Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/1986COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers c o n TIME: 7:30 p.m. z c c a m DATE: March 20, 1986 z m a m z go I z a Z p= r City of Newport Beach a ROLL CALL INDEX Present x x x x x 1 21 All Planning Commissioners Present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert T. Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of March 6, 1986:* Chairman Person and staff suggested that on page 30, paragraph 3, lines 4 and 5 of the subject Minutes, be clarified to state that the intent was that the designation "P" only be removed from the McFadden Square area; therefore, the paragraph would read as follows: "Chairman Person advised that the straw vote reflects the removal of the "P" designation in reference to any location of the McFadden Square Parking Structure from any map within the Specific Area Motion x Plan". Motion was made to approve the amended March 6, All Ayes 1986, Planning Commission Minutes. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * * * Request for Continuances: Minutes of March 6, 1986 Request fo Continuanc James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that The Irvine Company has requested that Item No. 1, Exception Permit No. 21 be Removed from Calendar; that the applicant, Edgewater Place, has requested that Item No. 5, Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) and the Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 1986; that the applicant, Plymouth Congregational Church, has no Minutes of March 6, 1986 Request fo Continuanc nnrni »�UNtK!) to permit the installation of two special directional signs in the common parking area of Island, which exceed 6 sq.ft. in area and EP .No. 2. March 20, 1986 MINUTES X C C o � Removed tenants. f y a v = Calendar p Z c m > ' m D m Z c= w o r o o a= m a T m I City of Newport Beach INDEX objections to Item No. 6, Use Permit No. 2055 (Amended), being continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 1986, as requested by adjoining residents. Motion Motion was made to remove Item No. 1, Exception Permit All Ayes No. 21 from calendar, and to continue Item No. 5 and Item No. 6, to the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Exception Permit No. 21 (Discussion) Iltem No.l Request purpose Fashion to permit the installation of two special directional signs in the common parking area of Island, which exceed 6 sq.ft. in area and EP .No. 2. contain logos and names of individual commercial Removed tenants. From Calendar • LOCATION: Lot 21, Tract No. 6019, located at 24 Fashion Island, on the westerly side of Newport Center Drive, near the inter- section of Santa Rosa Drive and Newport Center Drive, in Fashion Island. ZONE: C -0 -H APPLICANT: The Irvine Retail Property Co., Long Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Motion Motion was made to remove Item No. 1, Exception Permit All Ayes No. 21, from the calendar. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. Use Permit No. 3192 (Public Hearing) Item N Request to permit the construction of a two unit UP 3192 residential condominium with related garages on pro- perty located in the R -4 District. 71111111� -2- March 20, 1986, C 0 C o F y 9 a v r v Z m C T D T 2 M 2 a= r m City f Newport Beach c= N o >oai Y p B. Resubdivision No. 823 (Public Hearing)' Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes. LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 18, Section B, Newport Beach Tract, located at 1806 West Ocean Front, on the northerly side of West Ocean Front, between 18th Street and 19th Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -4 APPLICANT: Todd Schooler and Associates, Newport Beach OWNERS: John and Barbara Roy, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Ron Meidema, Costa Mesa • The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Todd Schooler, 503 32nd Street, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schooler advised that the applications, as proposed, decreased the density of the subject site from three dwelling units to a two unit condominium and increased the parking to four parking spaces. Mr. Schooler advised that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion ( ( I I I Ix I I The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3192 and Resubdivision No. 823, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Chairman Person cited that he would support the motion, inasmuch as the proposed condominium will be aesthetically appealing to the Central Balboa area. All Ayes I I I I I I Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3192 and Resubdivision No. 823. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3192 FINDINGS: . 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. -3- MINUTES INDEX R82 3 Approved COMMISSIONERS 3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided for the residential condominium development. 4. That the project will comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of ap- proval. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3192 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the . neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further, that the modification to permit a bay window and two masonry pilasters to encroach into the required 18 foot front yard setback is consis- tent with the intent and purpose of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 823 shall be fulfilled. 3. That no pump discharges be allowed into the .alley. 4. That the garage grades be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit at all times. 6. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised • . within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 10 MINUTES March 20, 1986 A L... c o 9 9 = z c v m > y y m m z C z Z a= w o i 0 Z 0 m City of Newport Beach a= a 2. The project is consistent with the 'adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided for the residential condominium development. 4. That the project will comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of ap- proval. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3192 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the . neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further, that the modification to permit a bay window and two masonry pilasters to encroach into the required 18 foot front yard setback is consis- tent with the intent and purpose of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 823 shall be fulfilled. 3. That no pump discharges be allowed into the .alley. 4. That the garage grades be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit at all times. 6. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised • . within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 10 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 20, 1986 X x c o 0 A O 2 M > m C z c m> m z I_ 0 D i O O Ak� M z m= m m City of Newport Beach 9 ROLL CALL INDEX Resubdivision No. 823 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all .ordinances, of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivi- sion. • CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a build- ing permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley. 6. That County Sanitation District 'fees he paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. x � -5- MM1551UNEK5 March 20, 1986 MINUTES z c O a F y s v m r v z c m y m z C z N v r o o 9 m o m> T r City of Newport Beach z a z x z r m Use Permit No. 3179 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to permit the establishment of a private, no UP3179 fee, commercial parking lot on property located in the R -2 District which is adjacent to property located in Denied the C -1 District. LOCATION: Lot 12, Block 438, Corona del Mar, located at 416 Larkspur Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Larkspur Avenue, between East Coast Highway. and Second Avenue, in Corona del Mar. APPLICANT: Mike Franklin, Corona del Mar OWNER: Franklin Inter Vivos Trust, Corona dell Mar I I I I I I I The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Mike Franklin, applicant, 3250 East Coast • Highway, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Franklin stated that he has complied with the previous requests