an additional acoustical
analysis of the designs of the
structures to assure optimal sound
attenuation -from that development
for the adjacent community.
"Another issue raised in the staff
report is access from Dover Drive
to the view park and bluff top
areas of the Castaways site. If
the City Council desires to impose
a requirement of this nature,
staff has prepared additional
language for the planned community
text.
"Correspondence received by the
City Council prior to the hearing
has requested a 75 foot setback
from the top of the slope for the
Castaways and Newporter North
sites. This request was based on
an estimate of a projection of a
2 to 1 slope from the existing toe
of slope on the Castaways site.
It's important to note that the
bluff side setback established in
the draft P-C Text under consider-
ation, include the greater of this
projection of a 2 to 1 slope from
the existing toe of slope or 40
feet, whichever is greatest. It is
the opinion of staff that the
concern raised by this correspon-
dence is satisfactorily addressed
by the existing provisions. since
if the scenario presented is true,
the existing provisions in the P-C
texts would result in the
requested setback.
Volume 46 - Page 267
*CITY OF NWORT BEACH*
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
g� August 24, 1992
ROLL ALV\ INDEX
"The Planning Commission received GPA 92-2(C)
a number of comments regarding the
widening of Dover Drive to the
master plan configuration of six
lanes. While the project includes
grading out of the roadway for
this purpose, the subject of the
master plan designation of the
roadway is not subject to
alteration at this time. The
designation of Dover Drive
adjacent to Upper Castaways has
long been on the master plan of
streets and highways and is also
on the County master plan of
arterial highways. The need for
this road is not directly related
to the development of Upper
Castaways, but is required as a
frontage improvement requirement
of the development. As part of the
Traffic Study, the long term need
for this improvement was again
validated. This arterial
designation is necessary to
maintain the correlation of the
City's Land Use and Circulation
Elements which was achieved by the
General Plan update approved by
the City in October of 1988.
"At the Planning Commission
hearing, several persons testified
in regards to the relationship of
the possible future widening of
Dover Drive to the ultimate need
for the construction of the 19th
Street bridge over the Santa Ana
River. During the Commission
meeting, staff indicated that
there is no connection between the
widening of Dover Drive and the
need for the 19th Street bridge.
In the response to comments, staff
had the consulting Traffic
Engineer validate the traffic
consequences of the project on the
ultimate need for the 19th Street
bridge. A special traffic model
run revealed that of all the
automobiles anticipated to utilize
the 19th Street bridge, only 640
(2.5%) will also use the portion
of Dover Drive between Coast
Highway and Westcliff. This is
the total automobile trips which
cross the City of Costa Mesa via
19th, 17th and 16th Streets. Of
these 640 trips, only 81 (0.3%)
can be attributed to the project,
and only 30 (0.1%) can be
attributed to the development
proposed for Upper Castaways."
The Public Works Director, referencing
certain aspects of the Circulation
Element improvement funding, stated that
the point he wished to emphasize is that
the funding advance will be available to
use as matching funds and thus can be
leveraged. The City competes with other
cities and other agencies for funding
under various regional funding programs
and almost all
Volume 46 - 268
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACP
COOUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
August 24, 1992
ROLL CFlLL INDEX
the programs available require matching GPA 92-2(C)
funds, thus the funds proposed to be
advanced can be leveraged and very
useful in completing the remaining
elements of the Circulation Element in
the General Plan. Further, the
priorities for completing those projects
will be set by the City.
With respect to the San Diego Creek
North Planned Community site, the Public
Works Director stated it includes an
area for the proposed ramp from Jamboree
Road to the San Joaquin Hills Transpor-
tation Corridor, and he would like to
recommend that paragraph 5.1 of the
Development Agreement be amended to read
as follows:
"Company shall dedicate to the
City the area shown as open
space/public facilities on the
Planned Community Development text
for each parcel, with the
exception of certain lands on the
San Diego Creek North site that
may be necessary for
implementation of the San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor
which should be offered for
dedication directly to the
Transportation Corridor Agency."
In response to question raised by
Council Member Plummer relative to the
widening of Dover Drive, the Public
Works Director stated that the area in
question pertains to Dover Drive between
Pacific Coast Highway and Westcliff
Drive only.
In response to question raised by
Council Member Hedges relative to what
circulation improvements are
contemplated by the approval of a
Development Agreement, as opposed to
what otherwise would be constructed
without the benefit of a Development
Agreement, the Public Works Director
commented that the Agreement does not
directly specify any circulation system
improvements other than the obligations
of the various parcels to construct
fronting improvements associated with
development of the specific parcel, but
the Agreement does provide for an
advance of funding in the amount of
$20.6 million that would be available
for the City to use for improvements to
any element of the circulation system in
the General Plan.
The City Attorney advised that the
Development Agreement specifies three
criteria that the City has to apply in
considering how to use the advance
funding which are: 1) improvement has to
be consistent with the Circulation
Element, 2) contribute to the overall
reduction in IctT at certain
intersections, and 3) represent
improvements which have been considered
by the Council in finding that the
benefits to traffic circulation
resulting from the agreement
Volume 46 -- Page 269
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACIP
COLKIL MEMBERS ,p MINUTES
August 24, 1992
ROLL CFlLL INDEX
substantially outweigh any increase in GPA 92-2(C)
traffic congestion at impacted, but
improved intersections.
In response to Council Member Hedges
inquiry, the Public Works Director
stated that the most significant project
that the City Council has approved
preliminary steps on is the widening of
MacArthur Boulevard from PCH to Ford
Road, and to the future San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor.
Council Member Hart pointed out for the
benefit of those in the audience that
the Planning Commission approved less
than a 40 foot setback on the coastal
bluff which was referenced earlier by
Ms. Temple.
In response to remarks by Council Member
Hart, Ms. Temple stated that at the time
The Irvine Company indicated to the City
staff that they were willing to give up
on the request, to have that encroach-
ment into the bluff top setback area, it
was the assumption of staff that any
larger setback was automatically
acceptable, and as a result, staff went
ahead and altered the Planned Community
Text for Castaways and Newporter North,
and those actions are now before the
Council. Consequently, it is being
recommended that Ordinance Nos. 92-36
and 92-37 be reintroduced.
In response to question raised by
Council Member Watt regarding the 40
foot setback, Ms. Temple commented that
the provisions in the P-C text are
exactly the same as in the bluff setback
ordinance established in the City's
municipal code which sets a 40 foot
minimum or greater, if the projection of
a 2 to 1 slope from toe results in
greater than 40 feet. However, in the
correspondence the City Council
received, the author based his
calculations on a 75 foot setback which
he felt was correct.
Discussion continued wherein Ms. Temple
stated that the provisions of the
Circulation Improvement and Open Space
Agreement provide for payment of three
different types of funding for
circulation improvements and roads: 1)
prepayment of fair share fees, 2)
commitment to frontage improvements, and
3) advance funds paid to the City. In
essence, the Agreement will require the
City to return back to The Irvine
Company, 50% of the fair share fees that
gather on a yearly basis, and if at the
end of 20 years the advance is not fully
repaid, then the balance is forgiven.
The other aspect of the advance is that
it is interest free.
Volume 46 - Page 270
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACP
COA\\
KIL MEMBERS MINUTES
August 24, 1992
ROLL INDEX
In response to question raised by Mayor GPA 92-2(C)
Sansone, Ms. Temple stated that each
project, with the exception of Corporate
Plaza West, has a specific set of
subsequent discretionary actions which
must ba approved, at minimum, by the
Planning Commission, and possibly the
City Council if appealed or called up.
Corporate Plaza West, unless the project
is proposed to vary from the development
standards contained in the P-C, could
proceed without further discretionary
action.
In response to question raised by
Council Member Hedges, Ms. Temple
explained how fair share fees are
calculated pursuant to the provisions in
the Municipal Code.
Raymond Watson, Vice Chairman of The
Irvine Company and resident of Newport
Beach, addressed the Council and stated
this specific proposal began three years
ago, and during this period, they have
met with the City Council Ad Hoc
Committee, Parks, Beaches & Recreation
Commission, community associations,
SPON, Newport Conservancy, and as a
result, they have modified their plan
along the way. He stated that not
everyone is going to be happy with the
outcome, but for the most part, they
feel they have met the needs and desire
of the community and that it hat been a
very constructive and healthy process.
He added that they are not requesting
anything more than what is allowed under
the General Plan.
Tom Redwitz, Vice President of The
Irvine Company, gave an in-depth and
detailed slide presentation of the
history connected with this proposal; an
outline of the proposed Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement;
and a review of the twelve sites
included in the subject Agreement. In
summaty, he noted that they reviewed 12
sites totaling 258 acres; the proposal
consists of $21.1 million in financial
commitments for circulation system
improvements; there are 152 acres of
open space (77 acres more than required
in the General Plan); there will be less
development than the City General Plan
allows; and significant benefits to the
City and Community.
Mr. Redwitz pointed out that the
Development Agreement requires that each
project come back to the City Council
(except for Corporate Plaza West) for
subsequent public hearing and review by
the City prior to any construction. in
addition, nothing in the Development
Agreement precludes the City, Newport
Conservancy, or any third party from
acquiring or purchasing the Castaways or
Newporter North sites for open space.
Volume 46 - Page 271
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACB*
CWNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
�f August 24, 1992
ROLL J INDD(
In response to question raised by GPA 92-2(C)
Council Member Hart, Mr. Redwitz
confirmed that conceptually, as it
relates to the Castaways site, The
Irvine Company will not build homes any
higher than 2-story, and that the homes
closer to Dover Drive will be somewhat
similar to the surrounding community,
such as Mariners.
In response to question raised by
Council Member Turner regarding senior
housing or in-home care, Ms. Temple
commented that the Land Use Element of
the General Plan makes broad provision
for senior citizen housing facilities.
In residential areas, it acknowledges
that the provision for senior citizen
housing facilities may involve densities
higher than any specific density limit
or dwelling unit limit provided for in
the Land Use Element that is allowed
under the General Plan, upon the finding
that the project that is ultimately
constructed would be no more by way of
traffic generation than the standard
residential project at the density
indicated in the General Plan. In
essence, depending on the character and
nature of the facility, you may have
significantly more rooms or beds, etc.
Assisted living and skilled nursing
facilities are subject to approval of a
Use Permit.
In response to question raised by
Council Member Watt regarding siting and
bulk, Ms. Temple stated that the
provisions contained in the Development
Agreement provide for subsequent
discretionary action of most of the
sites via site plan review. The site
plan review procedures are a mechanism
whereby the Planning Commission can
review the site plan in order to address
specific site planning issues. In this
type of an assessment, it would be her
observation that the City Council does
not have as much discretion as it would
normally have in a regular tentative
tract map zoning adoption process.
However, through the site plan and
tentative map procedures, there is a
significant amount of discretion that
the City has in terms of affecting the
site plan itself, and the grading plan
as well. The City will not be able to
make wholesale alterations to the
development standards.
In response to question raised by
Council Member Hedges regarding the open
space dedication conditions (Exhibit F),
the City Attorney advised Exhibit F does
state that the City is required to
record a covenant, but the Development
Agreement itself specifically authorizes
the City to transfer parcels dedicated
to open space to third parties, so long
as that third party assumes the
responsibility for maintaining it as
open space.
Volume 46 - Page 272
! CITY OF NEUORT BEAC#
CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES
August 24, 1991'
ROLL CRLL INDEX
Council Member Hedges inquired as to how GPA 92-2-(C)
much it would cost the City to maintain
the properties proposed to be dedicated
for open space or park use, to which Ron
Whitley, Director of Parks, Beaches and
Recreation indicated it is estimated
between $100,000 to $150,000 annually
for all the acreage involved.
Discussion ensued with respect to what
amount of revenue would be generated in
terms of property taxes as a result of
this build out, wherein Council Member
Turner advised that this was an item of
discussion at their Circulation Buildout
Ad Hoc Committee meetings. They took
into consideration the loss of taxes by
not building out more ,square footage,
but they also felt it was reflective of
the philosophy the City wanted to
maintain when it approved the amendments
to the General Plan in 1988 and down
zoned certain properties throughout the
City.
In response to remarks of Council Member
Watt regarding the Jamboree/MacArthur
Triangle and San Diego Creek North sites
not being suitable for office space
because of San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor, Mr. Redwitz
commented that he concurred that both
sites will be difficult to build on, but
are buildable. He stated it is their
understanding that there is a desire
among the community and the City to
reduce office entitlement because there
would be a net benefit to the
circulation system due to fewer cars.
Also, that amount of square footage
within the General Plan is being
aliminated' and is not being proposed to
be transferred to another site.
In response to question raised by
Council Member Turner regarding the
Development Agreement as it relates to
the Castaways site, Ms. Temple advised
that the P-C text as currently drafted
in the Agreement, does not preclude the
creation of a direct vehicular and
pedestrian access from the current and
of 16th Street to the bluff top/setback
and park areas. However, it does not
mandate that it occur and the way it is
structured currently, if The Irvine
Company were to choose to construct a
gate-guarded community, it may not be
feasible to bring a public road through
that area based on their development
concept. She stated she had indicated
earlier that this is an issue raised by
the Lutheran Church, and if it is the
opinion of the City Council that such an
access is absolutely necessary, then she
would suggest that a provision be added
to the P-C text making said requirement.
Volume 46 - Page 273
*CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCII4jLp MEMBERS MINUTES
August 24, 1992
ROLL CRLL �A INDEX
Mr. Watson addressed the Council again GPA 92-2(C)
in reply to Council Member Turner's
remarks regarding dedication of
property, and indicated that they will
work with the City in terms of
flexibility regarding the subject of
dedication; however, when they convey
property for open space it is their
intent to impose restrictions whereby
that property remains unchanged as to
its use.
Mayor Sansone made reference to the
height limit allowed for the Castaways
site, wherein Mr. Redwitz stated that
pursuant to current zoning, they are
allowed up to a 32-foot height limit.
He stated they may not need the 32-foot
height limit, but it is very difficult
to estimate the actual height limit at
this time without the benefit of knowing
the product they are going to build.
In response to question raised by Mayor
Sansone regarding the feasibility of
switching the senior housing project
proposed for Bayview Landing to the
Castaways recreational park site, Mr.
