Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/1981COMMISSIONERS 5 0 0 x CFO L CALL Present X X i X X Absent 0 Motion Ayes Abstain Absent Motion Ayes x X Abstain Absent 0 * REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. Date: March 19, 1981 of Newport Beach Commissioner Cokas was absent. * * * EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney * * * STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: MINUTES William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary * * * APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Commissioner Allen referred to the Planning Commission Minutes of February 19, 1981, Page 5, and requested that the tape of the meeting be reviewed for the off - street parking section. (In reviewing the tape, the section for the off - street parking was found to be accurate as written). Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Allen referred to the Planning Commission Minutes.of March 5, 1981, Page 18, second paragraph and stated that the date should read November 19, 1980, rather than.1981. Motion was made Regular Planning 1981, as revised MOTION CARRIED. to approve the Minutes of the Commission Meeting of March 5, by Commissioner Allen, which * * * -1- APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES n = m CALL March 19, 1981 M / P Staff advised that the applicants for Item No. 5 - Resubdivision No. 671 (Revised), Item No. Use Permit No. 1941 (Amended), and Item No. 8 Use Permit No. 1979, have requested that these items be continued to the meeting of April 9, 1981. MINUTES Motion X Motion was made to continue Item Nos. 5, 7 and All Ayes X X X X X 8 to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 9, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, referred to Item No. 4 - Final Map Tract No. 11018 and stated that in meeting with the applicant's_ engineer, it was determined that the differences have not been .resolved and that this item would not be heard this evening. Chairman Haidinger noted that the applicant was not present. Motion X Motion was made to continue Item No. 4 - Final All Ayes X X X X Map Tract No. 11018 to the Planning Commission . • J* Meeting of April 9, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * Review of grading and silt controls in conjunc- tion with residential development in the Aero- nutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C OWNER: J. M. Peters and Company, Inc., Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker stated that at the Planning Commission Meeting of March 5, 1981, the Commission requested that this item be discussed and reviewed regarding the grading operation and silt controls of this project. He `stated that Mr. Jim Lorman, the City Grading Engineer,is present to answer the Commission's questions. He also stated that Mr. Bob Trapp, representing the J. M. Peters Company is also present. • 11'11111 -2 INDEX Item #1 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 10391 (Discussion) Continued to April 9, 1981 March 19, 1981 MINUTES H x M City of Newaort Beach INDEX Mr. Jim Lorman, City Grading Engineer, referred... to his memo to Mr. Robert Wynn, City Manager, dated March 9, 1981, which concerns the review of the erosion control procedures. Mr. Lorman stated that the original calculations were re- viewed and the basins were upgraded so that there was an approximate 63 percent increase in the size of the basins. He stated that the main concern is that of the basin located on MacArthur Boulevard. He stated that the function and de- sign of.the basin is to capture the silt and to keep it from entering the channel and the tri- butary into the Back Bay. He stated that the design criteria has been reviewed and has been determined to , satisfactory and functional: He .also stated that the contractor is required to clean out the basins as they fill, which has been done. Mr. Lorman stated that the creek area has been reviewed with the Fish and:Game Department. He . stated that it was noted that the organic material is exposed, with minor silt. He stated that they could not determine if this was due to the long term use of the channel or from the desilting basin itself. Commissioner Thomas asked if the current project has changed in terms of the number of yards graded, from the original Ford /Daon project. Mr. Lorman stated that the overall design has been for approximately one million yards. He stated that the distribution of this yardage has been broken into segments for the internal tracts. Commissioner Thomas stated that in checking with the Fish and Game.Department, there is deposition located in the creek bed culvert. Mr. Lorman stated that there is deposition located approxi- mately one -half mile downstream from the project. Commissioner Thomas stated that even though the basin has been improved three times, there is still deposition in the culvert. Mr. Lorman stated that the first basin was temporary, which • I I I ( I ( -3- COMMISSIONERS March 19, 1981 MINUTES __1 Fw CL W X C City of Newport Beach CALL 17 INDEX utilized internal basins. The second basin in- stalled riser pipe in the basin, which was con - structed to its original size. The third build up of the basin was to raise the dike area so that the equipment could excavate out the silt. Mr. Lorman explained how the deposition is formed and stated that it begins to deposit along the basin runs. He stated that the City utilizes a high trap efficiency ratio. He stated that this project has a 99 percent trap efficiency ratio. The discussion opened in connection with this item and Ms..Sue Ficker of Balboa appeared before the Commission. Ms'. Ficker stated that winter grading should not be allowed on these develop - ments. She stated that this will help to pre- serve the bay. Ms. Ficker then delivered a slide presentation to the Commission which de- picted grading on Spyglass Hill and grading on the Aeronutronic Ford site. Mr. Lorman responded to Ms. Ficker's presentation and explained the grading operations utilized on the sites. He stated that he is not concerned with the damage incurred on -site which is at the expense of the contractor, but that he is con= cerned with the silt staying on -site and pro- tecting off - site areas. Mr. Bob Trapp, representing the J. M. Peters Company stated that they are very aware of the erosion control guidelines and to date, have spent approximately $150,000 implementing same. He stated that the basins have