suggested by staff, and he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented that the applicant has made an effort to comply with the requests made during the Planning Commission meeting on January 9, 1986. He stated that the applicant has installed wheel stops behind the Franklin Realty site, corrected the trash storage enclosure at the rear of the Quiet Woman Restaurant, and that staff conducted an inspection and addressed the problem of the conversion in the rear end of the existing residential structure at 416 Larkspur Avenue. Mr. Hewicker further commented that there has been an attempt to address the previous concerns made by the Planning Commission in terms of signage and parking lot control for the proposed parking lot. Chairman Person pointed out that Condition No. 14 in Exhibit "A" provides for the recommendation of the revocation of the use permit if the Planning Commission determined that the parking lot is detrimental to the community. He commented that if a revocation would • I j I I occur there would be a vacant lot. ROLL MMISSIONERS March 20, 1986 x c o a n v x _ C v m Z C T D m = C 2 0 0; O O 9= a= r m j City of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Franklin replied that the Quiet Woman Restaurant night manager will lock and chain the proposed parking lot every night at 6:00 p.m. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Franklin and Mr. Laycock replied that the proposed, block wall referred to in Condition No. 6, would be constructed to a height of 3 feet within the 10 foot front yard setback area and 6 feet beyond the front setback area, up to the 5 foot rear yard setback area. Commissioner Eichenhofer asked Mr. Franklin how he would control the usage of the parking lot between 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. to Franklin Realty, La Cantina Liquor and Corona del Mar Laundry and Dry Cleaning? Mr. Franklin replied that he would inform the aforementioned tenants of the proposed parking lot regulations; however, he would also have difficulty regulating the occupancy between 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 • p.m.. Mr. James Dunlap, 419 Marguerite Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dunlap stated that he has concerns that the pedestrians will be passing through the parking lot between the alley and Larkspur Avenue, and that there would be traffic congestion. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Dunlap replied that the neighbors are opposed to the proposed parking lot; however, if the proposed parking lot is approved then the neighbors would be more acceptable to a gated parking lot. Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichols commented that the applicant is proposing to take access to the parking lot from a curb cut on Larkspur Avenue or from the alley, and he cited that the Planning Commission does not issue curb cuts. Commissioner Turner pointed out that a curb cut would have to be approved by the City Council. Mr. Nichols stated that there would be a steep rise within the proposed parking lot because of the topography of the site. He questioned if The Quiet Woman Restaurant would observe the parking regulations within the area. Mr. Nichols further I I I j I I commented that because an adjoining automotive business I is selling automobiles there is no longer available parking space in the adjacent lot. He stated that the -7- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS March 20, 1986 x x c o � a v = v > v m C 2 0 a; 0 0 l City of Newport Beach M MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX proposed parking lot would be developed within a residential area and not a zoned commercial area. Mr. Nichols cited that a parking lot is needed within the area, but that the parking lot should not be just for the aforementioned tenants. Mr. Nichols advised that he has not read the findings and conditions in Exhibit "An Mr. Robert Borland, 420 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Borland presented photographs of the site of the proposed parking lot, the proposed curb cut, and the adjacent structure's bedroom windows. Mr. Borland explained that the parking lot would be three feet from the adjacent resident's bedroom windows.. Mr. Borland compared the proposed parking lot's close proximity to The Quiet Woman Restaurant to other East Coast Highway restaurants in Corona del Mar, and he commented that the restaurants do not have adjoining parking lots as close to residential areas. He described the • congestion that would be created in the alley adjacent to the parking lot in order to reach East Coast Highway. He pointed out that the shed behind The Quiet Woman Restaurant has been torn down, and he pointed out that The Quiet Woman Restaurant has been using the dwelling at 416 Larkspur Avenue for storage. Mr. Borland questioned if the proposed chain could be regulated, and he asked about the landscaping for the site. Mr. Borland further pointed out that if a large automobile parks in front of the wheel stops on the Franklin Realty site the automobile protrudes onto the sidewalk. Mr. Dave Ashton, 418 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ashton commented that if there is a delivery truck parked in the alley that automobiles have to back out of the alley. Ms. Debbie Ashton, 418 1/2 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Ashton stated that she is concerned about the loitering within the proposed parking lot, and the pedestrian traffic that will pass through the parking lot. Mr. Howard Ashton, 418 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before • the Planning Commission. Mr. Ashton stated his concerns regarding the proposed parking lot's soil excavation near his property, and he commented that �e� COMMISSIONERS March 20, 1986 A x c o x v x C v m a c m y m a _ 0 a S O O Z 9 Z p= M m( City of Newport Beach maybe patrons of the aforementioned tenants would be using the parking lot after 6:00 p.m. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman commented that she had hoped that through the use of proper conditions the proposed parking lot could be made compatible with the neighborhood. She stated that after she had heard the aforementioned testimony, and viewed the close proximity of the parking lot to the residents, and in spite of the fact that Corona del Mar needs more Motion x parking, she made a motion to deny Use Permit No. 3179, subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit "B". Commissioner Turner stated that he would support the motion for the same reasons given by Commissioner Koppelman, and he commented that Corona del Mar needs additional parking. • Chairman Person stated that he recognizes the parking needs of the businesses in Corona del Mar as opposed to the residents. He said that he wants to support the project, that the conditions as set forth by the staff indicate enough control to adequately address the problems that may occur; however, in view of indications from the testimony as well as the photographs concerning the dwelling units immediately adjacent to the proposed parking lot, he advised that he would support the motion. All A y e s l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CARRIED. Motion voted on to deny Use Permit No. 3179, MOTION FINDINGS! 1. That the proposed parking lot represents an intensification of use on the subject property. 2. That use of the subject property for a parking lot will reduce the local housing stock by one unit. 3. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the subject parking lot in the R -2 District will under the circumstances of this particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. cm MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March. 