Redwitz commented that as a result of
their study and the various outreach
community meetings, it was felt that
there is a desire to have an active park
on the Castaways site; however, if it is
the desire of the City Council to
provide affordable housing on the
Castaways site, and an active park on
Bayview Landing, they would not oppose
the idea.
In reply to question by Council Member
Watt, Mr. Watson indicated that if this
switch in use were approved, and the
Newport Conservancy were to purchase the
Castaways site, the purchase price to
the Conservancy would not be penalized.
At this time the meeting was opened to
public testimony.
Carl Hofbauer, 20421 Bayview Avenue,
Santa Ana Heights, representing SPON,
commended The Irvine Company in their
efforts to arrange for public
acquisition and permanent protection of
open space of the Upper Castaways and
Newporter North sites, and he hopes
their efforts are successful. He stated
he would like the City Council to
consider the various recommendations
referenced in SPON's letter dated
August 18, 1992. He cited some of their
primary concerns as follows:
1) They feel the minimum bluff
setback should be increased from
40 to 75 feet.
2) They would like to limit
development on Newporter North to
above the 110 foot contour.
Volume 46 - Page 274
CITY OF NWORT MAP
COUNCIL MEMO MINUTES
August 24, 1992
ROLL CRLL INDEX
3) They support efforts to limit GPA 92-2(C) I
average heights of development on
Upper . Castaways and Newporter
North to 24 feet.
4) That there be public access
from 16th Street to the bluff park
on the Upper Castaways. (In his
own oppinion, pedestrian access
would be sufficient).
Dr. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 16th Street,
stated that he has met with
representatives of The Irvine Company
over the past few years regarding this
project, and commended them in "pulling
back development" in some of the wetland
areas and dedicating more open space
than required In the General Plan. He
also commended the City for assisting in
the purchase of properties at Upper
Castaways and Newporter North for
permanent open space. He suggested that
no development be allowed in the
Newporter North site in the best
interest of the ecology of Newport Bay.
If development is allowed, the Fish and
Wildlife Service as well as the Fish and
Game Department, contend that the Coyote
that is at the Newporter North site now
will probably disappear from site. He
stated that the magnitude of this
problem is described in the Bolsa Chica
EIR where development of some 4000 homes
is being considered on the mesa above
the wetlands in Huntington, Beach. In
reference to East 16th Street, he stated
that the EIR does not address the
impacts to East 16th Street, inasmuch as
there has not been a noise or traffic
study involving East 16th Street; it
only analyzes 16th Street between Dover
and Irvine Avenues. He suggested that
prior to approving this project, the
Council consider the impact of the 1500
per day vehicle trips at the and of 16th
Street which will affect the people of
East 16th Street. In concluding, he
stated that it is the opinion of the
City Manager of Huntington Beach that
property taxes from residential
developments in that City ultimately do
not pay for the services that are needed
to serve those residential developments,
and this may apply to other cities as
well. Therefore, it could prove that it
will cost more to have residential
developments on the Castaways and
Newporter North than by keeping the
property as open space. He also hopes
the City gives Newport Conservancy
enough time to purchase these two
parcels so they will remain as open
space.
Allan Beek, 2007 Highland Avenue, stated
he was pleased to see the City Council
and staff, The Irvine Company, and
Newport Conservancy working together to
give the voters a chance to purchase the
Castaways and Newporter North parcels,
and he looks forward to seeking voter
approval. However, that is not the issue
Volume 46 - Page 275
CITY OF NEWPORT BEAM0
'�t�CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES
gf August 28, 1992
ROLL CRLL INDEX
at this time. He stated that the GPA 92-2(C)
Development Agreement under
consideration incorporates by reference
a set of code amendments, and if the
Agreement is approved, he felt the City
has "tied the hands for all future City
Councils." Therefore, the Council will
lose forever the power to amend, correct
errors, or keep up-to-date. Any
oversights will be permanently frozen
in, and to sign the Agreement would be
a tragic mistake. He referenced the
letter from SPON to the City Council
dated August 18, 1992, citing short-
comings in the Agreement. He discussed
the topic of gated communities and
explained his reasons for opposing same.
He addressed the subject of separating
open space from private homes as
illustrated in a brief slide
presentation. He stated he supports the
Mayor's comments relative to a 24-foot
height limit. In conclusion, he urged
the Council to not approve the
Development Agreement as he does not
feel it is necessary.
Anita Meister-Boyd, 1848 Port Carlow,
spoke regarding the parcel known as
Freeway Reservation East in which there
are 12 dwelling units proposed on the
site. She stated that the open space
that currently exists on this property
is shared by adults and children for
active and passive recreational use, and
on the 4th of July, the community
congregates to observe the fireworks
festivities throughout the City.
Freeway Reservation East, sometimes
referred to as Nature Park Extension,
meets the objectives of open space as
set forth in the EIR, but the 17.3 acres
left after the proposed development on
the subject property does not meet the
City's criteria as they are relatively
inaccessible and are unsuitable for
active or passive uses, except as a
small proposed park. She emphasized the
noted differences between the Freeway
Reservation East parcel and all the
other parcels under consideration
relative to the proposed 12 dwelling
units as enumerated in her letter to the
City Council. In concluding, she urged
that this site be preserved as open
space.
Robert Davis, representing Newport
Harbor Lutheran Church, 798 Dover Drive
(adjacent to the Castaways site), stated
their primary concern is Exhibit "F"
which they feel creates a landlock
situation for the church. When Dover
Drive is eventually extended, the City
will purchase land from the church for
the frontage, and as a result, they will
have no place to expand or be able to
trade the City for equal amount of land
on their southerly property line.
Therefore, it will make them illegal to
operate under their conditional use
permit. He pointed out that the
Development Agreement as written,
Volume 46 - Page 276
CITY OF NWORT BFACP IN I
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
�f August 24, 1992
ROLL CALL INDEX
particularly Exhibit "F", causes further GPA 92-2(C)
problems, which he has set forth in a
detailed letter to the City Council
dated August 12, 1992, citing (in part)
as follows:
1) The Agreement will harm their
present programs and future
expansion plans; .
2) The Agreement provides
inadequate parking for both the
proposed parks;
3) The Agreement provides
inadequate public vehicular access
to the passive park and the bluff
viewpoint, and
4) The agreement does too little
to protect the bluffs and its
environment.
Mr. Davis displayed an exhibit outlining
a proposed plan by the church,
recommending that the parking be placed
on the north and of the park, and that
16th Street be realigned for improved
access.
Taylor Grant, Vice Chairman of the
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission,
addressed the Council in response to
inquiry regarding the proposed park on
the Castaways site. He stated that
currently it is anticipated the park
will accommodate a combination soccer
field and baseball diamond, unlighted,
with supporting restroom facilities and
probably a tot lot. Specific parking is
provided for adjacent to the active park
in the conceptual plans.
Linda Schindler, 1800 Port Tiffin Place,
spoke in support of retaining the
Freeway Reservation East (Nature Park
Extension) as open space. She stated
she concurred in the remarks of Anita
Meister-Boyd in opposing the proposed 12
dwelling units on this site. She stated
that in reviewing the EIR, she noted
that 9 out of 12 items were a negative
impact if this land was developed, and
therefore, urged the Council to
reconsider the proposal for this site.
Karen Evarts, 426 Via Piazza Lido,
stated she is a 20 year resident of the
City and also a charter member of
('Citizens to Save the Blufftops," and
will be speaking on behalf of herself
and the Committee. She commended The
Irvine Company, City staff and City
Council for their careful planning and
vision as reflected in the Development
Agreement of the City's remaining open
space. She discussed the seriousness of
the current and future drought
situation as it relates to new
development, the proposal to sell the
Castaways and Newporter North sites by
Volume 46 - Page 277
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH*
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
gf August 24, 1992
ROLL CHLL INDEX
The Irvine Company, and the need for the GPA 92-2(C)
City to help financially in those
acquisitions for open space; she cited
concerns with respect to the Development
Agreement and indicated it not be
adopted at this time.
Richard Luehrs, President, Newport
Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke
in support of the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement as
presented. The Chamber recognizes the
many benefits this proposal will bring
to the community. With the City under
increasingly budget constraints, the
proposed program provides an excellent
opportunity to obtain substantial funds
for improvements and create additional
tax revenues. The project will also
create much-needed jobs during
construction and provide additional
spending in the community. He alluded to
the financial problems the State is now
facing and its impact on the City, and
indicated this situation was not going
to get any better or go away. In
concluding, he stated that not only will
the City benefit by having funds
available for circulation improvements
called for in the City's traffic
element, the City will be in a very
competitive position for matching funds
from outside sources. Therefore, the
City cannot afford to pass up this
proposal, not only because of the
economic benefits it provides, but the
open space as well.
Len Roluvek, 610 Tustin Avenue,
President, Friends of Newport Bay,
stated he was appreciative of the
efforts of The Irvine Company, the City
and Newport Conservancy to form an
assessment district to purchase the land
surrounding Newport Bay. He discussed
the importance of preserving wildlife in
the Bay as well as. the importance of not
developing Newporter North site; he also
discussed the benefit of the Coyote as
opposed to the Red Fox in the Bay area;
he also felt there should be a road
alongside the bluffs, not just an public
access trail.
Royal S. Radtke, 330 Mayflower Drive,
President of the Corona del Mar Chamber
of Commerce, stated that their Board
supports The Irvine Company's proposal.
However, speaking as President of the
DeAnza Bayside Village Homeowners
Association, which consists of 266
mobile homes for senior citizens, he
stated it is their recommendation that
rather than place senior housing on
Bayview Landing, that The Irvine Company
consider selling the land that Bayside
Village is presently on to the seniors
for senior housing, therefore affording
low-income housing for 266 units in the
City. At the present time, DeAnza
Bayside Village Homeowners Association
does not fit into any of the City's
categories as far as
Volume 46 - Page 278
CITY OF NWORT BEACP
CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTE'
�f August 24, 1992
ROLL CEN L INDEX
housing, other than alternate housing. CPA 92-2(C)
He urged the Council to give some
thought to the issue of affordable
housing (which to most is not affordable
in Newport Beach) and their recom-
mendation to relocate to Bayview
Landing.
Taylor Grant, Vice Chairman of the
Parks, Beaches 6 Recreation Commission,
directed his comments to the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement.
The Commission's recommendation is to
approve the open space element; they do
not feel that any additional acreage is
needed; the proposal for the Castaways
site is a good compromise and overall
plan; the Commission addressed the
issues of economic balance; maintenance
costs, improvement .costs, etc. , and in
summary, the Commission is looking
forward to either implementing the plan
under consideration or working with the
group who purchases the Newporter North
and Castaways sites in hopes of meeting
the recreational needs of the City.
David Lamb, 1851 Port Stanhope,
addressed the Council regarding the
Freeway Reservation East parcel
(proposed to be part of the Newport
Hills Community Association). He
discussed- the im act development would
have on the adjacent community; he
stated the neighborhood ad hoc committee
to study this issue, met with The Irvine
Company several times and would like to
see it remain as open space; however, if
this does not occur, they feel the
proposed plan is workable for their
association.
Robert R. Weber, 420 Heliotrope Avenue,
stated he has been a resident of the
City for 20 years; he is an affordable
housing advocate for Orange County
Homeless Issues Task Force, and
commended the City on its General Plan,
particularly the Housing Element and the
work that went into preparing it. He
stated he supports the proposal
submitted by The Irvine Company which
provides for 956 housing units and would
urge its approval.
Joanne Burns, 300 Cagney Zane, stated
she was speaking as a member of the SPON
steering committee, and as a concerned
environmental resident. She commended
all those involved in this issue who
have given so much of their time. She
spoke in support of saving the bluff
face and wildlife; was in favor of
moving the senior citizen site from
Bayview Landing to the Castaways site;
and felt that senior citizens and
bicyclists do not make a good mix.
volume 46 - Page 279
r
CITY OF NEWPORT BEAR
COI MINUTES
AugustMEMBERS
August 24, 1992
ROLL CRY INDEX
Bill Schonlau, representing Citizens for GPA 92-2(C)
a Better Newport, stated they endorse
the proposed Circulation Improvement and
Open Space Agreement, and strongly
encourage the City Council to approve
the document as they believe it
represents cooperative, rather than
adversarial planning between the City
and The Irvine Company. He added that
the proposed open space is a tremendous
benefit to the City and that this open
space can be realized without being a
burden on the taxpayers. In summary, he
emphasized three points they feel are
critical to the value of this proposal:
1) the Development Agreement
provides for more open space than
is called for in the General Plan;
2) the front-end funding for
traffic improvements are also
beyond the requirements of the
General Plan; and
3) the Newport Conservancy, or
other similar agencies, who wish
to purchase any of these parcels
does retain the right to do so up
to the time of pulling permits.
Ed Benson, 1028 Westwind Way, stated he
has been a resident of the City for 21
years, and has admired many of The
Irvine Company developments throughout
the City as well in the City of Irvine.
He stated he supports the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement
because he felt it contributes to the
betterment of the City; the Agreement
provides for additional revenue in terms
of property taxes as well as sales tax
from those new residents, which funds
could be used to defray costs for
children's parks/playgrounds, etc. , and
therefore, urged the Council to accept
the proposal as submitted.
Hearing no others wishing to address the
Council, the public hearing was closed.
Council Member Plummer referenced the
issue of access to public parks at the
Castaways site, and suggested the
following language be included within
Ordinance No. 92-36:
"The design of the subdivision
and/or public parks by the City,
approved through the tentative
tract map and site plan review
process, shall provide for
vehicular public access and
parking for the view park and
bluff top open space from either
16th Street and/or the new
intersection to be created at
Cliff Drive. In making this
requirement, if access is provided
from 16th Street, the Planning
Commission and/or City Council
Volume 46 - Page 280
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES
August 24, 1992
ROLL CALL INDEX
shall not stipulate that this GPA 92-2(C)
access be provided directly
through the residential area if
the development includes ,private
streets, is a gate guarded
community, or would result in
fragmentation of the residential
area. The project proponent shall
also consult with the adjacent
Newport Harbor Lutheran Church in
the final design of the project in
regard to public access from 16th
Street."