been designed to trap the silt and keep i.t on -site. He stated that in reviewing the site downstream, they can find no evidence of silt that has come from this project. Commissioner Thomas stated that there is more than one way to solve a technical problem. He stated that a 99 percent trap rate leaves a 1 percent escape rate. He stated that 1 percent of a million cubic yards equals 10,000 cubic yards. He stated that it is presently costing three to four dollars per yard to pull the silt . out of the bay, which will cost $30,000 to 'Q CALL Motion 0 Amendment Ayes Noes Absent MMISSIONERS March 19, 1981 MINUTES S ` °-_' U R_D O x w 3 City of Newport Beach , INDEX $40,000 to accomplish. He stated that the struc- tures were either designed improperly, i.e. not large enough, or that there has been a sufficient amount of erosion that the silt will .get into the bay the next heavy rain. X Motion was made that the $25,000 grading bond be forfeited and that the money be placed in a fund to clean the bay. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this would not be within the Commission's juris- diction to do so. Commissioner Thomas suggested that this be taken as an advisory vote. He stated that the advice and consent rule should be utilized to recommend that the City Council consider revoking the bond and placing the money in the fund which is being used to dredge Newport Back Bay. Commissioner McLaughlin s.upport this motion, as is .making an effort to that a 99 percent.tr.ap Thomas stated that the not satisfactory to the stated that she will not the J. M. Peters Company clean this up. She state rate is good. Commission 1 percent escape rate is Dover Shores residents. Commissioner Allen stated that she will be ab- staining from the vote, on the basis that she needs to further review the original EIR of this project. Commissioner Thomas stated that he would be agreeable to a continuance. He also stated that public funds should not be utilized year after year, to clean this silt from the bay. X ' Amendment to the motion was made to continue X X this discussion on the Tentative Map of Tract No. 10391 to the meeting of April 9, 1981, * which AMENDMENT CARRIED. * * * -5- x w g o x r1 U n U March 19, 1981 In Beach Proposed amendments to the Land Use, Resi- dential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND Request to consider a Traffic Study for a pro- posed expansion of the existing Marriott Hotel complex. MINUTES LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 75 -34 (Resubdivision No. 497) located at 900 Newport Center Drive, on the southwesterly corner of New- port Center Drive and Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center. ZONES: C -O -H, 0 -S APPLICANT: Marriott Hotel, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Agenda Item Nos. 2 and 3 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. Planning Director Hewicker referred.to the staff report and presented the background information leading up to the requested General Plan Amend- ment 80 -3 (GPA 80 -3). He stated that the GPA 80 -3 proposal will restore all of the developmen deleted as a result of GPA 79 -1 and a portion of the development deleted under GPA 78 -2. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Page l of the staff report for the general plan amendment, project descriptiom,and stated that there are approximately 75 acres.in Newport Center which have not been developed, rather than 60 vacant acres. He stated that the non - committed square footage has not been created by the City of INDEX Item #2 3ENERAL PLAN WEVOME BO-3 on AND -m. T. CL Fig CD R U March 19, 1981 of Newport Beach MINUTES Newport Beach. He.stated that GPA 79 -1 pl.aced a lid on the development of Newport Center and that it was at the discretion of The Irvine Com- pany as to how the square footage should be distributed. He stated that when this general plan amendment was originally proposed it was a request by the Marriott Hotel to add 165.hotel rooms to their existing hotel. He added that the staff report indicates concerns regarding The Irvine Company's proposal for Newport Center. These concerns relate to proposed land uses, mixes of land uses and phasing aspects. Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, referred to the staff report and summarized the environmental impacts which have been identified in the EIR, which included water resources, housing, airport considerations, traffic and circulation, air quality and energy. He added that in accordance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act, it will be necessary to find "Overriding Considerations" in order to approve the proposed General Plan Amendment. . Planning Director Hewicker referred to a.letter from Mr. Frank Rhodes of Causey. and. Rhodes, dated March 18, 1981. He stated that the request by Mr. Rhodes for the 80,000 square foot .medical building is strictly an internal matter. between Tie Irvine Company and the tenant. C mmissioner Beek referred to the two fiscal impact reports and stated that the costs of sijpplying,housing, police and fire services and schools for the employees who will be employed by this project, are not taken into account. Mr. Talarico stated that the cost revenue analysi has been performed in accordance with the City of N wport Beach's policy. He stated that the s stem does not account for these type of ex- p nses outside of the City of.Newport Beach. He s ated that the system does account for all City s rvices such as police, fire and library ser- vices, but not for school services. -7- INDEX COMMISSIONERS1 March 19, 1981 MINUTES 7 N <D N 3 CALL of Newport Beach INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Talarico stated that there has been no analysis done in terms of the costs related to where the.employees reside and serving those. developments with public services. Commissioner Beek stated that these costs are not reflected in the fiscal impact reports. Mr. Talarico con- curred and stated that in many cases the employee will reside outside of the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner Allen compared Figure A of the traffic consultant's report with Pages 52 and 53 of the EIR and asked what the traffic increases will be without the transportation corridor. Mr. Wes Pringle of Weston Pringle and Associates, the City's Traffic Consultant, stated 't that the distribution utilized in the analysis is not necessarily the distribution used.in