20, 1986 x x c o � _ v a y m item. Ms. Giselle Goetz, attorney, appeared before the C Z C T> M Z C 2 W p r o o Z Z a a r m City of Newport Beach Planning Commission on behalf of the Vallely family, a ROLL CALL stated that the potential effect of the proposed INDEX Amendment's language on the Vallely lease would allow Amendment No. 633 (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to consider an amendment to Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to the definition of the term "Building Site" and provi- sions for waiver of combining requirements where existing or new buildings are planned to cross existing property lines, and the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, advised that staff has distributed copies of the subject staff report to the people who represent various ownerships and leaseholders of the Edgewater Place project that is proposed on the Balboa Peninsula, which is the subject of Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) and waiver of Parcel Map Requirement, Item No. 5 on the Planning Commission agenda. • The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Ms. Giselle Goetz, attorney, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Vallely family, owners of 6 lots in the Edgewater Place project. She stated that the potential effect of the proposed Amendment's language on the Vallely lease would allow the lessees to force the Vallelys to accept a common ownership of an improvement without their consent which was previously required under the Municipal Code. She commented that the four cases cited by staff in conjunction with the waiver of other parcel maps are not applicable to the Edgewater Place property. Three of the requests involved the remodel of existing structures, and the fourth case was the National Education Corporation property, which involved common ownership by The Irvine Company, therefore, if the improvements that were proposed across the lot lines were allowed and the leases terminated, The Irvine Company would still have the benefit of all of the improvements. She said that this would not be true in the Vallely's case as there is a parking lot proposed across lot lines owned by two different individuals, and if the lease would be terminated, it would leave the rear portion of a parking structure on the Vallely • I I I property. Ms. Goetz referred to the staff report's reference to James Ray, one of the landowners of the Coco's Restaurant site on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, by stating that there was an existing building -10- A633 Approved COMMISSIONERS March 20, 1986 7 X 111 C 0 C o � x m z c m o m z C 2 N O r 0 0 a a= T l City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX on the property that was leased, and that the owner of the property was aware of the potential improvements. She said that in the Vallely case there is an attempt to force improvements on the property owner without their consent, and an attempt to get around the Municipal Code as it now exists, which requires the recordation of a parcel map. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the purpose of the subject Amendment is to provide a vehicle for the Planning Commission in order to waive the parcel map requirement. She explained that the waiver of the parcel map requirement does not combine ownerships of the properties in question into one owner, that the lot lines are not affected, and that the number of parcels that an owner presently owns he will continue to own. She said that the Amendment does not affect the rights to develop under a new lease, and the fact that any applicant can ask the Planning • 11111111 Commission to waive a parcel map, does not affect that right under the lease. Ms. Korade said that the Amendment will clarify language within Section 20.87.090 B of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. She explained that the Section now begins as follows: "where existing buildings have been found to be constructed over existing lot lines" which indicates that buildings under multiple ownerships or leaseholds have to be in existence in order to meet the waiver of the parcel map requirements. She then continued to read another portion of the same sentence which ends as follows: "the lots or parcels which constitute the building site will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improvement to be placed on the site ". Ms. Korade clarified that this portion of the sentence appears to provide the flexibility of waiving a parcel map for proposed buildings to be constructed over existing lot lines. She explained that the proposed Amendment will clarify the existing language in the Municipal Code. Commissioner Turner asked Ms. Goetz if the Vallelys maintain a long term leasehold on their property? Ms. . Goetz replied that the Vallelys have a lease of long duration on a portion of the Edgewater Place project. She commented that the problem of the proposed Amendment is that a lease of long duration permits the -11- ROLL "/V\1551UNLK5 March 20, 1986 MINUTES ]C F a 0 O James Hewicker, Planning Director, cited that prior to i a v x 2 C m a m = the time that the Planning Commission could authorize a z 0 o s o 0 Z= City of Newport Beach m construction of a building, and the lessee can get a waiver of a parcel map from the Planning Commission. Ms. Goetz stated that the current Municipal Code requires the property owner's consent if a lessee wants to build on vacant land, but to improve an existing building constructed over lot lines you can request a waiver of the parcel map requirement by getting an approval by the Planning Commission. Ms. Goetz further stated that the Vallelys never intended to allow improvements to be constructed on both their property and on adjacent property. She said that the applicant of Edgewater Place proposes a parking structure to be constructed across two property owners' properties, with the rear of the parking structure to be located on the Vallely's property and the access to the parking structure to be located on another property owner's property. She said that regardless of the fact that there is a long term lease, leases may be terminated for a variety of reasons. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Turner, 40 Ms. Goetz replied that the Vallely's lease does not allow for construction across property lines, but that the lease allows for construction of a building on the property. She said that the Vallelys did not know that Edgewater Place intended to build across property lines, that the Vallelys insisted at the beginning of the project that any building would be constructed to maintain the integrity of the Vallely family property lines. She further stated that under the current Municipal Code the lessee has to get the approval of the property owner to construct across property lines, and the proposed revisions to the Municipal Code would permit construction across existing property lines regardless who owns the property with the revised waiver of the parcel map procedure. -12- James Hewicker, Planning Director, cited that prior to the time that the Planning Commission could authorize the waiver of a parcel map, the Planning Commission would have to be satisfied that in lieu of that parcel map that combines all of the individual lots into a single building site, that there is sufficient documentation in terms of long term leases and agreements that would address the same questions that would be raised under the parcel map requirement. He said that what the waiver of the parcel map requirement attempts to eliminate the requirement that would require the Vallelys to sell their property to another -12- MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX property owner so that all of the ownerships would be combined into one fee ownership. Ms. Goetz stated that the Vallelys believe that this Amendment allows something that the Planning Commission could not do before, and that is to construct a new building across property lines without the consent of the owner as was previously required. Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King & Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Edgewater Place and Newport Landing. Mr. King spoke in favor of the proposed Amendment. He commented that previous Planning Commissions and City Councils have recognized the value of businesses who are successful and who wish to expand in Newport Beach. He said that the City has encouraged the businesses to expand their operations. Mr. King pointed out that Cannery Village and McFadden Square also offer several opportunities to address issues of both fee and leasehold properties which, when • combined, can offer private interests an opportunity to redevelop their land without having to go through the eminent domain process or a redevelopment agency. Mr. King said that because of the precedent of the waiver of parcel maps cited and because of the efforts of the Planning Commission and the City in trying to encourage private interests to redevelop properties, the Planning Commission should endorse the Amendment as proposed by the staff. 