Motion x Motion was made by Council Member Hart
All Ayes to approve the foregoing.
At this time, Council Member Hart
complimented the City staff, the Council
Ad Hoc Committee, and The Irvine Company
on the proposed plan. She stated that
Newport Beach is one of the slowest
growing cities in the County, and by
adding less than 2000 people in the next
two years per the Agreement will
actually work very well for the City;
she felt that Bayview Landing was one of
the most outstanding pieces of property
around (upper section of Jamboree Road
and PCH) looking up to the upper bay to
the San Bernardino mountains, and she
would hope there would never be anything
on this site other than wildflowers and
minor grading to improve the site; with
regard to Newporter North, she suggested
consideration be given to the
suggestions referred to in Gordon Glass'
letter regarding site plan variations;
and pertaining to the Castaways site,
she supports a modified plan to
eliminate using the Lutheran Church
parking lot for a public street.
In response to the remarks made by
Council Member Hart regarding the
Lutheran Church parking lot, Ms. Temple
advised that the conceptual site plan
which Council Member Hart referred to is
one of many concepts which have been
developed and shown to various members
of the community. The recommended
actions to be taken in relationship to
the Agreement do not include any site
specific provisions, and it is her
opinion, that the previous condition
regarding vehicular and pedestrian
access on 16th Street probably gives
some latitude in the site plan review
process to the extent that the overall
functioning of the parking and the
parks, tha church and residential
development is more easily addressed.
In essence, there is really nothing to
alter at this time.
Motion x Motion was made by Council Member Hart
All Ayes that the minimum setback on the coastal
bluffs on the Castaways site shall be 40
feet.
Motion x Motion was made by Council Member Hart
to limit development to two-stories on
the Castaways site.
Volume 46 - Page 281
*CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH*
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
�f August 24, 1992
ROLL CflLL INDEX
Discussion ensued with regard to the GPA 92-2(C)
above suggested action wherein the
Planning Director reported that the
definition of "stories" was eliminated
some 20 years ago and substituted with
the term "height limit."
Following consideration of the above
remark, it was suggested the height
limit be set at 24/29 feet.
Council Member Turner suggested the
height limit be set at the time of site
plan review to which the City Attorney
indicated he had no objections.
Mr. Redwitz addressed the Council at
this time and stated it is their
understanding from their legal counsel
that development agreements do require
that a maximum height is established.
Mr. Watson stated that they have no
objection to the average height limit of
24/29; however, if it is possible, there
may be a structure they desire to be at
the 32 foot height limit, subject to the
Planning Commission and City Council
review; the reason being that he does
not want to see "everything at the same
height."
Mr. Redwitz suggested language that
would require a 24 foot average height
limit, going up to 29 foot maximum;
however, upon review and approval of the
Planning Commission, the height limit
may go up to 32 feet.
Ms. Temple re-worded the above language
to read as follows: "All buildings shall
comply with the height restrictions
established by the City for this area.
The maximum building height for all
buildings shall be 24 feet. The
Planning Commission, upon site plan
review, may approve buildings up to a
maximum height of 32 feet. All heights
shall be measured in accordance with the
Municipal Code and determined from the
grade approved in the site plan review
and subdivision approval."
All Ayes Council Member Mart, maker of the
motion, accepted the foregoing and
clarified that the provision applied to
Castaways and Newporter North, and the
motion was voted on and carried.
Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Turner made a motion
All Ayes suggesting the following additional
language regarding Bayview remediation -
Exhibit "F":
11(5) Company shall complete, to
the City's satisfaction, a
remediation program for the
removal of known petroleum
products or hazardous wastes on
the Bayview Landing parcel prior
to dedication. Company shall
diligently pursue the remediation
program to completion so that
timing of the dedication is not
affected."
Volume 46 - Page 282
M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACIO
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
August 24, 1992
ROLL "�\ INDEX
Motion x Council Member Turner made another GPA 92-2(C)
motion suggesting an additional
revision to Exhibit "F" regarding
flexibility and changing the next to
last sentence to read: " and that
the City will not abandon the dedicated
parcels or transfer all or a portion of
a dedicated or conveyed parcel to a
third party for other than open space
for the uses specified in the P-C text,
unless, 1) the proposed transfer is
necessary to implement City acquisition
of open space or other property owned by
a third party, 2) the proposed
development will not compete, conflict
or interfere with development proposed
or constructed by the company, and 3)
the proposed development is consistent
with the Land Use Element."
Ayes x x x Following discussionrthe motion, as made
Noes x x x x by Council Member Turner was voted on
and FAILED.
Motion x Motion was made by Mayor Pro Ten Turner
All Ayes to approve the following language read
Y into the record by the City Attorney
regarding the Castaways site and access
to Dover Drive:
"To facilitate the widening of
Dover Drive or access to the park
or open space on Castaways, the
City may convey to the Lutheran
Church a portion of the dedicated
parcel on the south side of the
Church property. The amount of
property conveyed to the Church in
the event Dover Drive is widened
shall, at minimums provide
replacement parking for spaces
lost as a result of a widening.
Any conveyance to the Church to
provide replacement parking shall
be conditioned on the Church's
conveyance of Dover Drive frontage
necessary to accommodate the
widening to Master Plan
standards."
Motion x With regard to San Diego Creek North,
All Ayes motion was made by Council Member Turner
to add the following language to the
first sentence in Section 5.1 of the
Development Agreement:
"Company shall dedicate to City
the area shown as open
space/public facilities on the
Planned Community Development text
for each parcel, with the
exception of certain lands on the
San Diego Creek North site that
may be necessary for implementa-
tion of the San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor which
should be offered for dedication
directly to the Transportation
Corridor Agency."
Volume 46 - Page 283
!CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES
I�f August 24, 1992
ROLL I ti� INDEX
Discussion ensued regarding senior GPA 92-2(C)
citizen housing relocation between the
Castaways site and Bayview Landing, and
Mayor Sansone asked Ms. Temple how the
logistics would be handled if the City
Council were to move the senior citizen
housing from Bayview Landing to the
Castaways site.
Ms. Temple responded that in order to
implement a change of this nature, the
action is rather complicated.
Currently, there is a suggestion to
adopt a resolution amending the Land Use
Element of the General Plan regarding
the Bayview Landing site and another
resolution regarding the Local Coastal
Program amendment for Bayview Landing
site. Unfortunately, the Planning
Commission did not address in any way,
shape or form, the trade-off the Council
is considering at this time, therefore,
pursuant to City Council Policy Q-1,
this matter must be referred back to the
Planning Commission for public hearing.
In response to question raised by
Council member Watt, Ms. Temple stated
that if the Council trades the active
park proposed for the Castaways site for
senior citizen housing at Bayview
Landing, there will definitely be more
building (mass and bulk) on the
Castaways site; and the use of the
senior citizen housing facility as
provided currently in the Bayview
Landing text requires that the entire
development be subject to the review and
approval of the use permit which allows
the Planning Commission and City Council
on an appeal or review to address the
specifics of the project.
Motion x Pertaining to the Bayview Landing/
Ayes x x x x Castaways trade-off, motion was made by
Noes x x x Mayor Sansone to continue agenda action
items f A g (amendments to the Land Use
Element and Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan for Bayview Landing), and to
direct the staff to advertise same for
public hearing by the Planning
Commission on September 10 and City
Council on September 14, 1992.
Prior to voting on the above motion, Ms.
Temple pointed out that construction of
senior citizen housing on the Bayview
property involves the transfer of 30,000
sq. ft. of retail commercial to Fashion
Island, and she just wanted the Council
to be aware that the potential for
creating an active park on Bayview
Landing and the senior housing on the
Castaways site also involves that 30,000
sq.ft. transfer.
Council Member Plummer suggested the
Council consider appointing an ad hoc
committee to report back in six months
on the formation of an assessment
district for voter approval for one or
more of The Irvine Company owned
parcels, and to direct staff to come
back at the next meeting with the
appropriate resolution and guidelines.
Volume 46 - Page 284
, . I
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACh1*
CWKIL MEMBf"6 MINUTES
f August 24, 1992
ROLL CRLL INDEX
No formal action was taken on the PA 92-2(C)
foregoing at this time.
In response to comments made by Council
Member Plummer regarding the paving of
Dover Drive, Ms. Temple stated that the
Public Works Department has requested
the grading out of the road bed and the
dedication of the right-of-way for the
ultimate width of Dover Drive, and
currently the City's traffic model shows
that, with or without the development of
Upper Castaways, that amount of road is
required in that particular location,
However, it is not required to date and
it may not be required for many years
into the future.
The Public Works Director concurred in
the above remarks, and also stated that
the ultimate master plan need for
widening of Dover Drive is not dependent
explicitly on development of the
Castaways site and traffic generation
from that site.
Council Member Watt referenced the
letter from Gordon Glass regarding the
view of Avalon from Jamboree Road, and
indicated she would like to see this
view preserved through the site plan
review process.
In reply to the above, Ms. Temple
reported that the staff did a great deal
of research in addressing Mr. Glass'
comments regarding the EIR, the project
and the response to comments, and the
staff believes that the development area
defined does preserve the existing view
toward the lower bay and of Catalina.
Council Member Watt also commented that
the reason the Newport Conservancy was
not represented in the hearing tonight
was because the group signed a
memorandum of understanding with The
Irvine Company this afternoon. She
summarized parts of the agreement,
noting it states that the Conservancy
will not object to this development plan
and agreement; that by November 1, 1992,
there will be a negotiated purchase
price; by April 1993, the Conservancy
would ascertain the interest of Newport
Beach voters in supporting, ihe funding;
and by November 1993 an election would
take place if determined necessary. She
also referenced the letter from the
Conservancy dated August 14, 1992,
wherein it is requested that the City
Attorney and City Manager work with the
Conservancy and The Irvine Company to
develop an initiative and/or ballot
language that could be used by an
assessment district. She stated that no
action was required at this time, but
she wanted the Council to be aware of
the request.
Motion x Hearing no other comments at this time,
All Ayes Ms. Temple reviewed the suggested
action, and Mayor Pro Tea Turner coved
the following:
Volume 46 - Page 285
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES
August 24, 1992 INDEX
ROLL CRN LV
(a) Adopt Resolution No. 92-88, GPA 92-2(C)
accepting, approving and
certifying Final
Environmental Impact Report
No. 148;
(b) Hake the (amended) Findings
contained in the Statement
of Facts with respect to
significant impacts
identified in the Final
Environmental Impact
Report;
(c) Find that the facts set
forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations
are true and are supported
by substantial evidence in
the record, including the
Final Environmental Impact
Report;
(d) With respect to the
project, find that although
the Final Environmental
Impact Report identifies
certain unavoidable
significant environmental
effects that will result if
the project is approved,
the mitigation measures
identified shall be
incorporated into the
project , and all
significant environmental
effects that can feasibly
be mitigated or avoided
have been eliminated or
reduced to an acceptable
level, and that the
remaining unavoidable
significant effects, when
balanced against the facts
set forth in the Statement
o f O v e r r i d i n g
Considerations are
acceptable;
(e) Adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring program as
amended;
(f) Continue adoption of
proposed Resolution
amending the Land Use
Element of the Newport
Beach General Plan for the
Bayview Landing site. Staff
directed to schedule public
hearing by the Planning
Commission on September 10,
and the City Council on
September 14;
(g) Continue adoption of
proposed Resolution
amending the Local Coastal
Program, Land Use Plan for
the Bayview Landing site.
Staff directed to schedule
public hearing by the
Planning Commission on
September 10, and the City
Council on September 14;
Volume 46 - Page 286
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
August 24, 1992
ROLL CRL1 INDEX
(h) Reintroduce roposed GPA 92-2(C)
ORDINANCE 10. 92-35, (as
amended) and pass to second
reading on September 14,
1992;
(i) Sustain the action of the
Planning Commission and
apprav� Traffic Study No.
82 subject to the
conditions imposed by the
Commission;
(j) Adopt Resolution No. 92-89, Res 92-89
adopting an amendment to
the Harbor View Hills
Planned Community;
(k) Reintroduce proposed
ORDINANCE NO. 92-36, (as
amended) and pass to second
reading on September 14,
1992;
(1) Reintroduce proposed
ORDINANCE NO. 92-37, (as
amended) and pass to second
reading on September 14,
1992;
(a) Adopt Resolution No. 92-90, Res 92-90
adopting an amendment to
the North Ford Planned
Community;
(n) Reintroduce proposed
ORDINANCE NO. 92-38, (aa
amended);
(o) Adopt proposed ORDINANCE Ord 92-39
NO. 92-39;
(p) Adopt Resolution No. 92-91, Res 92-91
adopting an amendment to
Block 800 - Newport Center
Planned Community;
AND
(q) Adopt proposed ORDINANCE Ord 92-40
NO. 92-40.
4. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing Ord 9
regarding proposed ORDINANCE N0. 92-43, Zo ng
being, 94)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT B
AMENDING TITLE 20, CHAPTER .84
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE P G
TO THE PE HE
NUMBER
AND YARD ENCR S OF
ACCESSORY BUILD IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS G COMUIISSION PCA 762
AMENDMENT 762).
Report fro he Planning Department.
He no one wishing to address the
C the public hearing was closed.
Motion x Notion was de to adopt Ordinance No.
All Ayes 92-43.
Volume 46 - Page 7
City Council M•ing August 24. 1992 .
Agenda Item No. 3
t I
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Planning Department6Q'k—
SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment 92-2(C)
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan to allow for an optional permitted land use of affordable
senior citizen housing on the Bayview Landing site in association with
the transfer of 30,000 sq.ft.of retail commercial entitlement to Fashion
Island in Newport Center. The proposal also includes the acceptance
of an environmental document.
AND
• B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No 28
Request to amend the Local Coastal Program,Land Use Plan to allow
for an optional permitted land use of affordable senior citizen housing
on the Bayview,Landing site in association with the transfer of 30,000
sq.ft. of retail commercial entitlement to Fashion Island in Newport
Center.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
AND
C. Ordinance No 92-35 (Development Agreement No. 6)
Request to adopt a Development Agreement for the Circulation Im-
provement and Open Space Agreement for eleven sites in the City of
Newport Beach.