the City's traffic model. He stated that the distribution may vary because of the time frames used for ultimate build out of the traffic circulation system and the peak hour analysis. • Commissioner Thomas asked why the same distribu- tion was not utilized. Mr. Pringle stated that the model was utilized to provide an indication of the daily traffic impact on a large, area wide basis, which represents a horizon year build -out period. He stated that the ICU peak hour analysi was then used to more precisely evaluate the im- pacts for a closer time frame. Commissioner Allen stated that one report indi- cates that the traffic on Pacific Coast Hi -ghway will increase by 800 cars a day, and another set of data indicates that the traffic will increase by 2,002 cars a day. Mr. Pringle stated that these reports utilize different time frames with different conditions. Commissioner Allen referred to Figure A of the Addendum which is the model run without the transportation corridor, and Page 53 of the EIR which includes the analysis of the corridor. Mr. Pringle referred to Figure A and Page 52 of IIIIIIII _8 COMMISSIONERS1 March 19, 1981 MINUTES K 0W � d m Beach IPLL CALL I 11 I Jill I INDEX the EIR and stated that these two should be com- pared, as they utilize the existing General Plan. He stated that a run was not made with the pro- posed general plan without the corridor. Commissioner Allen stated that it is not known how much worse the traffic will be when the additional cars are added without the corridor. Mr. Talarico stated that there is a problem even under the existing General Plan, if the corridor is not in place in the horizon year. Commissioner Allen referred to Page 9 of the comments and responses and stated that she had requested a special traffic generation for the commercial uses proposed for Newport Village, based upon the assumption that there is a great deal of difference in the traffic generated by a regional shopping center, Mr. Pringle stated that they did not feel that the retail uses in Newport Village would be similar to a neighbor- hood or community /commercial use which has a • much higher trip generation rate than a regional center. He stated that once the exact uses are defined, a more precise evaluation will be made. Commissioner Allen stated that the commercial use in Newport Village are a very separate item and should be evaluated closely with regard to the traffic. generation. Commissioner Thomas asked.for further clarifica- tion regarding the Statement of'Overriding Con- siderations for water quality. Mr." Ta.larico stated that significant adverse.environmental impacts have been.identified due to this project. He stated that a Statement of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required in the final certification of the environmental document and.approval of this project by the City Council. Commissioner Thomas referred to the responses relating to the drainage lake in Newport Center and asked for.a mo.re definitive.answer. Mr. Talarico stated that concepts of a lake in the Newport Village area have been discussed. How- 0 11111111 -9- March 19, 1981 ?MINUTES w Citv of Newport Beach INDEX ever, he stated that when the planned community district or a tentative tract map of the area is reviewed, all alternatives can then be evaluated, rather than committing it at the general plan level. Commissioner Thomas stated that perhaps this should be evaluated more closely in the EIR at the general plan level in order to mitigate this unavoidable impact. He stated that drainage lakes are common techniques utilized in areas where run -off is a problem, particularly in pre - venting run -off from parking lots from entering the bay.. Commissioner Beek suggested that this would be appropriate as an alternative for the project and should be addressed and evaluated in the EIR. Commissioner Thomas concurred. Planning Director Hewicker stated that he con- curred with Mr. Talarico's.statements, in that if there were to be a drainage facility or a • lake in Newport Village, it could be identified as an alternative in the planned community zoning development plans, but not specifically in the general plan. Commissioner Thomas stated that this may be a small portion of Newport Village, but stated that Newport Center will have to handle a lot of drainage from a large amount of paved surfaces. Chairman Haidi`nger requested a more definitive answer from the staff on this issue at the.next meeting. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr.. Dick Cannon, representing The Irvine Company,. appeared before the Commis- sion. He stated that Mr. Ron Hendrickson, Director of Planning and Design, is present to answer any questions. He stated that all of the consultants who have worked on this project are also present. Mr. Cannon stated that they are proud of Newport Beach and Newport Center. He stated that the community will accrue many • 11111111 -lD- COMMISSIONERS1 March 19, 1981 MINUTES x 1 w c cps X 55 `Y. N r ' Z t Beach INDEX benefits from this approval. He also stated that they are proposing to implement significant traffic mitigation measures. Mr. Ron Hendrickson, representing The Irvine Company, presented an aerial photograph of the sites which are being proposed for additional development in Newport Center. He stated that Block 600 will include two 12 -story office buildings for a total of approximately 450,000 square feet, a parking structure and a 400 room world - class luxury hotel. He stated that the hotel. will be garden orientated and will not contain convention facilities. He stated that they are proposing garden office buildings. of approximately 100,000 square feet for the easterl side of Newport Center. Mr. Hendrickson stated that Newport Village is proposing to include a site for the Orange County Transit District, 150,000 square feet of office • development and 20,000,square feet of commercial/ retail development. He stated that the retail area proposes to include gourmet speciality uses. He also stated that savings and loan offices, banks and two restaurants are being proposed for the site. Mr. Hendrickson stated that they are requesting 100,000 square feet of garden offices on the Corporate Plaza West site, which will compliment the existing Corporate Plaza development on the east side of Newport Center Drive. He also stated that 100,000 sq. ft. of garden offices are being proposed on the island site being created by