20, 1986 c o Commission. Mr. Vallely asked Mr. Hewicker what was IXMarch 2 Z C 9 > v m c Z A= M N Z O r a o o I City of Newport Beach z, MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX property owner so that all of the ownerships would be combined into one fee ownership. Ms. Goetz stated that the Vallelys believe that this Amendment allows something that the Planning Commission could not do before, and that is to construct a new building across property lines without the consent of the owner as was previously required. Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King & Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Edgewater Place and Newport Landing. Mr. King spoke in favor of the proposed Amendment. He commented that previous Planning Commissions and City Councils have recognized the value of businesses who are successful and who wish to expand in Newport Beach. He said that the City has encouraged the businesses to expand their operations. Mr. King pointed out that Cannery Village and McFadden Square also offer several opportunities to address issues of both fee and leasehold properties which, when • combined, can offer private interests an opportunity to redevelop their land without having to go through the eminent domain process or a redevelopment agency. Mr. King said that because of the precedent of the waiver of parcel maps cited and because of the efforts of the Planning Commission and the City in trying to encourage private interests to redevelop properties, the Planning Commission should endorse the Amendment as proposed by the staff. -13- Mr. John Vallely appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Vallely asked Mr. Hewicker what was meant by the fact that the property owner could be forced to sell his property? Mr. Hewicker replied that the City is not forcing anyone to sell property, but he used as an example an imaginary building site that is made up of three ownerships, and three lots, and said that that in order to be able to combine those three properties into a single building site and for the three properties to show as one parcel, as reflected on recorded documents, the ownership of those three parcels would have to become combined into one ownership through the recording of a parcel map procedure; whereas, under a waiver of a parcel map procedure, the ownership of the three parcels would remain in fee as separate parcels, but be combined under one development agreement covering all three parcels. Mr. Vallely asked why a waiver of a parcel map is necessary, and he opined that the purpose of a -13- March 20, 1986 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX parcel map is to see that property owner's rights are protected, and now the City is altering the Municipal Code in order to facilitate a development. He said that if the Municipal Code remains unchanged, the landowners could make a deal that would be good for both sides. Mr. Hewicker replied that regardless of whether a parcel map or a waiver of a parcel map is processed, it is up to the City to make sure that the City's interests are protected. Mr. Vallely asked why the parcel map is necessary in the Municipal Code? Mr. Hewicker explained that originally the parcel map procedure was a method of requiring the combining of parcels, particularly those parcels which are small or undersized that could not sustain development on their own when you consider a building, parking spaces and open space. Mr. Hewicker explained that after several years of using the parcel map procedure, it was brought to the attention of the City in terms of residential development that the cost of parcel map may be prohibitive and in lieu of requiring the parcel map, the procedure was amended to allow single family dwellings or duplexes which cross property lines to record a covenant instead of going through the parcel map requirement. He explained that later on with the remodel and expansion of Coco's Restaurant in Corona del Mar, the City discovered that there was an existing building that had been built on lots that were under two ownerships, and inasmuch as the owner of the one lot did not want to merge his lot with the other owner, so as to combine the ownerships into a single building site, the waiver of a parcel map procedure was developed. Mr. Vallely pointed out that there is an existing building across property lines on the parcel in Corona del Mar, and that the parcel for the proposed Edgewater Place site does not have any buildings crossing lot lines at this time, that the National Education Corporation development was totally different since the fee owner on the two different lots were the same. Mr. Vallely stated that he strongly opposes the change in the parcel map requirement. Chairman Person asked the Assistant City Attorney whether the change in the proposed Amendment would make a difference in the continued Item No. 5 on the Planning Commission Agenda? Ms. Korade replied that staff has recommended the approval of the Waiver of Parcel Map in conjunction with Item No. 5 on the agenda under the existing language, and she cited that there has been an objection by the Vallely family to the -14- F a � F v v = y o r v m C a m z� D 0 O x T City A O m 1` of OI Z Z Z M Z m March 20, 1986 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX parcel map is to see that property owner's rights are protected, and now the City is altering the Municipal Code in order to facilitate a development. He said that if the Municipal Code remains unchanged, the landowners could make a deal that would be good for both sides. Mr. Hewicker replied that regardless of whether a parcel map or a waiver of a parcel map is processed, it is up to the City to make sure that the City's interests are protected. Mr. Vallely asked why the parcel map is necessary in the Municipal Code? Mr. Hewicker explained that originally the parcel map procedure was a method of requiring the combining of parcels, particularly those parcels which are small or undersized that could not sustain development on their own when you consider a building, parking spaces and open space. Mr. Hewicker explained that after several years of using the parcel map procedure, it was brought to the attention of the City in terms of residential development that the cost of parcel map may be prohibitive and in lieu of requiring the parcel map, the procedure was amended to allow single family dwellings or duplexes which cross property lines to record a covenant instead of going through the parcel map requirement. He explained that later on with the remodel and expansion of Coco's Restaurant in Corona del Mar, the City discovered that there was an existing building that had been built on lots that were under two ownerships, and inasmuch as the owner of the one lot did not want to merge his lot with the other owner, so as to combine the ownerships into a single building site, the waiver of a parcel map procedure was developed. Mr. Vallely pointed out that there is an existing building across property lines on the parcel in Corona del Mar, and that the parcel for the proposed Edgewater Place site does not have any buildings crossing lot lines at this time, that the National Education Corporation development was totally different since the fee owner on the two different lots were the same. Mr. Vallely stated that he strongly opposes the change in the parcel map requirement. Chairman Person asked the Assistant City Attorney whether the change in the proposed Amendment would make a difference in the continued Item No. 5 on the Planning Commission Agenda? Ms. Korade replied that staff has recommended the approval of the Waiver of Parcel Map in conjunction with Item No. 5 on the agenda under the existing language, and she cited that there has been an objection by the Vallely family to the -14- ROLL COMMISSIONERS March 20, 1986 a F c o 0 be clarified and that it is .appropriate that the • T a y y v m z z c m a m z Planning Commission do so. He said that if the Planning �= w oroo M z z z m m j City of Newport Beach approval based on this language. Mr. Hewicker replied that the Planning Commission has approved a waiver of a parcel map in the past for a new building to be constructed over a property line. He said that he does not feel that it is necessary for this Amendment to be amended in terms of addressing Item No. 5 on the agenda, but by the same token, if the Planning Commission is of the opinion that the existing language of the Code needs to be clarified, it certainly does not obligate the Planning Commission or City Council to approve a waiver of a parcel map on any project in the future. Chairman Person said that there is an application before the Planning Commission that is related to this Amendment, but because of what appears to be some problems of interpreting the current language of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is proposing to amend the Ordinance during the middle of the hearings for the proposed waiver of the parcel map requirement • for Edgewater Place. He opined that this may not be the right time to amend the Municipal Code if staff feels comfortable with the current language. Commissioner Kurlander stated that the Planning Commission should recommend the proposed Amendment to the .City Council, and that the City Council cannot conceivably act by April 10, 1986, the date that the Waiver of Parcel Map application will be heard by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kurlander said that the Planning Commission can still act upon the Edgewater Place application independent of its recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Korade cited that in order to amend the Municipal Code, it requires the approval of an Ordinance by the City Council which becomes effective thirty days after the Amendment's adoption. Commissioner Kurlander stated that the proposed Amendment would clear some ambiguity in the existing language by the Municipal Code. He said that he could support the Amendment in this manner. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commission does agree to approve the Amendment it would not affect future actions of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 1986, or the City Council's action -15- MINUTES Commissioner Turner stated that the Ordinance needs to be clarified and that it is .appropriate that the • Planning Commission do so. He said that if the Planning Commission does agree to approve the Amendment it would not affect future actions of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 1986, or the City Council's action -15- MINUTES WAISSIONERS MINUTES x x March 20, 1986 c o � E v a 9 m r v z c m y m z A= a= M m j City of Newport Beach c z o r o o before they certify the Amendment. He opined that if the Amendment is passed, the Amendment preserves the right of the property owners to maintain the integrity of their lots, and if anything, the Amendment gives the property owners more rights. Motion I Ixj I I I I I Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 633. Chairman Person said that he would support the motion based on Commissioner Kurlander's testimony. Ayes x x x x x x Motion voted on to approve Amendment No. 633. MOTION Abstain x CARRIED. A. Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) (Continued Item No.5 Public Hearing) UP3122A Request to amend a previously approved use permit which • permitted the construction of a commercial building and Waiver of related parking structure known as Edgewater Place, on Parcel Map property located in the C -1 District. The proposed Require - amendment includes a request to delete Condition No. 2 ment which consists of the fulfillment of all applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 797. Continued to AND Apr.10, 1986 B. Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement(Continued Discussion) Request to waive the requirement for a parcel map to create a single parcel of land where twelve lots, a portion of one lot, a vacated portion of Edgewater Place, and a portion of a vacated alley, now exist. LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, 3,'7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and a portion of Lot 4, an unnumbered lot and a portion of a public alley proposed to be vacated, all in Block 3 of the Balboa Bayside Tract; Lot 22 and 23, Block A of the Bayside Tract; and a portion of vacated Edgewater Place, located at 309 Palm Street, on the northerly side of I I I ( I ( East Bay Avenue between Palm Street and Adams Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 -16- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 20, 1986 Beach ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX APPLICANT: OWNERS: Edgewater Place, Balboa Mark Howard, Don Franklin, Roland Vallely, Newport Beach Motion I I x I I I I I Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3122 All Ayes (Amended) and waiver of Parcel Map Requirement to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * x � Use Permit No. 2055 (Amended) (Discussion) Request for a three year extension of a previously approved use permit which allowed the use of a tempo- rary building for classrooms and meetings, in conjunc- tion with an existing church facility located in the R -2 District. • LOCATION: - Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Tract No. 27, located at 3262 Broad Street, on the southeasterly corner of Broad Street and Bolsa Avenue, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Plymouth Congregational Church, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Motion x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 2055 All Ayes (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. Amendment No. 631 (Public Hearing) Request to amend portions of the North Ford Planned Community development standards for Residential Area 5, so as to: delete provisions for shared driveways on substandard lots; increase the minimum lot size from 2,400 sq.ft. to 3,000 sq.ft.; establish a minimum • average lot width of 55 feet; revise the garage setback requirements; establish permitted locations for guest parking; and increase the maximum height for open -17- Item No.6 UP2055A Continued to Apr.10 .1986 Item No.7 A6 31 X F a o O 9 x _ y v m C a C m y m a M a `a N 0 a r °; 0 ° x M m o m s r T °City of Z s a a z w m Beach ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX APPLICANT: OWNERS: Edgewater Place, Balboa Mark Howard, Don Franklin, Roland Vallely, Newport Beach Motion I I x I I I I I Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3122 All Ayes (Amended) and waiver of Parcel Map Requirement to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * x � Use Permit No. 2055 (Amended) (Discussion) Request for a three year extension of a previously approved use permit which allowed the use of a tempo- rary building for classrooms and meetings, in conjunc- tion with an existing church facility located in the R -2 District. • LOCATION: - Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Tract No. 27, located at 3262 Broad Street, on the southeasterly corner of Broad Street and Bolsa Avenue, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Plymouth Congregational Church, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Motion x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 2055 All Ayes (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. Amendment No. 631 (Public Hearing) Request to amend portions of the North Ford Planned Community development standards for Residential Area 5, so as to: delete provisions for shared driveways on substandard lots; increase the minimum lot size from 2,400 sq.ft. to 3,000 sq.ft.; establish a minimum • average lot width of 55 feet; revise the garage setback requirements; establish permitted locations for guest parking; and increase the maximum height for open -17- Item No.6 UP2055A Continued to Apr.10 .1986 Item No.7 A6 31 COMMISSIONERS March 20, 1986 C O O item, and Ms. Rhonda Heacock, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Ms. x y m Z c m y m z Heacock stated that the applicant concurs with the C z 0 p; 0 0 n I City of Newport Beach a a= m trellis and