AND
D. Traffic Study No. 82
Request to approve a traffic study consistent with the provisions of
Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for eleven sites
s
TO: City ouncil - 2.
addressed in the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agree-
ment.
AND
E. Amendment No. 763
Request to amend the Harbor View Hills Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow for the construction
of 48 additional dwelling units.
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
F. Ordinance"No 92-36 (Amendment No 7641
Request to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and
Development Plan for Upper Castaways. This request would provide .'
for the construction of 151 dwelling units.
LOCATION: Property located at 900 Dover Drive, on the southeasterly side of
Dover Drive between Westcliff Drive and West Coast Highway.
ZONE: P-C
AND
G. Ordinance No 92-37 (Amendment No. 765)
i
Request to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and
Development Plan for Newporter North/Newporter Knoll. This
request would provide for the construction of 212 dwelling units on
Newporter North and open space on Newporter Knoll.
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
TO: City f0ouncil =3. • i
H. Amendment No. 766
• Request to amend the North Ford Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow for the construction
of 300 additional dwelling units.
LOCATION: Property located at 3200 University Drive, on the northeasterly corner
of Jamboree Road and University Drive South, in the North Ford
Planned Community.
ZONE: P-C
AND
T Ordinance No 92.38 (Amendment 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
District. Also requested is the adoption of Planned Community
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
J. Ordinance No. 92-39 (Amendment 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 P-C
(Planned Community) District. The proposal also includes a iequest
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
TO: City Council - 4.
AND
K. Amendment No. 769
Request to amend the Block 800 Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow the construction of
245 dwelling units or senior citizen housing.
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
L. Ordinance No 92-40 (Amendment No. 770)
Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 48 so as to
reclassify property from the O-S (Open Space) and 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 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 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
AI)Wications
The various applications under consideration are part of the Circulation Improvement and
Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). If approved, the CIOSA will provide vested entitlement
for eight sites owned by The Irvine Company (TIC) throughout the City of Newport Beach.
Additionally,three sites currently owned by TIC will be zoned and dedicated for open space
and public facility use. Guidelines for General Plan Amendments are contained in City
Council Policy Q-1. Regulations regarding the adoption of Development Agreements are
contained in Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Regulations regarding
TO: City Council - 5. •
the approval of Traffic Studies are found in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code and in Council Policy S-1. Regulations regarding Amendments are in Chapter 20.84,
• and procedures for the adoption and amendment of Planned Communities are in Chapter
20.51 of the Code.
Suuppested Action
Hold hearing, close hearing; if desired
a. Adopt Resolution No. 92- accepting, approving and certifying Final Environ-
mental Impact Report No. 148;
b. Make the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant
impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report;
C. Find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true
and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final
Environmental Impact Report;
• d. With respect to the project, find that although the Final Environmental Impact
Report identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result
if the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be incorporated
into the project, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be miti-
gated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that
the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set
forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are acceptable;
e. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring program;
f. Adopt Resolution No. 92- , amending the Land Use Element of the Newport
Beach General Plan for the Bayview Landing site;
g. Adopt Resolution No. 92- , amending the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan
for the Bayview Landing site;
h. Reintroduce Ordinance No. 92-35 ' and pass to second reading on September 14,
1992, being
• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE-
TWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND THE
IRVINE COMPANY FOR THE CIRCULATION IMPROVE-
MENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT
(DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 6)
TO: Cityyqouncil - 6.
i. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Traffic Study No. 82
subject to the conditions imposed by the Commission;
j. Adopt Resolution No. 92- , adopting an amendment to the Harbor View Hills •
Planned Community;
k. Reintroduce Ordinance No. 92-36 . and pass to second reading on September 14,
1992, being
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING PLANNED-COMMU-
NITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR UPPER CASTAWAYS
(PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO 764)
1. Reintroduce Ordinance No. 21-37 . and pass to second reading on September 14,
1992, being
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING PLANNED COMMU-
NITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR NEWPORTER NORTH/NEWPORTER KNOLL
(PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 765)
In. Adopt Resolution No. 92- , adopting an amendment to the North Ford Planned
Community;
n. Adopt Ordinance No. 92-38 • being
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT
RE-ZONING THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
BAYVIEW LANDING FROM THE U DISTRICT TO THE
P-C (PLANNED COMMUNITY) DISTRICT AND ADOPT-
ING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BAYVIEW LANDING
(PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 767)
o. Adopt Ordinance No. 92-39 , being
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT
RE-ZONING THE PROPERTIES COMMONLY KNOWN AS
SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AND JAMBOREE/MAC
ARTHUR FROM THE U DISTRICT TO THE P-C
(PLANNED COMMUNITY) DISTRICT AND ADOPTING
TO: City�ouncil - 7. •
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SAN DIEGO CREEK
• NORTH-JAMBOREE MAC ARTHUR
(PLANNIN COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO 768)
p. Adopt Resolution No. 92- , adopting an amendment to the Block 800 - Newport
Center Planned Community;
q. Adopt Ordinance No. 92-40 , being
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT
RE-ZONING THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
CORPORATE PLAZA WEST FROM THE U DISTRICT TO
THE P-C (PLANNED COMMUNITY) DISTRICT AND
ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGU-
LATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CORPO-
RATE PLAZA WEST
(PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 770)
• Background
On November 27, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-136 establishing the
Circulation Buildout City Council Ad Hoc Committee. This Committee was established to
work with The Irvine Company(TIC) and City staff in the development of a comprehensive
approach to entitlement of certain undeveloped TIC properties consistent with the General
Plan in association with the establishment of a funding mechanism for the construction of
important components of the circulation system. Through the course of these discussions,
a program of open space and public facility dedications was identified. The agreement is,
therefore, called the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement, and consists of
three major components:
1. The entitlement of seven sites owned by The.Irvine Company in the City of Newport
Beach at a level equal to or less than the General Plan Land Use Element
allocation. One site, Bayview,Landing, will be entitled in such a way as to allow for
the construction of senior citizen housing with a transfer of retail commercial to
Fashion Island in addition to uses currently allowed in the General Plan. The sites
• proposed for vesting entitlement are: Upper Castaways, Bayview Landing,
Newporter Resort, Newporter North, Corporate Plaza West, Block 800 (Newport
Center), San Diego Creek South and Freeway Reservation East. Two sites would be
zoned for open space uses: Newporter Knoll and Jamboree/MacArthur. One site,
San Diego Creek North will be zoned for open space and/or public facility uses.
2. Advance funding of circulation system improvements through the prepayment of Fair
Share Fees, the commitment to frontage improvements, and the advance of
TO: Citytuncil - 8.
additional funds, with a total commitment of $20.6 million plus an additional
$500,000 for MacArthur Boulevard improvements in the City of Irvine. Funds loaned
to the City (the advance) would be interest free, and would be paid back to TIC .
through a return of 50% of Fair Share Fees collected by the City for a twenty year
term. If the advance of funds is not completely paid after twenty years, the
remainder of the debt would be forgiven.
3. The dedication to the City of land for park, open space, and public facility uses.
Three entire sites would be dedicated: Newporter Knoll, San Diego Creek North
and Jamboree/MacArthur. Substantial portions of five additional sites would also
be dedicated: Upper Castaways, Bayview Landing, Newporter North, San Diego
Creek South and Freeway Reservation East. No dedication would occur on
Corporate Plaza West, Block 800 - Newport Center or the Newporter Resort sites.
The dedication of the portion of the Newport Village site from the new central
library site to San Miguel Road is also provided for in the agreement.
The agreement under consideration is a development agreement to be adopted pursuant to
Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The agreement sets forth the legal
framework, requirements and obligations of both parties to achieve the entitlement (for
TIC), and the land dedication and circulation funding (for the City). One item of interest
is the effective date of the agreement. In this case, the effective date is not the date of
approval, but is the first date upon which all of the following have occurred; 1) final •
approval by the California Coastal Commission;2) the CEQA challenge period has expired
or, if a lawsuit is filed, a final judgement upholding the agreement has been entered; and
3) the City has issued a grading or building permit for development of the property other
than potential senior citizen housing development on Bayview Landing, development on the
southerly parcel of Freeway Reservation East, senior housing development on Block 800 or
hotel development on the Newport Resort. The agreement does make provisions for the
City to make use of the circulation funds prior to the effective date of the agreement if
certain conditions are met.
The agreement can be terminated if any county, state or federal law,rule,regulation or plan
precludes compliance with one or more provisions of the agreement. The agreement may
also be terminated if either party defaults on their obligations pursuant to the agreement.
If the Company elects termination of the agreement upon default by the City, there are
provisions for repayment of circulation funds paid to the City pursuant to the agreement.
It is important to understand that this provision could be a substantial General Fund
obligation, in that the obligation is based upon the development remaining and shall be
repaid in four years.
Planning Commission Action
On June 18, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council a
series of actions which comprise the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement.
On August 6, 1992, the Planning, Commission recommended approval of General Plan
TO: Citylouncil - 9. •
Amendment 92-2(C) and Local Coastal Program Amendment No.28, which are the follow-
up actions necessary to enact the Planning Commission recommendation in regards to
• Bayview Landing. A copy of the Planning Commission staff reports and.excerpts of the
Planning Commission minutes are attached for the information of the City Council.
Discussion
The Planning Commission staff reports contain the detailed analysis of this project. Two
issues were raised at the Planning Commission hearings which are discussed below. A
proposed change to the PC Text for Harbor View Hills - Freeway Reservation East is also
discussed as a result of a comment received on the Environmental Impact Report.
Bluff Top Setbacks for Castaways and Newporter North. In their request for approval for
the Planned Community texts for the Castaways and Newporter North sites, The Irvine
Company has requested to be allowed to encroach up to 20 feet into the required 40 foot
bluff top set back zone. This would allow for the placement of a fill slope in the set back
area so that the adjoining residential area can be raised up to 10 feet above the bluff top
public access area. The Planning Commission approved a slope encroachment of up to 10
feet with the adjoining community association maintaining the slope. The staff position is
that a minimum of 40 feet should be maintained for the bluff top set back for both
• geological and public use concerns that warrant the widest possible set back.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, staff and The Irvine Company have met
to further discuss the issue of encroachment into the 40 foot set back area. As a result of
these discussions, The Irvine Company has changed its position, and is no longer seeking an
encroachment into the bluff top set back. The required revisions have been incorporated
into the PC Texts for Castaways and Newporter North (attached) and the suggested action
includes the necessary reintroduction of the Ordinances.
Site Design Issues/Newport Harbor Lutheran Church. The Planning Commission received
considerable testimony from persons associated with the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church.
Primary areas of concern are the interface of the residential development with the Church,
operational conflicts between the Church and the parks, and the provision of parking for
both parks as well as the Church.
Conceptual plans for this area have been prepared by both The Irvine Company and the
Church. It is important to note that precise site plans have not been developed for these
sites. The zoning documents will not preclude implementation of any of the concepts.
• Resolution of these considerations will occur at the time of approval of the Site Plan
Review.
One issue which the City Council may wish to address is the possibility of direct access to
the bluff top trail system on the Castaways site from 16th Street. While direct access is not
precluded by the zoning document, it'is not required. If the City Council wishes to mandate
direct access to the bluff park from 16th Street,the requirement should be incorporated into
the P-C Text at this time.
TO: Cityluncil - 10. •
Additional Requirement for Freeway Reservation East-South Parcel. A concern was raised
by a resident of the Harbor View Hills area regarding potential changes to the noise
environment which could result from the construction of the southern portion of the
Freeway Reservation East site adjacent to Newport Hills Drive West. Specific concerns
were raised concerning the removal of an existing berm and the construction of residences
in that area between existing homes and MacArthur Boulevard. While no potential
mitigable impact was identified in the Environmental Impact Report, The Irvine Company
has agreed to the imposition of an additional condition on this future subdivision,as follows:
"Concurrent with submittal of plans for site plan review for the southern
portion of the Freeway Reservation East site, the project applicant shall
submit to the City an accoustical barrier analysis(prepared by a City-approved
acoustical engineer) which demonstrates that the proposed building designs
result in optimal sound attenuation for the existing homes along Newport
Hills Drive West, taking into consideration the anticipated layout of the site
plan.lt
The purpose of this requirement is to assure existing residents in the area that the design
of the structures will optimize the noise reduction which will result from the construction
of the new residences. This is similar to a requirement placed on Hoag Hospital for its
loading dock area. The additional language has been incorporated into the PC Text for
Amendment No. 763 attached to this report.
Revisions to Development Agreement Text. The Office of the City Attorney has indicated
a need to make certain revisions to the text of the Development Agreement. The changed
text will be transmitted to the City Council in a separate staff report from the City Attorney.
The suggested action includes the necessary reintroduction of the Ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JANES D. HEWICKER, Director
By .
Patricia L. Temple I
Advance Planning Manager •
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission minutes of June 18 and August 6, 1992
2. Planning Commission staff reports of June 18 and August 6, 1992
TO: City Council - 11.