the bypass and extension of Back Bay. Drive. Mr: Cannon of The Irvine Company referred to the study performed by Williams- Kuebelbeck. and Asso= ciates, and reviewed the economic and fiscal benefits resulting from Newport Center and the proposed hotel and office development. He state that since 1975, Fashion Island has consistently • i 111 llll - "- n u March 19, 1981 MINUTES �x m, 1 D UI 7 Citv of Newport Beach accounted for 25 percent of total retail sales in Newport Beach. He stated that in 1979, the Newport Center complex as a whole generated 28 percent of all Newport Beach taxable retail sales. He then addressed the economic benefits of visitor.expenditures of the Marriott Hotel and the volume of retail sales generated by Newport.Center employees.. He stated that it is significant that 40 percent of the actual sales volume was contributed by Newport Beach residents He stated that Newport Center generated an esti- mated $2,908,700 in revenues to the City of Newport Beach in 1980. He then discussed the economic benefits of Newport Center from the existing, proposed and committed developments. Mr. Cannon stated that adverse traffic impacts could occur without mitigation measures. He stated that they propose to implement a mitiga- tion program. First, he stated that they are proposing a roadway improvement program which will complete the City's circulation system on the east side of the Upper Bay. He then explain- ed the roadway improvements which accompany the completion of Newport Center, which will be paid for in their entirety by The Irvine Company. He stated that completion of these roadway improve - ments will cost The Irvine Company approximately 8.2 million dollars. He added, that under the current municipal and economical constraints, it is highly unlikely that these improvements would be funded and implemented with municipal revenues. He stated that in addition; The Irvine Company will construct the 72 million dollar Pelican Hills Road connection, as a part of Phase I of the Irvine Coast development. He stated that this inland connection will create a significant bypass of Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Mr. Cannon stated that the second element of the traffic mitigation program is to implement a transportation management plan for all of Newport Center, for existing and future devel- opment, in order to substantially reduce peak -12- INDEX ,MISSIONERS March 19 ,, 1981 MINUTES �x City of Newport Beach INDEX hour traffic. He stated that it is projected . that this transportation management plan will actually reduce peak hour trips to approximately 9,700 which is approximately 20 percent less than reflected in the current General Plan. He stated that a full- time.Transportation Manager for Newport Center will coordinate all elements of the plan. He stated that key elements of the plan will include, car pooling and van pooling, staggered work hours and flex .time,-bus pass subsidies and.service, preferential parking, and providing a fare free bus zone in Newport Center for the employees. He stated that.The Irvine Company is committed in successfully .implemen- ting this program, as the traffic impacts can be mitigated. Mr. Cannon stated that an extensive study is being compiled to determine the effects that this request may have on the operations at John Wayne Airport. He stated that this analysis will show that of the 3,250 people who leave John Wayne Airport everyday, 82 leave from the existing Newport Center development, and only 41 will originate from the proposed.completion plan for Newport Center. Mr. Cannon.stated that they are also concerned with the residential character of Newport Beach and that approval of this plan will not detract from the community. He stated that of the 8,000 acres of land comprising Newport Beach, less than one percent is represented by these 73 vacant commercial areas in Newport Center. He stated that today, Newport Beach is 92 percent completed and is considered one of the finest resi- dential Citys' in this nation. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. 0 11111111 -13 s March 19, 1981 In Beach MINUTES ML CALL I III Jill I INDEX Mr. Cannon clarified that the 12 million dollar Pelican Hills Road connection is not a portion of the Newport Center proposal, but:is within the development phasing plans.of the Irvine Coast development. Mr. Gary Taylor, representing ATE Management and Service Company, consultant to The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission:: Mr: Taylor state that a substantial increase of persons entering an area.does not necessarily mean a substantial number of vehicles entering an area. He referred to the Transportation Management Program for Newport Center which has been prepared by ATE. He stated that the program reflects a workable solution in controlling traffic for an expanded Newport Center. He.stated that this program will control traffic and keep the number :of vehicles at peak hours for Newport Center at their present levels. • Mr. Taylor explained to the Commission ride sharing programs, car pooling and van pooling programs which have been successfully imple- mented by other major employment areas across the country. He stated that by establishing a Tra.nsportation Coordinator and the development of an effective marketing program, along with a car pool, van pool and bus pass program, the peak hour traffic volumes in and around Newport Center may not only be kept at their present levels; but can even substantially reduce these levels. He stated that they have also encourage staggered work hours and flex time for the employees. Mr. Taylor stated that in conjunction with the ATE Study, a survey was conducted of current Newport Center employees. The survey indicated an overwhelming response and interest in the potential ride sharing program suggested for Newport Center. He also stated that the major employers of Newport Center have expressed their interest and some have indicated that they may participate in the financing of such a program. 0 1111111! 