beam construction within the required side yard setbacks from 8 feet to 9 feet. MD B. Tentative Map of Tract No. 12271 (Revised) (Public Hearing) Request to revise a previously approved Tentative Map of Tract No. 12271 so as to subdivide 26.4 acres of land into 159 numbered lots for detached single family residential development; one lettered lot for private recreational purposes; and eight lettered lots for private open space and landscape purposes. The revised Tentative Map also includes. an exception to the Subdi- vision Code so as to allow the creation of lots less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area and less than 80 feet in depth. I 1 I I I I I 1 LOCATION: . Portions of Blocks 51 and 57 of Irvine's • Subdivision on property generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Bison Avenue, Camelback Street, Jamboree Road and University Drive (Extended), commonly known as Area 5 of the North Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Donald L. Bren Company, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Adams Streeter, Irvine William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, commented that staff is recommending that Condition No. 5 of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12271, be modified to read: "that all public utility easements be on one lot only, not staggering lot lines, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department "; and that Condition No. 7 be corrected to read "sidewalks on the easterly side of La Vida ". -18- MINUTES INDEX TTM12271 (Revised) Approved The public hearing was opened in connection with this • item, and Ms. Rhonda Heacock, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Heacock stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". -18- MINUTES INDEX TTM12271 (Revised) Approved March 20, 1986 t Beach The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion I I I Ix I I I Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to approve All Ayes Amendment No. 631, (Resolution No. 1137) and the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12271 (Revised) , subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" as amended. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. I i Amendment No. 631 FINDINGS: 1. That the approved changes to the North Ford Planned Community Development Standards are necessary for the development of the subject property in accordance with the Revised Tentative Map of Tract No. 12271. 2. That all environmental concerns have been addres- sed in a previously certified Environmental Impact Report and further that there are no additional reasonable alternative or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with the requested revisions to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations. 3. That the approved changes to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations are consis- tent with the Newport Beach General Plan. CONDITION: 1. That Amendment No. 631 amending the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations is approved subject to the revision listed below: "e. Setbacks - Garages Garages may be either from five (5) to seven (7) feet average or a minimum of twenty (20) feet or eighteen (18) feet with roll up garage door measured from the back of curb, or in the event that sidewalks are construc- ted, from back of sidewalk." -19- MINUTES INDEX F x f % 9 9 = S r v m a n z `Z z N �; Q ° x °(City M m o m s v m of Z 9 Z S Z r m March 20, 1986 t Beach The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion I I I Ix I I I Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to approve All Ayes Amendment No. 631, (Resolution No. 1137) and the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12271 (Revised) , subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" as amended. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. I i Amendment No. 631 FINDINGS: 1. That the approved changes to the North Ford Planned Community Development Standards are necessary for the development of the subject property in accordance with the Revised Tentative Map of Tract No. 12271. 2. That all environmental concerns have been addres- sed in a previously certified Environmental Impact Report and further that there are no additional reasonable alternative or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with the requested revisions to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations. 3. That the approved changes to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations are consis- tent with the Newport Beach General Plan. CONDITION: 1. That Amendment No. 631 amending the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations is approved subject to the revision listed below: "e. Setbacks - Garages Garages may be either from five (5) to seven (7) feet average or a minimum of twenty (20) feet or eighteen (18) feet with roll up garage door measured from the back of curb, or in the event that sidewalks are construc- ted, from back of sidewalk." -19- MINUTES INDEX x 0 n f y v n v m r v z c m s m z a s z z r o x `Z N °; ° °City of 2 9 = y a n m March 20, 1986 Beach Tentative Map of Tract No. 12271 (Revised)- FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, with the exception that the subdivision creates lots which are less than 5000 square feet in area, and are less than 80 feet in depth. 2. That the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of the subdivision. 3. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 7. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code. 8. That the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan, and the policies contained therein. 9. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan as amended June 25, 1984 in that: (a) The North Ford Planned Community is to be • constructed on a site, a portion of which was subject to a vested right to construct 120 dwelling units, 295,000 sq. ft. of industrial office development and 28,500 sq. ft. of retail commercial space, with no affordable housing requirement; -20- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS March zo, 1986 MINUTES A x C o 2 C m r a m = AL�_ z 9 z 9 a T m Cit of Newport Beach C= m or 00 Y 1- a ROLL CALL INDEX process has resulted in a project which, in spite of pre- existing vested development rights, provides affordable housing equal to 258 of the total project, and almost 308 of those units in excess of the vested residen- tial development; (h) That the revised tentative tract map is consistent with the North Ford Development Agreement and the provisions of GPA 82 -1. 10. That the Revised Tentative Map provides for fewer and larger lots with an improved circulation system. 11. That the granting of the requested exceptions will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity of the subject property. 12. That if the exception were denied, the petitioner would be deprived of a substantial property right enjoyed by others in the area. CONDITIONS: 1. That all the conditions of the North Ford Develop- ment Agreement be fulfilled. 2. That all conditions of approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 12309 be fulfilled. 3. Slope lots "A ", "B ", "C ", "D ", "E ", "G ", and "H" shall be landscaped by the applicant and main- tained by the homeowners association. 