3. Draft Resolution Certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 148 with
Exhibit 1: Statement of Facts and Findings and
• Exhibit 2: Statement of Overriding Considerations
4. Mitigation Monitoring Program
5. Draft Resolution - General Plan Amendment 92-2(C)
6. Draft Resolution- Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 28
7. Revised Ordinance No. 92-35 - Development Agreement No. 6 (Attached to City
Attorneys staff report)
8. Findings and Conditions for Approval - Traffic Study No. 82
9 . Draft Resolution - Amendment No. 763 - Harbor View Hills PC (Revised)
10. Revised Ordinance No. 92-36 - Amendment No. 764 - Upper Castaways PC
11. Revised Ordinance No. 92-37-Amendment No. 765 -Newporter North/Newporter
Knoll PC
12. Draft Resolution - Amendment No. 766 - North Ford PC
13. Ordinance No. 92-38 - Amendment No. 767 - Bayview Landing PC
14. Ordinance No.92-39-Amendment No.768-Jamboree/MacArthur-San Diego Creek
North PC
15. Draft Resolution - Amendment No. 769 - Block 800 PC
16. Ordinance No. 9240 - Amendment No. 770 - Corporate Plaza West PC
17. Correspondence
• 18. Final Environmental Impact Report 148 - Addendum and Response to Comments
(attached separately)
PLT.CC\DA\DAUR3
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACBO
CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES
July 27, 1992
ROLL CRLL i INDEX
(d) PROPOSED ORDINANCE N0. 92-38, Ord 92-38
being, Bayview
IL Lan
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL PCAding 767
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT RE-ZONING (94)
'.THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
BAYVIEW LANDING FROM THE U
DISTRICT TO THE P-C (PLANNED
COMMUNITY) DISTRICT AND ADOPTING
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
GUL&TIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R BAYVIEV LANDING (Planning
C ission Amendment No. 767);
AND
(a) PROPO ORDINANCE NO. 92-39, Ord 92-39
being, SDiego Crk-
No-Jambre
AN ORDIN CE OF THE CITY COUNCIL MacArthr
OF THE TY OF NEWPORT BEACH PCA 768
ADOPTING AMENDMENT RE-ZONING
THE PROPERT S COMMONLY KNOWN AS (94)
SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH - AND
JAMBOREE, , FROM THE U
DISTRICT' TO P-C (PLANNED
COMMUNITY) DIS CT AND ADOPTING
PLANNED CO TY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS AND D LOPMENT PLAN
FOR SAN DIECO CREEK ORTH-JAMBOREE
MAC ARTHUR (Plannin Commission
Amendment No. 768);
AND
(fy PROPOSED ORDINANCE N0. 92-40, Ord 92-40
being, Corp Plaza
West
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY CO CIL PCA 770
OF THE CITY 'OF NEWPORT B CH (94)
ADOPTING. AN AMENDMENT RE-ZON G
,THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN
'CORPORATE PLAZA WEST FROM THE
DISTRICT TO THE P-C (PLANNED
COMMUNITY) DISTRICT AND ADOPTING
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CORPORATE PLAZA WEST (Planning
Commission Amendment No. 770).
Motion x 12. Report from the Planning Department
All Ayes recommending certain items be scheduled
for public hearing on August 10, 1992;
and upon recommendation of the staff,
motion was made to schedule the
following for public hearing on August
24, 1992, rather than August 10:
A. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 82 - Request to Trfc Stdy
approve a traffic study consistent No. 82
with the provisions of Chapter (94) '
15.40 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code for eleven sites
addressed in the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space
Agreement, and acceptance of an
environmental document;
AND
Volume 46 - Page 241
C I TX OF NEWPORT BEACH*
CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES
N\1
July 27, 1992
ROLL CRLL INDEX
B. AMENDMENT NO. 763 - Request to Harbor Vu
amend the Harbor View Hills Hills PCD
Planned Community District PCA 763
Regulations and Development Plan (94)
so as to allow for the
construction of 48 additional
dwelling units;
AND
C. AMENDMENT NO. 766 - Request to N/Ford PCD
amend the North Ford Planned PCA 766
Community District Regulations and (94)
Development Plan so as to allow
for the construction of 300
additional dwelling units;
AND
D. AMENDMENT NO. 769 - Request to Blck 800
amend the Block 800 Planned Sr Citz
Community District Regulations and Housing
Development Plan so as to allow PCA 769
the construction of 245 dwelling (94)
units for senior citizen housing.
Motion x 3. Report from the Planning Department GPA 92-2
All Ayes recommending the public hearing for (45)
General Plan Amendment No. 92-2 (Bayview
Sanding) be scheduled on August 10,
1992; and upon recommendation of the
taff, motion was made to schedule
blie hearing on August 24, 1992,
r her than August 10 for the following:
Gene 1 Plan Amendment No. 92-2 (Bayview
Laud ) - Request of The Irvine Company
to ame d the Land Use Element of the
Newport each General Plan and the Local
Coastal ogram Land Use Plan to allow
for an op ional permitted land use of
affordable enior citizen housing on the
Bayview Land ng site in association with
the transfer 30,000 sq. ft. of retail
commercial ant lament to Fashion Island
in Newport Gent
I. Report from the Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Depar ant recommending
introduction of;
Proposed ORDINANCE NO. -41, being, rd 92-41
B&R
AN ORDINANCE OF CITY COUNCIL (62)
OF THE CITY OF UPORT BEACH
AMENDING SECTION 11.04 BY
ESTABLISHING TIME TS ON THE
USE OF PUBLIC OUTDOOR &ETBALL
COURTS.
It was recommended by staff the Item
(f) of the proposed ordi nee,
concerning Prohibited Conduct, be
revised to read:
"Play basketball on any outdoo
public basketball court between
sundown and 8:00 a.m."
Motion x Notion was made to introduce, as
All Ayes revised, Ordinance No. 92-41, and pass
to second reading on August 10, 1992.
volume 46 - Page 242
• City CouncilMeeting July 27, 1992
Agenda Item No. 12
CITY OF NE"ORT BEACH
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Planning Department64
SUBJECT: A. Traffic Study No. 82
Request to approve a traffic study consistent with the provisions of
Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for eleven sites
addressed in the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agree-
ment, and the acceptance of an environmental document.
AND
B. Amendment No. 763
Request to amend the Harbor View Hills Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow for the construction
of 48 additional dwelling units.
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
C. Amendment No. 766
Request to amend the North Ford Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow for the construction
of 300 additional dwelling units.
LOCATION: Property located at 3200 University Drive, on the northeasterly corner
of Jamboree Road and University Drive South, in the North Ford
Planned Community.
ZONE: P-C
AND
D. Amendment No. 769
Request to amend the Block 800 Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow the construction of
245 dwelling units or senior citizen housing.
TO: City Council - 2.
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
APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
Applications
The various applications under consideration are those which are part of the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) and do not require the adoption of an
Ordinance. Related zoning actions which are adopted by Ordinance are introduced and
scheduled for public hearing on this agenda (See Agenda Item Lj H approved, the
CIOSA will provide vested entitlement for eight sites owned by The Irvine Company (TIC)
throughout the City of Newport Beach. Additionally,three sites currently owned by TIC will
be zoned and dedicated for open space and public facility use. Regulation regarding the
approval of Traffic Studies are found in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code and in Council Policy S-1. Regulations regarding Amendments are in Chapter 20.84, '
and procedures for the amendment of Planned Communities are in Chapter 20.51 of the
Code.
Suggested Action
If desired, schedule Traffic Study No. 82, Amendments No. 763, 766 and 769, and the
Environmental Document for public hearing on August 10, 1992.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At its meeting of June 18, 1992, the Planning Commission voted (all ayes) to recommend
approval of these items to the City Council. Copies of the staff report and an excerpt of the
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting will be forwarded at the time of the City
Council hearing.
Respectfully Submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By
Patricia L. Temple
Advance Planning Manager
PL1'...DA\1W SR1
dOMMISSIONERS ATTACHMENT la June 18, 1992 MINUTES
O% 0
\
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALL 1NOEX
15. That the applicant shall agree that the proposed
development will not increase the need for on-street parking
ng Newport Boulevard and that the applicant agrees not
to ntest the removal of parking for the restriping of
Newp Boulevard on the grounds of loss of on-street
parking.
16. That Coastal mmission approval shall be obtained prior
to the issuance o uilding permits or occupancy of the take-
out restaurant faci
17. That the Planning Co fission may add to or modify
conditions of approval to t ' use permit, or recommend to
the City Council the revocati of this use permit upon a
determination that the operatio hich is the subject of this
amendment causes injury, or iS de imental to the health,
• safety, peace, morals, comfort, or g eral welfare of the
community.
18. That this use permit shall expire unless exer ' ed within 24
months from the date of approval as specifie ' Section
20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Co .
19. That the proposed floor plan shall be redesigned so tha e
customer waiting area shall not exceed approximately 3
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. 6
of an environmental document.
• AND
B. Traffic Study No 82 Continued Public Hearing) TS No. 82
Regt1. '*o approve a traffic study consistent with the provisions of
Chapt615.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for eleven
-10-
z 000
42
• June 18, 1992 MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALL INDEX
i
sites addressed in the Circulation Improvement and Open Space
Agreement.
AND
C. Amendment Nn, 763 (Continued Public Heariw 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 (Continued i Hearing) Amend.
No.d
Request to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and (Res
Development Plan for Newporter North/Newporter Knoll. This 1302)
request would provide for the construction of 212 dwelling units on
Newporter North and open space on Newporter Knoll.
-11-
00013
•COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
ROLL CALL INDE
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 Hearing) Amend.
No. 766
Request to amend the North Ford Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow for the (Res'
No. 1303)
construction of 300 additional dwelling units.
LOCATION: Property located at 3200 University Drive, on
.the northeasterly corner of Jamboree Road
and University Drive South, in the North
Ford Planned Community.
ZONE: P-C
AND
G. Amendment No 767 (Continued Public Hearing) 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. 1304)
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-
'00014
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF 'NEWPORT BEACH
CALL INDEX
H. Amendment No 768 (Continued Public Hearine) 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. "V (Continued Public Hearing) amend.
_ i 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. AmendmentN (Continued PubliF Hearing) 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-
I
- -
COMMISSIONERS • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
9i� •d�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL lNOE
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,x wport Center Drive,
across from the C ,orate 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.
j 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-
0001G
e .COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
R 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-
00017
COMMISSIONERS • • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
ON
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL I NEW
lNOE
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 "N, 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, orpreparation
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-
00018
June 18, 1992 . MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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 park, and from nearby
residential uses in a manner compatible with the building materials.
-17-
00019
COMMISSIONERS • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INOE
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 too 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
.18.
000 :!0
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
'
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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-
000 1
COMMISSIONERS • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
d
O%\V\
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INOE
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 "A".
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 Y
Com an has offered funds over and above
Company
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-
000 ',z
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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 bad 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-
000 ., 3
COMMISSIONERS 0 0 June 18, 1992 MINUTES
d
0%\\
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL IND
"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:
Upper CastawW 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-
000r'.4
• June 18, 1992 MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
0� OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALL INDEX
be similar to the Bluffs project on the east side of the bay and
would utilize an internal greenbelt.
N=orter 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.
Nye ✓Porter Knoll The General Plan designates the site for open
space and The Irvine Company would dedicate the 12 acres as
open space.
N=orter 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 RoadIMacArthur 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-
0 0 0,2.E
COMMISSIONERS 0 0 June 18, 1992 MINUTES
1\10mV\N\\
CITY OF NEWPORT' BEACH
ROLL CALLIwo
INO
family detached units, and an open space area would be dedicated
to the City.
Corporate 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.
Bavview 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.
Nenort 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-
000,-.6
COMMISSIONERS • • June 18,. 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALL 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 comments 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-
000 7
COMMISSIONERS • June 18, 1992 ;MINUTES
d
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDE
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 orgenerate 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: upper 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 notpre-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, W.
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-
000;;8
.COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
• ,
o 0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
CALL
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-
00029
COMMISSIONERS • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
10�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL IN
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
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 in 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-
00030
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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-
0003,
COMMISSIONERS June 18, iQ92 MINUTES
0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INOE
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-
000312
• • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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-
0.0033
COMMISSIONERS 0 June 18, 1992 MINUTES
A\O� \N
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INOE
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-
00034
COMMISSIONERS • • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALL lKOEX
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 Ellis Section
5.1, page 5.1-9, Land Use: To mitigate potential short tern 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-
00035
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INOE
to establish a schedule... and plan to work out the logistics of the
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
4o the City Council. •
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-
000
• 'COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
d
Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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
Oil 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.
W. 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-
00037
June 18, 1992
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL. CALL INOE
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 aview 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-
00038
• •COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH _
INDEX
CALL
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-
00039
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDE
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
EIR, 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 VanderSioot, 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-
0004,0
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
R CALL
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
opposed to 'piecemeal' 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-
00041
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDE
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-
00042
COMMISSIONERS • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALL INDEX
the lots it is feasible that The Irvine Company maybe 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.
-41-
00043
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
�0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDE
ROLL CALL
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 question posed by Commissioner Debay, Ms. •
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 corner 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-
00044
• �COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992MINUTES
CITY OF 'NEWPORT BEACH
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.
1. 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-
000t45
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992MINUTES
4� coo °•°�
Y OF NEW BEACH
ROLL CALL CITY INDE
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 setba&area with a manufactured slope?
1n 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-
0004G
June 18, 1992
MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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 further 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-
0004'7
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDE
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 Di 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 Pennit? •
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-
00043
9 0 June 18, 1992
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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-
00049
COMMISSIONERSJune 18, 1492�g MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL 1NO
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.
Environmentalm
F'
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
A li
insignificance, except in the areas of es thetics/ ght 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-
00050
• June 18, 1992
MINUT:�'S
COMMISSIONERS ;:f
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
R CALL ;•.'.'� : .
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 decigions "'
made relative to this project.
Mitigation Measures:
Aggthetics fight 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 annuaICongestion Management Program and Growth
Management Program analysis and the annual review of the
Development Agreement.
-49-
00051
COMMISSIONERS • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
1\10� k\N\\
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL IN
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-
t 00052
• June 18, 1992 MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS �
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALL INDEX
5
• 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-
00053
COMMISSIONER$ • • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
d
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
Department of Public Works prior to issuance of an
occupancy permit.
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
CALL I J I 11 1 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.
Biolopical 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-
aoo5
•COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
d
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL IN
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-
0005u
COMMISSIONERS • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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
i 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-
00057
•COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INOE
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 sball 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-
00053
• June 18, 1992 MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALL INDEX
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.
• 23. 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
i 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.
24. 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-
00059
bOMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
kOLL CALL INDE
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.
Earth Resources
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-
00060
•COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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
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-
00061
• �COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992MINUTES
I0R �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL tN0
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
ungraded
into grading plans to divert su�ciai runoff from gr aded
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-
000-62
•COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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
isplans 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 geotechnieal 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-
00063
.COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
LL INOE
ROLL CA
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 moiritor
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-
00064
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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-
00065
June 18, 1992
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
\0%\N\\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDE.
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. Priorto 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 clips,
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-
0006.S
COc�MMISSIONER$ • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
%\N\\
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 .
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. If
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
geotechnicai 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 (i.e., 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'rid a of ravel laced across graded right-of-
ways� g 8 P Bi'
to decrease and filter runoff levels while permitting
construction traffic to continue. The location of berms shall
-65-
00067
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
1\10M1\ 0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL GALL INOElft
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-
00068
COMMISSIONERS • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Rg&CALL I I J 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.