1 11 1 -14- 7 March 19, 1981 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Mr. Bill Ficker, the architect for the Marriott Hotel project, appeared before the Commissi.on. Mr. Ficker stated that in order to save time this evening, he would distribute to the Com- mission the written Marriott Hotel Narrative, dated March 18, 1981, rather than delivering his verbal presentation. He.stated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Com- mission may have. Chairman Haidinger asked for public testimony at this time, and the following persons-appeared before the Commission: Mr. Fred Bice, resident of Harbor View Hills, stated he is concerned with the view area of Harbor View Hills. Mr. Bice explained the height limit and site line that was established.with The Irvine Company back in 1965 for Fashion Island, which was to be limited to 35 feet above grade. He stated that any development that takes place southerly of the site line should be limited to 35 feet. He stated that this was not addressed in.the Newport Village development. Mr. Jim Warren, resident of the Broadmoor Section in Corona del Mar, stated that he is also con- cerned with the view, both in the daytime and nighttime. He stated that.his view at night, is that of Corporate Plaza, which includes lighted signs. He also expressed his concern of the growing traffic problems. He added that the home owners must be considered first in this area. Mr. J. R. Blakemore, resident of Harbor View Hills, stated that the proposed Newport Village is located directly across the street from resi- dential areas and close to the Corona del Mar downtown shopping area. He stated that.a buffer should be provided in this area. He stated that the residents of this area are opposed to New- port Village because shopping centers are a high intensity use on nights and weekends, generating • 11111111 -15- March 19, 1981 MINUTES d. o WE> N %K .y. City of Newr)ort Beach INDEX more noise, fumes, traffic and nighttime lighting He stated that there are other locations in New - port Center which Newport Village could be placed so as to not adversely impact residential areas. He suggested that Corporate Plaza type office buildings be developed at this location, and the Newport Village site be moved to the west side of Newport Center Drive, so as to not adversely impact the residential area. Ms. Jean Morris, Vice- President of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association stated that the residents are concerned —with the preserva- tion of the quality of their homes and neighbor - hoods, free from the increased impacts of tourist traffic, transients, and the bay and ocean views. She suggested that the Newport Village site be constructed with low, garden- type'offiee building which would be more consistent with the estab- lished residential development. She.questioned how the tax dollars generated by this project • can .contain the airport traffic and fight the existing traffic problems. She then stated that the three acres designated for the bus terminal is not an appropriate site.for such a use. She suggested that The Irvine Company arrange a trade with the Orange County Transit District for a more practical, viable bus site. She stated that the proposed bus terminal will provide public restrooms which are difficult.for the police-to control and invites transients into the neighborhood. She also stated that they are requesting that Crown Drive not be opened from its present dead end at MacArthur Boulevard. Ms. Pat Hollander of 213 Via Dijon stated that a rise in crime will result from this project. She stated that there has been an omission of the:crime statistics for this general plan amend- ment. She referred to the airport . expansion and stated that the crime rate increases under flight patterns. She stated that the problems of the airport expansion will be compounded by this re- quest.for Newport Center. She stated that crime • 1 111 1111 -16- March 19, 1981 MINUTES ��pp D . 7c I 3 Citv of Newport Beach INDEX in the area is directly related to the commercial nature of Newport Center, as stated in an attach- ment to this request. Ms. Hollander then re- ferred to the mitigation measures established for security and stated that these measures are for the security of the project, not for the resi- dents of the area. She stated that the Police Department is already over burdened and over- extended and urged the Commission to consider these issues. Ms. Dee Masters, representing the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce and Business Property Associ- ation, stated that the removal of curb side parking will destroy the business community in Corona del Mar. She stated that the additional traffic generated by this project will further bisect the community. She questioned where the replacement parking will be provided and who will financially. provide same. She stated that appro- val of this plan without a condition that the • alternate routes be in place before construction begins, will destroy the community. She recom- mended that Pelican Hills Road and the alternate routes be in place before construction commences on this project. Mr. Mike Gering, representing the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, stated that they en- dorse approval of this amendment as they recog- nize the contribution of Newport Center to the community, both in services and revenue. Mr. Gering read to the Commission, the Chamber's Policy Statement passed by the Board of Directors on February 23, 1981, urging approval of this amendment. He stated that the Chamber further recognizes the the Traffic Circulation Element needs to be completed as soon as possible: He stated that the traffic situation will be-im- proved by the road improvements.as proposed by The Irvine Company for this project, the Pelican Hills Road completion and the establishment of.a transportation manager. He stated that it would be negligible not to find that the fiscal impact -17- 9 n = m � 7 yi N 7C (A 3 • March 19, 1981 of Newr)ort Beach MINUTES of this project would be an overriding consi- deration. He also stated that this request is not unreasonable, as the applicant.is requesting substantially less. than what was originally permitted. Commissioner Beek stated that the original plan in concept for the build -out of Newport Center included construction of a coastal freeway and the Corona del Mar Freeway to handle the traffic. Commissioner Thomas referred to the cost revenue analysis and stated that the 880,000 square feet wi1l bring a net of $20,000 a year to the City which equals .04 cents per square foot in revenue. Ms. Leonore Penfil, representing the Newport Center Association, stated that-she is represent ing 800 businesses and 11,000 employees in New- port Center. She clarified that they are an independent association