4. That all residential lots have a minimum average width of 55 feet. 5. That all public utility easements be on one lot only, not staggering lot lines, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 6. That the entrances to the development be rede- signed so as to provide for guard gates at this time or restrictions be provided in the Covenants, • Conditions and Restrictions to prevent the future construction of guard gates. -22- March 20, 1986 Beach (b) The North Ford Planned Community meets, or exceeds, all criteria established for affor- dable housing projects by the Housing Ele- ment, especially when the pre- existing development rights are considered; (c) The North Ford Planned Community is consis- tent with Objective 6, subpart 2(2) in that: (1) The total number of low income units to be constructed, of bond financing is ob- tained, exclusive of the units to be con- structed with CDBG funds will be approxi- mately 288 of the units constructed with such financing; I ( I I I ( ( (2) The total number of low income units to be constructed onsite, assuming that 580 units will be assisted with bond financing, will exceed 20% of the total of the units to I I I 1 i I I I be constructed on all parcels in excess of the 120 dwelling units which were vested by a Judgment of the Superior Court. (d) The North Ford Planned Community is consis- tent with Objective 6, subpart 2(3) in that 1008 of the 50 units within the 98 unit CDBG project will be affordable to persons or families of low income; (e) The provisions of Objective 6, subpart 2(5) are not applicable to this project since it is not contemplated that for sale affordable units are to be constructed; (f) The revised tentative tract map is consistent with Object 6, Subpart 2 in that, given the development constraints and vested rights applicable to the North Ford Planned Commu- nity, the affordable housing requirements of Tract No. 12309 are the maximum feasible - especially in light of the need to encourage, at the earliest practicable opportunity, the construction and occupancy of low and mode- rate income housing on North Ford; • I ( I I I (g) That the North Ford Planned Community is consistent with Objective 6 of the Housing Element in that the negotiated development -21- MINUTES INDEX X x c o F a v = v r m C z c m a m z m `a z A a r c S 0 ° 2 °j W M 0 m City Of M a z T m March 20, 1986 Beach (b) The North Ford Planned Community meets, or exceeds, all criteria established for affor- dable housing projects by the Housing Ele- ment, especially when the pre- existing development rights are considered; (c) The North Ford Planned Community is consis- tent with Objective 6, subpart 2(2) in that: (1) The total number of low income units to be constructed, of bond financing is ob- tained, exclusive of the units to be con- structed with CDBG funds will be approxi- mately 288 of the units constructed with such financing; I ( I I I ( ( (2) The total number of low income units to be constructed onsite, assuming that 580 units will be assisted with bond financing, will exceed 20% of the total of the units to I I I 1 i I I I be constructed on all parcels in excess of the 120 dwelling units which were vested by a Judgment of the Superior Court. (d) The North Ford Planned Community is consis- tent with Objective 6, subpart 2(3) in that 1008 of the 50 units within the 98 unit CDBG project will be affordable to persons or families of low income; (e) The provisions of Objective 6, subpart 2(5) are not applicable to this project since it is not contemplated that for sale affordable units are to be constructed; (f) The revised tentative tract map is consistent with Object 6, Subpart 2 in that, given the development constraints and vested rights applicable to the North Ford Planned Commu- nity, the affordable housing requirements of Tract No. 12309 are the maximum feasible - especially in light of the need to encourage, at the earliest practicable opportunity, the construction and occupancy of low and mode- rate income housing on North Ford; • I ( I I I (g) That the North Ford Planned Community is consistent with Objective 6 of the Housing Element in that the negotiated development -21- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS March 20, 1985 MINUTES xx c p n x 'may v a v m z c m a m z z m= a a T m City of Newport Beach C Z w p i COMMISSIONERS � x March 20, 1986 c o x a y m z c m. y m z ila A z 9=, m f City of Newport Beach = N o C O O the Planning Commission and staff. He said that the General Plan Amendment was initiated by the City in February, 1985, and has been under intense review by the City staff and consultants for the past thirteen months. Mr. Hewicker further commented that the backup material, which is a required ingredient for the amendment' process, is in the review stage by the staff. He said that the backup material is not a part of the subject public hearing, and is not a part of the notice procedure for the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff has requested that following the presentation by The Irvine Company and by the City staff, that the public refrain from addressing the ^pros and cons" of the General Plan Amendment and limit their comments to the identification of issues that they feel may not be covered in the Environmental Impact Report or during the public hearing process which is estimated to take several weeks and several different Planning Commission meetings. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc. appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Neish briefly stated that the proposed General Plan Amendment has been in the planning process during the past thirteen months; that the General Plan Amendment represents a major application; that the process will be complex and will require several public hearings; and that after the public hearings the Planning Commission will be able to render a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Neish stated that the subject public hearing will present a detailed project description of the proposed General Plan Amendment. Mr. Neish introduced the format of the presentation as follows: Mr. Thomas Nielson, President of The Irvine Company will make opening remarks; Mr. Roger Seitz, Vice President for Urban Design and Planning, The Irvine Company, will present the project; Mr. David Mudgett, President of Irvine Retail Properties Company, will present the specific details of Fashion Island; and Mr. Seitz will make the closing remarks. . Mr. Thomas H. Nielson, 3 Monaco, . Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nielson stated that The Irvine Company representatives have been meeting with members of the community, sharing with residents and merchants The Irvine Company plans -24- MINUTES INDEX for Newport Center and listening to their interests and comments about the plan. He further stated that the result before the Planning Commission incorporates the ideas raised by Newport Beach residents at the various meetings, from a day care center to a community entertainment plaza and expanding cultural opportunities. Mr. Nielson said that the plan includes The Irvine Company's vision for the road improvements that should offset many of the concerns that have been raised about increased traffic from Newport Center. Mr. Nielson stated that from the outset of the planning efforts, that The Irvine Company had as a goal a determination to transform Newport Center into an active meaningful community center for all of the residents of Newport Beach, and he commented that he hoped that at the end of the public hearing process that the Planning Commission would agree that The Irvine Company is presenting a'plan that allows for the accomplishment of that goal. Mr. Nielson concluded his • opening remarks by stating that The Irvine Company is proud of the plan, and that they feel that the plan is all encompassing and addresses community concerns as well as providing many community opportunities. Mr. Roger Seitz, 1418 Seacrest,Drive, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Seitz stated that the General Plan Amendment consists of approximately 175 acres of land in and around Newport Center, including 75 acres of vacant land in the 600 acre Newport Center plus 100 acres of vacant land in peripheral sites. He said that The Irvine Company is describing the long term development program as the "Renaissance of Newport Center ". Mr. Seitz described the variety of amenities, services, and activities currently in Newport Center, and he stated that the plan proposes additional retail, residential, business and cultural opportunities that should be offered in Newport Center. Mr. Seitz said that The Irvine Company recognizes that Newport Center is nearly twenty years old, and that there is a need to make Newport Center responsive to community needs for the next twenty years. Mr. Seitz stated that during the process in planning • Newport Center, that The Irvine Company sifted through many issues and came to focus on 5 planning challenges or objectives: Community Focus; Retain Economic -25- MINUTES March 20, 1986 x x _ c o i F a 9 y 2 c 9 m a m m = c= D 0 z 0 x 0 M 0 m City of Newport Beach a= for Newport Center and listening to