53. 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-Ora-49 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-
00069
COMMISSIONERS 0 0 June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INO
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-
000i0
• • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
%\�N\\
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
R ALL 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.
NEWPORTER 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
. exists. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and
submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of
completing surface collection test excavation.
BLOCK 800
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
deposits. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings
and submitted,'to the Planning Department within 90 days
of completing sub-surface testing.
-69-
00071
•COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
� o
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL lNDE
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-
00072)
i COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
R CALL INDEX
1! 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-
000 73
COMMISSIONERS • June 18, 1992 MINUTES
,e C
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL J I INOE
r a result of the project will be the responsibility of the
developer, unless current district or City policies dietau,
otherwise. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits.
B Development Agrument 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.
Finding§:
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 15A0 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 00074
-
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
%0 \\N
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ia CALL INDEX
construction of all phases not ay4cipated 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. i
i
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-
000'73
• June 18, lm MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDD, 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. 767
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-
00070
• June 18, 1992
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
1�\O� \N
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALL INDEX
Amendment No. 761 ftblic Hearing) Item No.4
Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport A761
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. 1308)
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.
s s ■
DISCUSSION ITEM: Disc.
Item
Amendment No. 762
No. 1
Request to consider amendments to Title 20 of the Newport Beach A762
Municipal Code pertaining to permitted height, number and yard —
encroachments of accessory buildings in residential districts. PH Set
Motion * Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public hearing
l es on July 23, 1992. MOTION CARRIED.
-75-
00077
1
COMMISSIONERS June 18, 1992 MINUTES
'
A
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDE
ADDITIONAL S; 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 am. Adjourn
tta
NORMA GLOVER, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
•
-76-
000'78
• ATTACHMENT 2a
Planning Commission Meeting June 18. 1992-
Agenda Item No. 3
• C1TY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: A.. Develwment Agmement No 6 (Public Hearing).
Request to adopt a Development Agreement for the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement for eleven sites in the City
of Newport Beach. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an
environmental document.
AND
B. Traffic Study No 8 (Public Hearin )
Request to approve a traffic study consistent with the provisions of
• Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for eleven sites
addressed in the Circulation Improvement and Open Space
Agreement.
AND
C. Amendment No 763 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend the Harbor View Hills Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow for the construction
of 48 additional dwelling units.
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 (Public Hearing)
Request to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and
Development Plan for Upper Castaways. This request would provide
for the construction of 151 dwelling units.
00081
TO: Planning Commission- 2
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 (Public Hearing)
Request to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and
Development Plan for Newporter 'North/Newporter Knoll. This
request would provide for the construction;of 212 dwelling units on
Newporter North and open space on Newporter Knoll.
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 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend the North Ford Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan.so as to allow for the construction
of 300 additional dwelling units.
LOCATION: Property located at 3200 University Drive, on the northeasterly corner
of Jamboree Road and University Drive South, in the North Ford
Planned Community.
ZONE: F-C
AND
G. Amendment No 767 (Mic Hearing) •
Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 37 so as to
reclassify property from the U (Unclassified) District to the P-C
District. Also requested is the adoption of Planned Community
District Regulations and Development Plan for Bayview Landing. This
request would provide for the construction of either a 10,000 sgft.
restaurant or a 40,000 sq.& athletic club.
00082
TO: Planning Commission - 3
• 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
H. Amendment No 768 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend portions of Districting Maps No. 44 and 66 so as to
reclassify property from the U (Unclassified) District to the P-C
(Planned Community) District. The proposal also includes a 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 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend the Block 800 Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow the construction of
245 dwelling units or senior citizen housing.
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
J Amendment No 770 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 48 so as to
reclassify property from the O-S (Open Space) and Unclassified
Districts to the P-C District. Also requested is the adoption of
Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan for 00083
TO: Planning Commission - 4
the Corporate Plaza West Planned 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 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
APPLICATIONS
The various applications under consideration will, if approved provide vested entitlement
for eight sites owned by The Irvine Company(TIC) throughout the City of Newport Beach.
Additionally,three sites currently owned by TIC will be zoned and dedicated for open space •
and,public facility use. The approvals include a development agreement, a traffic study and
eight amendments to rezone property and adopt or amend Planned Community District
Regulations. Regulations regarding the adoption of Development Agreements are contained
in Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The adoption of Traffic Studies
are governed by Chapter 15.40 of the Code and by Council Policy S-1. Regulations
regarding Amendments are in Chapter 20.84, and procedures for the adoption of or
.amendments to Planned Communities are in Chapter 20.51 of the Code.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
All of the proposed actions are consistent with existing General Plan land use designations,
and represent the implementation ofzoning entitlements for these properties. The specific
designations for the subject sites are discussed below.
Harbor View Hilis/Freeway Reservation: The Land Use Elemeadesignates this site for 76
single-family attached units. The proposed PC amendment allows for the construction of
48 dwelling units and is consistent with this designation, and also accommodates the .
widening of MacArthur Boulevard as provided in the Circulation Element.
JIgger Castaways: The Land Use Element designates this property for a maximum of 151
dwelling units. Although the Land Use Element Map shows this as single-family detached,
other residential development types are also permitted. The bluff areas are designated as
Recreational and Environmental Open Space. The proposed PC development plan is
consistent with these designations, as well as the future widening of Dover Drive as
anticipated in the Circulation Element.
00084
s �
TO: Planning Commission - 5
• Nowrter Nortti/N mrter Knoll: The Newporter North property is designated for a
maximum of 212 single-family attached units in the Land use Element, although residential
product types are permitted. The bluff areas, as well as the Newporter Knoll, are
designated Recreational and Environmental Open Space. The proposed PC regulations are
in conformance with these designations.
North Ford/San Drew Creek South: This site is designated for Multi-Family Residential
use with a maximum of 300 dwelling units, 20 percent of which shall be affordable units.
The proposed PC amendment conforms to this designation.
Bawiew Landing: This site is divided into two portions by topography. The upper portion,
near the intersection of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road, is designated for Recreational
and Environmental Open Space and is intended to be used for a view park, with a trail
staging area for pedestrians and bicyclists, restrooms, and picnicking areas. The lower
portion of the property, near Backbay Drive, is designated for Retail and Service
Commercial with an allocation of 10,000 square feet of restaurant use or 40,000 square feet
of athletic club use. The proposed PC regulations are consistent with these designations.
San Diego Creek North and Tamboree/MacArthur, The San Diego Creek North site is
• designated for Administrative,Professional and Financial Commercial use with an allocation
of 112,000 square feet. A 2.5-acre fire station site is also designated on this parcel. The
Jamboree/MacArthur property is designated for Administrative,Professional and Financial
Commercial use with a floor area ratio limit of 0.25 (approximately 50,000 square feet).
The proposed amendment would restrict these sites to public facilities and open space, and
would eliminate all office development entitlements.
Block 800: Block 800, within Newport Center, is currently designated for 245 multi-family
units in the General Plan. The proposed planned community regulations would allow a
maximum of 245 apartments, condominiums, or senior citizen housing with ancillary skilled
nursing areas and recreation facilities. The proposed PC regulations are consistent with this
designation. As provided by the General Plan, senior citizen housing developments
exceeding the established dwelling unit limit may be approved with a finding that the project
is of particular benefit to the city and the traffic generated by the project is no greater than
the predominant use allowed in the area.
Grate Plaza West: The Corporate Plaza West property in Newport Center has a
General Plan designation for an additional 94,000 square feet of office development on the
. remaining undeveloped 9.0-acre portion of the site. The proposed PC regulations would
allow a variety of office and commercial uses consistent with the 94,000-square-foot General
Plan entitlement.
Nmorter Resort: This property is currently developed with 411 hotel rooms, and has a
General Plan designation for an additional 68 hotel rooms. The proposed action would
provide entitlement for a maximum of 479 hotel rooms.
00085
TO: Planning Commission - 6
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNiFTCANCE
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA •
Guidelines and City Council Policy K 3,a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report has
been prepared for the proposed project. The Draft EIR addresses the potential
environmental impacts and mitigationmeasures related to the proposed actions to the extent
possible based on the level of detail currently available, and subsequent environmental
analysis may be necessary when detailed site plans are submitted. As a result of subsequent
analyses,additional mitigation measures may be proposed and adopted. The Draft EIR also
evaluates alternatives to the proposed actions. The 45-day public review period for the
DEIR began on June 4 and will end on July 20.
The Draft EIR evaluates the project's potential impacts, including cumulative impacts in
connection with other past and future projects,in the areas of land use, aesthetics/light and
glare, transportation, air quality, noise, biology, earth resources, water resources, housing,
cultural resources, and public services/utilities. The Draft EIR states that no significant
impacts would result from the project in the following areas: land use, light/glare, noise,
earth resources, housing, cultural resources, and public services other than fire protection.
Although no significant.direct project impacts would occur in the areas of traffic,air quality
and water quality, the project would contribute to significant cumulative impacts in these •
areas. Direct unavoidable significant adverse impacts as well as cumulative impacts would
be expected in the areas of aesthetics (loss of open space and visual resources at Upper
Castaways and Newporter North) and biological resources (loss of habitat at Newporter
North and Bayview Landing). A temporary significant impact in the area of fire protection
would result until a new fire station is constructed to serve the northern portion of the city,
In.addition to the evaluation of project impacts, Chapter VI of the DEIR describes a wide
variety of alternatives to the proposed project, as required by CEQA. The purpose of this
analysis is to determine whether there are any feasible alternatives that could accomplish
the objectives of the project while reducing or eliminating significant impacts, even if those
alternatives would be more costly. Of the seven major alternatives analyzed, two were
found to be infeasible and were eliminated from further consideration by staff. Of the five
remaining alternatives, only the design alternative for an additional active park at Bayview
Landing was found to be environmentally superior to the proposed project due to an
increase in active park facilities. This alternative would partially conflict with the objectives
of The Irvine Company, however. None of the other.feasible alternatives were found to
substantially reduce the adverse impacts of the project as proposed.
ANALYSIS
CIRCUr ATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT
(DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 6)
Bac ound. On November 27, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-136
establishing the Circulation Buildout City Council Ad'Hoc Committee. This Committee was
established to work with The Irvine Company (TIC) and City staff in the development ob 0
0
8 t'
TO Planning'Commission - 7
a comprehensive approach to entitlement of certain undeveloped TIC properties consistent
• with the General Plan in association with the establishment of a funding mechanism for the
construction of important components of the circulation system. Through the course of
these discussions, a program of open space and public facility dedications was identified.
The agreement is, therefore, called the Circulation Improvement and Open Space
Agreement, and consists of three major components:
1. The entitlement of eight sites owned by The Irvine Company in the City of Newport
Beach at a level equal to or less than the General Plan Land Use Element
allocation. The sites proposed for vesting entitlement are: Upper Castaways,
Bayview Landing,Newporter Resort,Newporter North,Corporate Plaza West,Block
800 (Newport Center), San Diego Creek South and Freeway Reservation East. Two
sites would be zoned for open space uses: Newporter Knoll and
Jamboree/MacArthur. One site, San Diego Creek North will be zoned for open
space or public facility uses.
2. Advance funding of circulation system improvements through the prepayment of Fair
Share Fees, the commitment to frontage improvements, and the advance of
additional funds, with a total commitment of $20.6 million plus an additional
. $500,000 for MacArthur Boulevard improvements in the City of Irvine. Funds loaned
to the City (the advance) would be interest free, and would be paid back to TIC
through a return of 50% of Fair Share Fees collected by the City for a twenty year
term. If the advance of funds is not completely paid after twenty years, the
remainder of the debt would be forgiven.
3. The dedication to the City of land for park, open space, and public facility uses.
Three entire sites would be dedicated: Newporter Knoll, San Diego Creek North
and Jamboree/MacArthur. Substantial portions of five additional sites would also
be dedicated: Upper Castaways, Bayview Landing, Newporter North, .San Diego
Creek South and Freeway Reservation East. No dedication would occur on
Corporate Plaza West, Block 800 - Newport Center or the Newporter Resort sites.
The agreement under consideration is a development agreement to be adopted pursuant to
Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The agreement sets forth the legal
framework, requirements and obligations of both parties to achieve the entitlement (for
TIC), and the land dedication and circulation funding (for the City). One item of interest
is the effective date of the agreement. In this case, the effective date is not the date of
. approval, but is the first date upon which all of the following have occurred: 1. final
approval by the California Coastal Commission,2. the CEQA challenge period has expired
or, if a lawsuit is filed, a final judgement upholding the agreement has been entered, and
3. the City has issued a grading or building permit for development of the property other
than potential senior citizen housing development on Bayview Landing,development on the
southerly parcel of Freeway Reservation East,senior housing development on Block 800 or
hotel development on the Newport Resort. The agreement does make provisions for the
City to make use of the circulation funds prior to the effective date of the agreement if
certain conditions are met.
00087
r .
TO: Planning Commission- 8
The agreement can be terminated if any county,state or federal law,rule,regulation or plan
precludes compliance with one or more provisions of the agreement. The agreement may •
also be terminated if either party defaults on their obligations pursuant to the agreement.
If the Company elects termination of the agreement upon default by the City, there are
provisions for repayment of circulation funds paid to the City pursuant to the agreement.
It is important to understand that this provision could be a substantial General Fund
obligation, in that the obligation is based upon the development remaining and shall be
repaid in four years.
Suagcsted cbanQes In reviewing the agreement,there is one additional provision which the
staff would suggest. In regards to the Upper Castaways and the Newporter North parcels,
the development areas defined in the P-C Texts do not address the fact that there are some
erosional swales which would result in an uneven development area boundary due to the
provisions of the bluff top setback provisions of the Municipal Code. A provision should
be incorporated to allow the use of the new top of slope if The Irvine Company repairs the
bluff in these areas.
Project Alternatives. Since the development of the original project description, two
potential alterations to the project description have been proposed. These changes related
to the permitted land uses on Bayview Landing and the open space dedications on San .
Diego Creek North.