and are not connected with The Irvine Company. She stated that they overwhelmingly.su.pport the comp9etion of Newport Center as stated in the general plan amendment, as the economic health and.well -being of Newport Beach -is tied very closely with Newport Center. She stated that the employees, visitors.and residents of Newport Beach use this center on a daily basis for their livelihood, goods and services. She also stated that she is a resi- dent of the.Big Canyon area and that many other residents of.Big Canyon support- the completion of Newport Center. Ms. Ida Williams of 900 Sea Lane in Corona del Mar, stated that she objects to the bus terminal in Newport Center. She stated that these buses will add to the existing congestion in the area and to the congestion at the airport. She state that-the residents of the area will_ be subjected to excessive noise and air pollution which will affect the health of the residents. S.he.stated that residential properties adjacent to or near the bus terminal will decrease in value. She a" INDEX x m • March 19, 1981 City of MINUTES stated that.crime will increase and there will be a need for added police services. She added that this project will bring major urban problems to the community and urged the Commission to not support the development of a bus terminal within the City. Ms. Sally Corngold stated that this intensifica- tion of commercial development at Newport Center will have a significant effect upon the airport growth. She stated that while the proposed 400 room luxury hotel may not have convention faci- lities, the Marriott Hotel located across the street contains convention facilities. She added that the Marriott Hotel management admits to bein dependent upon convention business. She stated that these additional businessmen and convention- eers will arrive in Newport Beach thru the John Wayne Airport. She stated that the City must say "'no" to revenue producing projects of this nature in the interest of the residents. She stated that the airport fight will not be .credible, when hotels of this nature continue to be approved. She stated that approval of this project will create an automatic lobby for expansion of the airport. She stated that she chose to live in Newport Beach because of its residential quality and rural atmosphere of the Back Bay area. She urged the Commission to not approve any commer- cial development in Newport Center until a new airport site is found and development on same has begun. Mr. Barry Allen of Corona del Mar, suggested that in the event the bus terminal is to be built, it should be.located in Block 600. He stated that Block 600 is near the high rise office buildings which will be utilizing the bus services the most. He requested that Harbor Vie Hills.Drive and Crown Drive be dead -ended at MacArthur Boulevard. He questioned the need for additional gourmet restaurants and stated that there are ample existing gourmet restaurants in this area. He referred to The Irvine Company's -19- INDEX COM MISSICNNERS March 19, 1981 MINUTES �x R O W W City of Newport Beach CALL INDEX cost and income benefit analysis and suggested that perhaps a contract be entered into with The Irvine Company and a bond be required for these particular financial agreements. In the event that these cost benefits are not produced by this project, The Irvine Company would then be re-, quired to pay the difference to the City. He then referred to the transportation consultants' comments on ride sharing and stated that there has been no great increase in the interest for a ride sharing program. He suggested that a transportation consultant needs to be hired now, in order to begin eliminating trips in Newport Center before the project is begun.. He urged. the Commission to give serious consideration to these issues. He added that a large number of residents, approximately 30 to 40, are present at tonight's meeting from the Harbor View Hills Homeowner's..Association. Mrs. Bathum, representing the Santa Ana Heights • Homeowner's Association stated that The Irvine Company will not be able to mitigate the plane noise, ground traffic or smog. She stated that off -peak traffic hours will become peak hours. She stated that human value should not have to be compared with economic value. She recommended that this not be approved until there has been another site found for the airport. Ms..Jeanine Freedman, a member of the Board of Directors for the Newport Center Association, read to the Commission a statement passed by the Association which supports approval of the general plan amendment. She stated that the continued economic health and viability of the entire City.is dependent upon the completion of Newport Center. She added that Newport Center plays a vital role in providing essential ser- vices to the residents and visitors of Newport Beach. Ms. Sue Ficker of Balboa stated that her presen- tation is the culmination of 20 years of involve- ment in community affairs. She stated that she 0 IIIIIIII 11 . -20- March 19, 1981 MINUTES �m n j O D 3 y" : City of Newport Beach INDEX has always been concerned with the cumulative effects of The Irvine Company`s plans. She stated that historically, The Irvine Company has been supported by the Chamber of Commerce. She stated that these are not the people who are concerned with police protection, fire service and schools. Ms. Ficker presented posters to the Commission which depicted and analyzed the adverse impacts of this general plan amendment to specific areas of the community. She stated that the EIR for the Corporate Plaza Planned Community identified air quality problems for Newport Center and that this project will com- pound these-problems. She also stated that the idea of a holding lake needs to be seriously considered. Mr: William Tate Markas of "1115 White Sails Way in Corona del Mar, stated that he is con - cerned with the site line and the view, for the residents of Harbor View Hills. He also stated that he is concerned with the odors that seem to be generated by restaurant uses. He.stated that perhaps the corporate concept should be utilized in the Newport Village area and that Newport Village be moved to a more appropriate location, away from the residential uses. Mr. Dennis Sands of 637 St. James Road in Newport Heights stated that Pelican Hills Road will lead to nowhere, as there is no hook -up for it at the present time. He stated that there have been many.promises