Bayview Landing. The City has expressed an interest in achieving some affordable senior
citizen housing, and The Irvine Company has indicated that it would be possible to provide
this use on the Bayview Landing site. If this use were authorized, it would require an
amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan since this option also includes
transfer of commercial entitlement to Fashion Island. In considering this option, the
Commission should consider the impact of greater structural intensity on the site(estimated
at 100,000 sgft.) and the proximity of the site to support uses such as shopping and medical
areas.
It should be noted that the EIR includes another,option for the Bayview Landing site. This
would involve the transfer of the development to Fashion Island and the designation of the
lower Bayview Landing site as a neighborhood park. This is considered an environmentally
superior alternative.
i
The action of the Planning Commission will, therefore, include a determination of the
permitted land uses. The options are: 1. The proposed project (restaurant or athletic •
club),2. the designation of the site for senior citizen housing facilities and transfer of 30,000
sgft. to Fashion Island (requiring initiation of a General Plan Amendment), or 3. transfer
development to Fashion Island and designate the site for open space.
San Diego Creek North. This topic was raised as part of a concern of the City staff
regarding the disposition of the Newport Village site, since this action would be the last
entitlement action in Newport Center. Staff requested the City Council Ad Hoc Committee
to consider a requirement to dedicate the remainder of the Newport Village site as part of
this action. The Irvine Company has responded with an agreement to dedicate the Newport
00088
•
TO: Planning Commission - 9 ✓
Village site if it could maintain its ownership of the portion of San Diego Creek North
• between the Creek and the Bayview Way extension. This would not alter the permitted land
uses for the site, but would allow TIC to dedicate the site to the Transportation Corridor
Agency (TCA)for mitigation and restoration as a wildlife corridor. In the view of the City
staff, this is 'ruin-win" proposal. The City will get the additional open space on Newport
Village,removing any potential for re-entitlement in the future, and the site adjacent to San
Diego Creek will be restored as originally proposed, but with the TCA gaining ownership,
including maintenance and liability.
TRAFFIC STUDY
A comprehensive traffic study was prepared in conjunction with the environmental review
of the project, including a long range analysis of the overall program and an analysis as
required by Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code [Traffic Phasing
Ordinance (TPO)].
Tag Range Traffic Ana is.
The traffic study prepared for the Environmental Impact Report includes an analysis of the
• long term implications of the proposed development. Using the Newport Beach Traffic
Analysis Model developed for the City by Austin-Foust and Associates, the specific project
is not shown to have any impacts beyond those associated with the long term build-out of
the General Plan.
In order to address the circulation system improvement requirements associated with the
build-out of the General Plan, the City has established two circulation system funding
programs. These are the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and the Fair Share Traffic
Contribution Ordinance. This project is required to comply with both these Ordinances,and
does so through the circulation funding program adopted as part of the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement.
Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis.
This project is the first to be processed pursuant to specific provisions of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance for a project which is a phased land use development and circulation system
improvement plan with construction of all phases not anticipated to be complete within 60
months from the date of approval, is the subject of a development agreement resulting in
. the early completion of major improvements,and includes a traffic study which demonstrates
compliance with the TPO for early phases of the development, the Land Use and
Circulation Elements remain consistent as a result of the improvements, substantial
improvements are made as a result of the project These improvements must be of a nature
such that 1.an unsatisfactory level of service is not caused or made worse at any intersection
for which there is a feasible improvement, 2. the benefits to traffic circulation from the
improvements substantially outweigh the increased traffic congestion at impacted but
unimproved intersections and 3. there is an overall reduction in ICU at impacted
intersections.
0008
' TO; Planning Commission - 10
This project is not anticipated to be complete within G0 mofuWsr R?td l4 tb4 sulpject R a
development agreement as regl*cd by the TPO. Major fMtn' f0t the P-urpo&e P.f •
making substantial circulation system improvements will be tale gaFly iut t g pro$tapt,
specifically, as soon as the City can prepare Projects for coi#4t4'ttOQ 4 494sls4t4 w,4 *0
needs of the program, These funds will,also Play a major TWO ii} the 010 AOMty
additional fund%from various sonr4o&which typically require the prP*19P of r Rteh4 flw�s
(such and Prop. I11 and Measure M fuucls)-
The chart on the following page (excerpted from the EM page 17$) summaWs the net
benefit analysis- 'The Commission should compare column}1 -NO Pr O*4 4P fmprgvepunts
with column a - With project, with improvements. These figures are for the year 2000.
Column 5 shows the improvement in ICU,and concludes that the overall f CU benefit J the
AM peak hour'is 1.32 and the over all benefit in the PM peak h9W 1§ ).21. I*project,
therefore, complies with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing,Ordinance.
It is important to note that the project defines certain improvements tq the circulation
system,but does not specifically require that those specific improvements be marls. The on
going monitoring of the development agreement and mitigation measures will ,req*o the
City to review.the ultimate improvement-program for compliance with the aptidpated L OS
improvements defined in the traffic study and required by thg TPO. .
•
00090
TABL
NET BENEFIT TO CIRCULATION I& DUE TO THE PROJECT •
(YEAR 2000)
3.WITH 4.VAMNO t
1.NO PROJECT 2.PROJECT' PROJECT PROJECT S.ICU NET
IMPROVEMOI TIS IWACT NO Wl'1H CHANOB
IMPROVEMFNTS IMPROVECEM
ETI71 LOMON AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 6.PROIECC
IMPROVHMI!MS
7. Riverside&CH .99 1.13 .02 .01 1.01 1.14 .90 .88 .09 .2S Separate SBR.
9. MacArthur&Campus .64 1.11 .02 .01 .66 1.12 .66 1.12 -.02 -.01 No Direct Improvements.
13. Jamboree&Campus .92 .74 .00 .00 .92 .74 .92 .74 .00 .00 No Direct Improvements.
15. Campus&Bristol N .78 1.05 .01 .00 .79 1.05 .79 1.05 -.01 .00 No Direct Improvements.
16. Birch&Bristol N .73 1.04 .00 .00 .73 1.04 .73 1.04 .00 .00 No Direct Improvements.
17. Campus& Bristol S .93 .97 .00 .00 .93 .97 .93 .97 .00 .00 No Direct Improvements.
18. Birch&Bristol S .62 .92 .00 .01 .72 .93 .62 .93 .00 -.01 No Direct Improvements.
19. Irvine&Mesa .69, 1.00 .01 .00 .70 1.00 .70 1.00 -.01 .00 No Direct Improvements. c
20. Irvine& University .70 .89 .01 .00 .71 .89 .71 .89 -.01 .00 No Direct Improvements.
24: Irvine&Westcliff/17th .82 .93 .01 .01 .83 .94 .63 As .19 .08 Second EBL y
O
27. Dover&Bayshore/CH .96 .89 .01 .01 .97 .90 .97 .90 -.01 -.01 No Direct Improvements. 3
i
28. Bayside&CH S5 .84 .01 A .96 .84 .96 .84 -.01 .00 No Direct Improvements. �
29. MacArthur&Jamboree .78 1.64 .02 00 .80 1.04 .80 1.04 -.02 .00 No Direct Improvements.
34. Jamboree&University .88 1.27 .03 .05 .91 132 .72 .97 .16 30 Second SBI,Fourth NBT.
35. Jamboree&Bison .94 .89 .03 .03 .97 .92 .97 .92 -.03 -.03 No Direct Improvements. •
37. MacArthur&Bison .95 .94 .00 .01 .95 _ .95 .77 .84 .18 .10 Second NBL,Fourth NBT.
39. MacArthur&Ford 1.03 1.01 .01 .01 1.04 1.02 .66 .84 37 .17 Second BIFourth SBT,
WB
45. MacArthur&SIH Rd .79 .94 .00 .00 .79 .94 55 .88 .24 .06 Third SBT,Separate WBR.
46. MacArthurMiguel &San .94 1.04 .01 .00 .95 1.04 .73 .73 .21 31. Budd�Third SBT,
Total ICU reduction to the Circulation System with the pro)ect(Net Benefit) 132 1.21
South Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization N : North SIH Rd,=San Joaquin Hills Road SBL = South Bound Left SBT=South Bound Through
`. : Caea Highway S'= South EBL= East Bound Left NBT= North Bound Through WBT=Weir Bound Through
_O
I
• r
TO: Planning Commission - 12
ZONING AMENDMENTS
The proposed project includes eight zoning amendments, which consist of revisions to •
existing Planned Communities or adoption of new Planned Communities. These
amendments are discussed individually below.
Amendment 763• Harbor View Hills PC flD3 v�v Reservation)
This 28.3-acre property is currently part of the Harbor View Hills PC,although specific site
uses and development standards have not been established. The General Plan designates
this site for 76 residential units. The proposed PC amendment would designate this
property for 48 Low-Medium Density units on an 11-acre portion of the site (4.4 DU/acre).
A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet would also be established. The 17.3-acre
remainder of the site is proposed for open space and future right-of-way for the widening
of MacArthur Boulevard. Some of the proposed key development standards are
summarized below.
Max. building height 32,feet
Min. setbacks •
Street 15 feet (major) / 10 feet (local)
Side 5 feet
Rear 20 feet
Amendment 764: Upper Castaways
The 56.6-acre Upper Castaways site is presently allocated 151 residential units in the
General Plan. The current zoning designation is Planned Community, although no PC
regulations were previously adopted. As part of this project, PC regulations would be
adopted designating this property for 151 dwelling units on 26.0 acres,with an 11.5-acre view
park, a 4.8-acre Active park, and 14.3 acres for open space and Dover Drive right-of-way.
Permitted residential types would include single-family detached, townhouses and
condominiums with ancillary recreation facilities.
The Upper Castaways property is located within the coastal zone, and the adopted Local
Coastal Program identifies a public bikeway/walkway along the blufftop with Access from
Dover Drive and/or Westcliff Drive. The proposed PC regulations include a provision that
the design of such trails shall be subject to approval by the Public Works, Planning, and .
Parks, Beaches and Recreation departments.
The proposed PC regulations would also require compliance with the City's affordable
housing policies, and off-site compliance would be permitted.
Some of the proposed key development standards are summarized below.
Max. building height 32 feet
00092
TO: Planning Commission - 13
Min. setbacks
• Street 35 feet (Dover Dr.) / 10 feet (internal)
Garage 5-7 feet or 18 feet
Side 5 feet / 0 (if 10 feet between buildings)
Rear 10 feet
ISM
Bluffto setbacks: One of the major issues relevant to this project is the General Plan
policy concerning preservation of coastal bluffs. The Land Use Element provides that
minimum blufftop property line setbacks of 40 feet, or as determined by a projected 2:1
slope angle from the base of the bluff, whichever is greater, shall be maintained. In
addition, a 20-foot building setback from any blufftop property line is required. This policy
also provides that the Planning Commission may increase or decrease this minimum building
setback if it is consistent with the purposes of this policy. The proposed PC regulations
submitted by The Irvine Company would allow grading for manufactured slopes to encroach
up to 20 feet into the required blufftop property line setback,and would also allow building
pads adjacent to bluff areas to be raised as much as 10 feet above natural grade. It is the
opinion of staff that this encroachment is not desirable due to the steepness of the slope and
• magnitude of the encroachment. This proposal would result in only 20 feet for walkways
and other usable open space. The Office of the City Attorney has also expressed a concern
related to liability. Based on discussions with the Director of the Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Department, staff does not believe the requested manufactured slope
encroachment would be inconsistent with the intent of the General Plan policy as long as
the average slope ratio is limited to 4:1 and sensitive grading techniques are utilized (e.g.,
slope rounding),with grading plans subject to review and approval by the Planning,Building
and PB&R departments. A 4:1 slope is relatively gentle and could still be used by the
public. Staff has no objection to the proposal to allow building pads to be raised not more
10 feet.
Park and church access and parkin¢: The PC regulations proposed by The Irvine Company
would permit this project to be a private, gated community with no public access from 16th
Street. In recent discussions regarding preliminary site plans with representatives of the
Newport Harbor Lutheran Church, concerns have been expressed regarding how the
proposed access and parking for both-the passive and active parks might adversely affect the
church. This is an issue of concern to staff as well, and it must be resolved either prior to
or concurrent with the approval of the subsequent Site Plan Review and Tentative Tract
. Map. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant and the church in an attempt to resolve
these concerns.
Amendment 765: Newnorter NorthMMorter Knoll
These two sites are separated by John Wayne Gulch and are proposed to be combined into
a single planned community with a total of 89.2 acres. The 77.2-acre Newporter North site
has a General Plan designation for 212 residential units. The General Plan designates the
Newporter Knoll site as open space. The proposed PC regulations would allow 212 units
on 30.0 acres of the Newporter North site,with a 4.0•acre view park and 43.2 acres for open
0,009.3
TO: Planning Commission - 14
space and future road right-of-way. Allowable building types would include single-family •
detached,townhomes,condominiums,apartments,and ancillary recrea00081 uses. The 124-
acre Newporter Knoll site would be designated passive open space in the PC regulations.
Some of the proposed key development standards are summarized below.
Max. building height 32 feet
Min. setbacks
Street 35 feet (major) / 10 feet (intgrp8l)
Garage 5-9 feet or 1.9 feet
Side 5 feet/ 0 (if 10 feet betwee0 buildings)
Rear 10 feet
b=
�] op etbacks: The proposed PC regulations submitted by The Irvine Company contain
the same provision that would allow encroachment of manufactured slopes into blufftop
setback areas, as well as the allowable increase in pad elevations discussed previously for
the Upper Castaways property. The same analysis would apply W this propM Vt .
Biological impacts: The land use plan contained in the proposed PC regolgOQns anticipates
an access road at the Santa Barbara give extension that would result in the loss of a 0-1-
acre portion of a small wetland area. This impact would be mitigated by a Proem of
requirement that any loss of wetlands be replaced in consultation with the Do
Fish and Game and the Army Corps of ingineers, therefore staff has no objygtlon to the
proposed plan.
Another impact that could result from this project is the potential loss of coyote denning
and foraging area and the adverse secondary effect this could have upon the ecological
balance between coyotes, smaller predators such as foxes and feral cats, and sensitive bird
species. At this time, the probability of coyotes being eliminated from this area cannot be-
determined.
Amendment 766• North Fordagn Dim,,, X South
The San Diego Creek South site is a portion of the North Ford PC, and is •currently
designated for office development in the PC regulations. The property is allocated a .
maximum of 300 multi-family ti-famil residential units in the General Plan,however. The-proposed
PC amendment would redesignate this 21-acre property from office to Multi-Family
Residential with a maximum of 300 units, and 2A acres of open space.
Some of the proposed key development standards are summarized below.
00094
TO: Planning Commission - 15
Max. building height 35 feet
• Min. setbacks
Street 25 feet (Jamboree)
20 feet (University Drive South)
15 feet (collector streets)
5 feet (private streets)
Other 5 feet with 8 feet between buildings
Amendment 767: Bflyview Laaffin
This site, with a total of 16.1 acres, is presently designated for either 10,000 square feet of
restaurant use or a 40,000-square-foot health club on the lower 5.0-acre portion with the
upper 11.1 acres restricted to open space according to the General Plan. The current zoning
designation for this property is Unclassified. The proposed project includes the
redesignation of the site to PC and the adoption of Planned Community regulations in
conformance with the General Plan designation.
. Specific site development standards would be determined as part of the Use Permit process.
1SS114�
Park alternative: As alluded to previously, one of the project alternatives under
consideration includes the transfer of development entitlement from this site to Newport
Center/Fashion Island in the form of 30,000 square feet of retail use, and the development
of a 5-acre active park with unlighted playing fields and related facilities on the lower
portion of Bayview Landing.
Senior citizen housing alternative: This alternative(Alternative 5c in the Draft EIR)would
also transfer development entitlement from this site to Newport Center/Fashion Island in
the form of 30,000 square feet of retail use, to be replaced with entitlement for 120 senior
citizen housing units. If this alternative were selected, it would be necessary to initiate a
General Plan amendment to redesignate the site accordingly.
Amendment 768• San Diego Creek North and Tamboree a A h �r
• San Diego Creek North: This 14.7-acre parcel is designated for 112,000 square feet of office
space in the General Plan,with a 2.5-acre reservation for a fire station. The current zoning
designation is Unclassified. The Irvine Company proposes to dedicate the property to the
City for public facilities and open space uses. Adoption of a new Planned Community
(including the Jamboree/MacArthur site) is proposed with public facilities and open space
the only allowable uses.
Permitted uses in the lower.portion of the site (Area 1)would include preservation,wetland
and habitat restoration, and ecological or agricultural research. Allowable uses proposed
0D09J
0 0
TO: Planning Commission - 16
for the upper portion of the site(Area 2)include active and passive public riecreationn biotic
gardens, ecological or agricultural research, and public facilities such as roads, utilities, •
drainage and flood control facilities, park and ride facilities, afire statjon, and fuel
modification zones.
mbor /MacArthur: This site occupies 4.7 acres and is currently designated for 50,000
square feet of office use in the General Plan. The existing zoning is Unclassified. The
Irvine Company proposes to dedicate this parcel to the City for public facility and open
space uses, and eliminate all office entitlement. The property would he included with the
San Diego Creek North site in a single Planned .Community, Allowable use. would be
similar to those described for San Diego.Creek North.
Amendment 769: Block 8W
Block 500, within Newport-Center, is a 6.4-acre site that as currently designated for 245
multi-family units in the General Plan. The proposed planged,commonity regulations would
allow a maximum of 245 apartments,condominiums,or senior citizen housing with ancillary
skilled nursing areas.and recreation facilities.
As provided by the General Plan, senior citizen housing developments exceeding -the •
established dwelling unit limit may be .approved with a finding .that .the project 4 of
particular benefit to the city and the traffic generated by the project is no greater than the
predominant use allowed in •the area. Staff suggests that a provision be added to the
proposed PC regulations requiring approval of a use permit if a senior citizen-project. The
use permit process would provide the mechanism.for staff and the PlanningCommission to
determine whether,the required findings could,be made.
Specific site development standards would be determined through the site plan review
process.
Amendment 770• Corporate Plaza West
The 12.1-acre Corporate Plaza West property in Newport Center has a General =Plan
designation for an additional •94,000 square feet of office development-on the remaining
undeveloped 9.0-acre portion of the site. The existing development consists o(21,000square
feet of office space plus landscaping on 3.1 acres. The proposed PC regulations would allow
a variety of office andcommercial uses consistent with the 94,000-square foot General-Phan
entitlement. No specific open space designation is proposed for this project. •
Some of the proposed key development standards are summarized below.
Max building height 32 feet, not to.exeeed sight,plane
Min. setbacks
Street 45 feet (Newport Center Drive)
30 feet (Coast Highway, Clubhouse Dr.) 0 0 Q 9 G
25 feet (internal streets/parking lots)
TO: Planning Commission - 17
. Mmorter$gam
This 23.9-acre property is currently zoned Unclassified, and has a General Plan designation
for an additional 68 hotel rooms. The proposed action would provide entitlement for these
additional rooms subject to approval of a use permit. A maximum of 479 hotel rooms
would be permitted, with'no specific requirement for open space.
SUGGESTED ACTION
If the Commission is prepared to take action on the proposed project, the following issues
for resolution have been identified by staff:
Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement:
1. 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?
• 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?
Castaways:
3. Shall there be an active park on Castaways?
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?
a. If yes, shall the maximum slope be 2:1 or 40
Bayview Landing:
. S. What shall be the permitted land use be 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
Block 800 - Newport Center:
6. Shall the potential senior citizen housing be subject to the review and approval of a
Use Permit?
000 7
0
TO: Planning Commission - 18
X at the conclusion of the above determinations, the Planning Commiaioit des#es to •
recommend approval of the project, findings and conditions for approval pre attacliN'as
Exhibit "A". Exhibit "W provides Findings for denial.
it on the basis of testimony received,the Commission requires additional information front
staff, the areas for additional information should be identified, along with areas fair
subsequent straw vote, and the public hearing continued to the mteating of JuIY 9, 1992,
PLANNING DEPARTbWNT
JAMS D. UMCKRR, Dhwtor
By:
Patricia L Temple
Advance Planning Manager
AttachMents .
1. Exhibit "A"
2. Exhibit V
3. Draft Circulation and Open Space Development Agreement
4. Planned Community Texts
S. Draft Environmental' Impact Report and Technical Appendices (previously
distributed)
•
00098
TO: Planning Commission - 19.
EXHIBIT "A"
. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL_
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 148
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 6
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 82
AMENDMENT NO. 763
AMENDMENT NO. 764
AMENDMENT NO. 765
AMENDMENT NO. 766
AMENDMENT NO. 767
AMENDMENT NO. 768
AMENDMENT NO. 769
AMENDMENT NO. 770
A. Environmental Impact Report No. 148
Findings.
• 1. That a Program Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project in
compliancemith 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 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.
. Mitigation Measures:
Aesthetics/Light and Glare
1. In conjunction with site plan review, the project proponent shall preparee-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
00099
TO: Planning Commission - 20.
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.
Transuortation/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. .
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.
Asir 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.
00100
TO: Planning Commission - 21.
•
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.
• 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
Department of Public Works prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.
QQiQ1
TO: Planning Commission - 22.
•
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 heigbt, location
and 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
00102
TO: Planning Commission - 23.
• Acoustical Analysis Report describing in detail the exterior noise environment and
Y P g
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 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
00103
TO: Planning Commission - 24.
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.
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, earthmovin and an related construction activities related to residential
g� Y
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 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
d0l®4-
TO: Planning Commission - 25.
• 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 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.
23. 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
00105
TO: Planning Commission - 26.
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.
24. 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 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 recreation-
al 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.
Earth Resources
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
00106
TO: PlanningCommission - 27.
• II
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 bluff failure could occur. Though the City has
established a Bluff Setback Criteria for development on the top-of-bluff (Develop-
ment 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 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 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
TO: Planning Commission - 28.
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.
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
00108
TO: Planning Commission - 29.
• 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.
• 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 wails. 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
00109
0 0
TO: Planning Commission - 30.
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 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. Recom-
mendations 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.
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 •
geotechnicai 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
001 .10
TO: Planning Commission - 31.
• 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 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. If
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 (i.e., 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.
00111
TO: Planning Commission - 32.
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 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 SUES •
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
00212
TO: Planning Commission - 35.
• 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, 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.
53. 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 recommen-
dations 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 shall be
prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90
days of completing test excavations.
00113
0 6
TO: Planning Commission - 34.
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 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.
NEWPORTEWKNOLL •
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 exists. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the
Planning Department within 90 days of completing surface collection test excavation.
00114
TO: Planning Commission - 35.
BLOCK 800
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 PIAM 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 deposits. A report
shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department
within 90 days of completing sub-surface testing.
• 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.
001t5
TO: Planning Commission - 36.
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 Depart-
ment.
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. 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 modifica-
tions,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
TO: Planning Commission - 37.
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.
B. DeveloFment Agmment 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. Trallle Study No. 82
Findines:
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 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.
00117
TO: Planning Commission - 38.
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.
D. Amendment No. 763
Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Amendment No.
763.
E. Amendment No. 764
Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Amendment No.
764.
F. Amendment No. 765 •
Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Amendment No.
765.
0011 �19
TO: Planning Commission - 39.
G. Amendment No. 766
. Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Amendment No.
766.
H. Amendment No. 767
Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Amendment No.
767.
I. Amendment No. 768
Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Amendment No.
768.
1 Amendment No. 769
Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Amendment No.
• 769.
IL Amendment No. 770
Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Amendment No.
770.
PLT. \PC�DA\DA6.F&C
t
TO: Planning Commission - 40.'
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL ,
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 6
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 82
AMENDMENT NO. 763
AMENDMENT NO. 764
AMENDMENT NO. 765
AMENDMENT NO. 766
AMENDMENT NO. 767
AMENDMENT NO. 768
AMENDMENT NO:769
AMENDMENT NO. 770
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 148
A. Development Agmement No. 6.
indin¢:
1. That the proposed development agreement is not in the best interest of the City in •
that the entitlements requested are not substantially outweighed by the public
benefits defined in the agreement.
B. Traffie Study No. 82,
Finding.
1. That a Traffic Study is not necessary for a project which is denied.
C. Amendments No. 763, 764, 765, 7% 767, 768, 769, & 770.
Findings:
1. That the adoption of the proposed development standards is premature since
insufficient details regarding the proposed development are known at this time.
2. That certain of the proposed projects will have adverse effects on wetland and
coastal sage scrub habitats. •
D. Environmental Impact Report No. 148,
Finding:
1. That an environmental document is not necessary for a project which is denied.
PL7%...\PCVA2AD\A763.770.DEN
i702 ?�
y COMMISSIONERS June 4, 1992 MINUTES
,e
O � Y•��A
CITY OF NEWPORT 'BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
A Development Agreement No 6 (Public Hearing) item No.3
Request to adopt a Development Agreement for the Circulation DA No. 6
Improvement and Open Space Agreement for eleven sites in the TS 92
City of Newport Beach. The proposal also includes the acceptance
of an environmental document. A 763
AND A 764
B. Traffic Study No 82 (Public Hearing) A 765
Request to approve a traffic study consistent with the provisions of A 766
Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for eleven A 767
sites addressed in the Circulation Improvement and Open Space
Agreement. A 76a
AND A 769
A 770
C. Amendment No 763 (Public Hearing)
Cont'd to
Request to amend the Harbor View Hills Planned Community 6/18/92
District Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow for the
construction of 48 additional dwelling units.
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 (Public Hearing)
Request to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and
Development Plan for Upper Castaways. This request would
provide for the construction of 151 dwelling units.
-13-
COMMISSIONERS 0 • June 4, 1992 MINUTES
\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
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 (Public Hearing)
Request to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and
Development Plan for Newporter North/Newporter Knoll. This
request would provide for the construction of 212 dwelling units on
Newporter North and open space on Newporter Knoll.
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 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend the North Ford Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow for the
construction of 300 additional dwelling units.
LOCATION: Property located at 3200 University Drive, on
the northeasterly corner of Jamboree Road
and University Drive South, in the North
Ford Planned Community.
ZONE: P-C
AND
-14-
COMMISSIONERS
June 4, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
G. Amendment No 767 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 37 so as to
reclassify property from the U (Unclassified) District to the P-C
District. Also requested is the adoption of Planned Community
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
H. Amendment No 768 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend portions of Districting Maps No. 44 and 66 so
as to reclassify property from the U (Unclassified) District to the
P-C (Planned Community) District. The proposal also includes a
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
-15-
s 0
COMMISSIONERS June 4, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
I Amendment No 769 (Public Marina
Request to amend the Block 800 Planned Community District
Regulations and Development Plan so as to allow the construction
of 245 dwelling units or senior citizen housing.
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
J. Amendment No 770 (Public Hearine)
Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 48 so as to
reclassify property from the O-S (Open Space) and 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 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
Drive, on the northwesterly comer 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
James Hewicker,Planning Director,requested that the subject item
be continued to the June 18, 1992, Planning Commission meeting.
-16-
June 4, 1992 MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
Notion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No.3 to the June
Ayes * * * * * 18, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
Absent
rrr
I N ITEM Discussion
Item
n 1 P1 n Amendment No. 92-2
No. 1
Request t initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General GPA 92-2
Plan as folio s:
A Castaways M in •Arequest of California Recreation Company
to amend the Lan Use Element of the Newport Beach General (A)
Plan and the Local oastal Program Land Use Plan so as to Castaways
redefine the permitted mmercial entitlement from 40,000 sq.ft. Manna
of recreational and mari commercial to a 71 slip marina with Initiated
related marina support and arking facilities.
B 2209 B_yside Drive: A request o C.L. Burnett and Steven D. (B)
Hillyard to amend the Land Use Ele nt of the Newport Beach 2209
General Plan and the Local Coastal Pro Land Use Plan so as Bayside Dr
to alter the dwelling unit allocation and olicy statements for No
Statistical Area F3 in order to allow the sub 'sion of an existing Recommends
R-1 lot into two single family building sites c istent with the tion
minimum subdivision standards of the Newport ach Municipal
Code.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
James Hewicker, Planning Director, reviewed the subject Ge ral
Plan Amendment.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding
GPA 92-2 (B), 2209 Bayside Drive, Mr. Hewicker explained that
the request is for the subject address. It was the belief of staff
when the General Plan was amended in 1988, that the City only
-17-