in the past and that this develop- ment can not be based on estimated figures alone. Ms. Barbara.Young, resident of 2611 Vista Drive in Bayshores, stated that the impacts on traffic must be considered on this project. She recom- mended that prior to any development being completed, the roads must be completed. Mr..Clark Hayes, resident of 1106 Goldenrod in Harbor View Hills, stated. that The Irvine Company does not want to make the construction of Pelican Hills Road a condition to the build -out of 0 11111111 -21- 3 o W D u�i x w March 19, 1981 Z t Beach MINUTES INDEX Newport Center. He stated that this should be made a condition of this project as a traffic mitigation measure. Mr. John Ehretz of 1020 Sea Lane in.Corona del Mar, referred to his letter dated March 17, 1981 and stated that the Newport Village development will result in bay and harbor view obstructions to Harbor View Hills properties. He urged the Commission to uphold its commitment for view protection and enhancement. Ms. Judy Cooper, resident of 1220 Outrigger Drive in Corona.del Mar, stated that she is a member of the Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee (CEQAC). She referred to CEQAC's lette to the Commission.relating to their review of the EIR. She pointed out that if this general plan amendment is approved by the City, there will be many portions of the project which will no longer.be subject to discretionary review by . the City. She emphasized that the City should not give up their ability to review these projects as these maybe potential impacts which have not been examined at this point. She also stated that The Irvine Company should make a firm commit ment by providing the roads to handle the traffic that this project will be generating. She stated that this is a moral obligation of The Irvine Company. Ms. Jean Watt, representing Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) re €erred to =the model of the project, and stated, that the plan -must . also address the issues of the additiona=l ears- arid: where to park them, addi:tionel.traff-ic on -the new.bri.dg.e, bicycles, pedestrian -s, smog, airplanes and noise, She stated that the requirements of the traffic phasing plan is helpful, but questioned how long and what the assurances are that The Irvine Company will pay for the traffic manager. She asked who was ultimately responsible for the traffic manager. She also questioned how the 8 million dollars worth of roadway improvements was to be handled by The Irvine Company and who • 11111111 -22- March 19,.1981 w 'n m " m - City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX was to be responsible for the construction of these improvements. She stated that there will be impacts created by this project to the various transportation corridors in other Orange County cities. She then distributed to the Commission copies of a Resolution passed by SPON relating to The Irvine Company development and the ex- pansion of the airport. She stated:that no development must be allowed beyond the current General Plan for Newport Center until a long range airport site is secured and until total financing of public ground transportation systems in Orange County is secured. Mr. John Reeder of Balboa Island stated that the City can not fight expansion of the.airport, if they allow this proposed expansion to Newport Center. Moon Motion was made to continue the public hearing Alt"Ayes X * X X on General Plan Amendment 80 -3 to the next Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1981, from.7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., which MOTION CARRIED. Motion Motion was made to continue the public hearing All Ayes X XX * X tj on the Traffic Study to the next Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1981, from 7:30 p.m, to 9:30 p.m., which MOTION CARRIED. * * * Agenda Item Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 were continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1981. * * * M•ion All Ayes 0 MISSIONERS X X 0 March 19, 1981 In Beach Request to establish a single parcel of land where two lots presently exist so as to allow the remodel of an existing service station located in the C -1 District. . MINUTES LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2 of Block "T ", Tract No. 323, located at 3400 East Coast Highway on the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Marigold Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: J & M Oil Company, Inc., Los Angeles OWNER: Gary J. Gerber, Los Angeles ENGINEER: Joseph C. Moore, San Dimas The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. William MacLeod, representing J & M Oil Company, appeared before the Commission and stated that they are in concurrence with the staff report. Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 680 subject to the findings and conditions as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinance of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no Problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That all improvements be constructed as re -. quired by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 2. That all Conditions of Approval of Use Permit No. 1970 be fulfilled. -24- INDEX PPROVED COMMISSIONERS March 19, 1981 MINUTES 5 1 N City of New ort Beach L CALL INDEX Request to construct a single family dwelling Item #9 which exceeds the allowable building area of two times the buildable area of the site. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to allow a Bay Window to encroach 1 ± foot VARIANCE into the required 3 foot side yard setback. . NO. 1085 LOCATION: Lot 19, Block 10 of East Newport Tract, located at 520 West Ocean Front on the northerly side of DENIED West Ocean Front, between Sixth VARIANCE; Street and Island Avenue. APPROVED ZONE: R -1 M � FICA- TION APPLICANT: Brion S. Jeannette, Newport Beach OWNER: Dan Wiseman, Corona del Mar The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect for • the project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Jeannette stated that they are requesting to ex- ceed the allowable buildable area by 409 feet in order to take four cars off of the street. He stated that taking cars off of the street on the Peninsula is an important issue. He stated that the modification for the bay window encroachment is minor in nature. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Jeannette stated that the applicant is desirous of a four -car enclosed gara.ge, rather than a two -car garage with two open parking spaces in the side yard setback area. Mr. Jeannette stated that subterranean parking will allow for more liveable space on the ground floor. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director +lewicker stated that the enclosed garage is charged against the floor area ratio of the project. He stated that in order for it not to be charged against the floor • 11111111 -25 March 19, 1981 K CD �x 7C W9 V! City of Newport Beach � � N MINUTES INDEX area ratio, it would have to be left open on two sides. Mr. Jeannette stated that.the applicant has no intention in using the garage area as liveable space, but rather to park his four small cars in an enclosed area. Chairman Hai:di.nger.asked for Mr. Jeannette's comments on the use of a subterranean garage. Mr'. 'Jeannette stated that the slope will be crowned in order to prevent the cars from bottom- ing out. He also stated that a dual system will be used.for the sump pump.' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Jeannette stated that the total inside garage width will be approximately 22 1/2 feet wide. Commissioner Beek stated that by redesign- ing the structure so as to provide two partially open parking spaces along a side yard, would eliminate approximately 200 square feet from the • 409 square feet that the project exceeds the buildable area. Mr. Jeannette stated that the 5 feet by 40 feet area eliminated from the side yard creates structural problems., as the columns will still be.required. Commissioner Balalis.stated that people should not be penalized for wanting to provide addi- tional parking, whether they are utilizing a carport or a garage. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the space is to be enclosed, there is a chance that it may be used for living area. He stated that a.carport' open on at least two sides will provide the incentive to park there, as opposed to an enclosed garage. Commissioner,Beek stated that the buildable area standard is to prevent buildings which are too big and bulky, and to keep the ultimate total . size of the house down. Chairman Haidinger asked for the staff's comments on subterranean garages. Planning Director Hewicker stated that subterranean garages have presented problems in the past because the pumps • have failed and the garages have flooded, and -26- March 19, 1981 MINUTES J� IA C y City of Newport Beach L CALL the cars can get hung -up on the approaches. Commissioner Balalis stated that he was not in total concurrence with the regulations pertaining to this item and made the following mo'tion: Motion X Motion was made to grant approval of Variance No. 1085. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she could not support the motion because she felt that the hardships had not been proven. Ayes X Motion by Commissioner Balalis for approval of Noes X X X X the variance was now voted.on, which MOTION Abstain X FAILED. .Absent Commissioner Balalis asked if the staff was con- cerned with setting a precedent for subterranean garages. Planning Director Hewi °cker stated that there are many subterranean garages,'but that • this request happens to exceed two times the buildable area, which includes a subterranean. garage. Motion X Motion was made for denial of Variance No. 1085 All Ayes X X X X and approval of the modification request with. the findings and condition of Exhibit "A" as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS.'•. That there are ho exceptional or extraordinar circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application as it pertains to the provisions of allowable building area, which c'ircumstanees and con- ditions do not generally apply to land, buildings, and /or uses in the same district. 2. That the granting of a variance to the allowable building area is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant in that the 11111111 -27- INDEX • d Mao (m 7C'W 7 • • March 19, 1981 W t Beach MINUTES lot area does not restrict the ability to design an.acceptable living space in this particular case. 3. That the proposed 1`± Bay Window encroachment into the west side yard setback area is minor in nature, and is located adjacent to an unimproved alley. 4. That the propo ed Bay Window encroachment into the required 3 foot side yard setback will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the nei.gh borhood of such proposed use or be detrimenta or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborho d or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed en- croachment is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. That the.establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use of the property with the proposed structure exceeding the allow- able buildable area will, under the circum- stances of the particular case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITION:. 1. That the proposed Bay Window on the first floor of the structure shall be permitted to encroach one foot into the required west side yard setback: MP8le INDEX a n D March 19, 1981 Z t Beach ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Reconsideration of Amendment No. 558 MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker presented background information on this item. He stated that at the March 9, 1981 City Council meeting,'the City Council referred this item back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration. He stated that the actual effect of the Amendment would be an increase in permitted development, from 1000,000 square feet to 102,110 square feet. He also stated that the proposed project traffic will still be less than 30 percent of the total p.m. trips of the existing zoning. Mr. Byron Pinker, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission to answer any questions. Commissioner Beek stated that he did not have adequate time to review this matter, due to the lengthy agenda of tonight's meeting, and there- fore will be abstaining from a vote. Commissioner Thomas concurred. Motion X Motion was made to forward Amendment No. 558 to Ayes X X X the City Council with the recommendation from Abstain X X X the Planning Commission that the increase in the Absent k permitted development will not substantially impact the project, which MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:20 p.m. George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach IIIIII11 -29- INDEX DDITIONAL