their interests and comments about the plan. He further stated that the result before the Planning Commission incorporates the ideas raised by Newport Beach residents at the various meetings, from a day care center to a community entertainment plaza and expanding cultural opportunities. Mr. Nielson said that the plan includes The Irvine Company's vision for the road improvements that should offset many of the concerns that have been raised about increased traffic from Newport Center. Mr. Nielson stated that from the outset of the planning efforts, that The Irvine Company had as a goal a determination to transform Newport Center into an active meaningful community center for all of the residents of Newport Beach, and he commented that he hoped that at the end of the public hearing process that the Planning Commission would agree that The Irvine Company is presenting a'plan that allows for the accomplishment of that goal. Mr. Nielson concluded his • opening remarks by stating that The Irvine Company is proud of the plan, and that they feel that the plan is all encompassing and addresses community concerns as well as providing many community opportunities. Mr. Roger Seitz, 1418 Seacrest,Drive, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Seitz stated that the General Plan Amendment consists of approximately 175 acres of land in and around Newport Center, including 75 acres of vacant land in the 600 acre Newport Center plus 100 acres of vacant land in peripheral sites. He said that The Irvine Company is describing the long term development program as the "Renaissance of Newport Center ". Mr. Seitz described the variety of amenities, services, and activities currently in Newport Center, and he stated that the plan proposes additional retail, residential, business and cultural opportunities that should be offered in Newport Center. Mr. Seitz said that The Irvine Company recognizes that Newport Center is nearly twenty years old, and that there is a need to make Newport Center responsive to community needs for the next twenty years. Mr. Seitz stated that during the process in planning • Newport Center, that The Irvine Company sifted through many issues and came to focus on 5 planning challenges or objectives: Community Focus; Retain Economic -25- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 20, 1986 x x c o 0 a x y v m Z c m a m z C z 0 o s O o 1= 9 a 1 City of Newport Beach T m z Vitality; Complete the Center; Improve Transportation; and Enhance the Center. In referring to Community Focus, Mr. Seitz stated that it is important to continue to make Newport Center and Fashion Island much more of a focal point for the community. He said that there is a need for a place to gather as a community to celebrate civic and cultural events; a need to provide more variety of goods and services; a need to retain sales and tax revenue within Newport Beach; and that the expansion of nearby . residential opportunities will allow more people to live closer to work and shopping. In reference to Retain Economic Vitality, Mr. Seitz commented that the firms and organizations that do business in Newport Center are an important part of the community fabric. He said that approximately 25 percent of the employees who work in Newport Center live in Newport Beach; that businesses provide goods • and services direct to the community; they provide. employment opportunities; they pay taxes; and they contribute as corporate citizens by sponsoring charities and cultural programs and serve on committees and civic organizations. Mr. Seitz commented that the Newport Center plan has two important functions: to keep the best tenants in Newport Center, and to allow the tenants to continue to stay and grow. In reference to Completion of the Center, Mr. Seitz commented that The Irvine Company is trying to achieve a balance of retail, residential, and office uses, to function as has always been planned by responding to the needs of business and to the needs of the community. He further commented that the current concept is much the same as the original Newport Center plan. In reference to Improve Transportation, Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company is aware of the concerns about traffic and that The Irvine Company shares those concerns. He said that The Irvine Company wants to provide for the transportation needs of Newport Center and to contribute to regional traffic solutions. Mr. Seitz pointed out that even if there is no new building within Newport Center, there will still be more traffic going through town due to regional growth, and he said that The Irvine Company wants to be a part of the solution by completing the major road system around -26- COMMISSIONERS March 20, 1986 x x c o 0 S 9 x IM - C v v m M C z W o r O O i z a z 9= m m( City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX Newport Center by constructing Pelican Hill road, a major bypass around the city. He commented that the proposed development will finance those improvements at no cost to taxpayers. In reference to Enhance the Center, Mr. Seitz commented that The Irvine Company has a desire to enhance Newport Center's appearance, identity, and quality, all of which reflects the special character of the Newport Beach community and the values of local residents. He further commented about the commitment to quality by referring to the Atrium Court project, the new landscaping, and signage within Newport Center. Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company sees the General Plan process as the first step to achieving the aforementioned goals. Mr. Seitz described how The Irvine Company re- evaluated Newport Center and Fashion Island, as previously stated by Mr. Nielson. He commented that in more than thirty separate meetings with community groups, that The Irvine Company has concluded that the people want more variety, more culture and more entertainment possibilities, and more fun shops like record stores, electronics, photography, and upbeat shops. Mr. Seitz stated that the plan shows four basic land uses. Retail: Fashion Island is the centerpiece of the plan, that Fashion Island will become a better place to shop, to become more like a town center where people naturally go for entertainment, dining, civic events or people watching. He said that the variety of shops and activity in Fashion Island will be geared to the needs of local residents and to the employees in Newport Center. Mr. Seitz pointed out that two other retail proposals, Bayview, Landing, East Coast Highway and Jamboree Boulevard, and Newport Village, will provide restaurants and local services. Mr. Seitz stated that 50 percent of the undeveloped land in the plan is devoted to new residential opportunities in Newport Center and in peripheral sites. He opined that the housing will allow more Newport Center employees to live closer to their work, and he pointed out that a significant portion of the • I J I ( I ( I ( new residences will meet the objectives of the city's housing element which calls for a balance of housing types and price ranges. Mr. Seitz advised that the plans for Big Canyon/MacArthur Boulevard, Villa Point, -27- and the Newport North site will complete the residential portion of Newport Center. In reference to residential use, Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company has come to the conviction that the residential sites in and next to Newport Center provide opportunities for creating or adding to real residential neighborhoods. He pointed out the two sites in Newport Center designated for residential use: Block 800 and Newport Village, and stated that they would be surrounded by non - residential uses and would become virtual enclaves. He explained that the proposed plan allows The Irvine Company to provide for residential communities with the amenities that people look for. Mr. Seitz stated that the office component of the plan consists of two multi -story office sites and three low rise garden office sites. He advised that the office proposal overall has a floor area ratio which is • consistent with the city's guidelines used in other parts of the city. Mr. Seitz pointed out that expanded quality office space is necessary to compete in the market place. The goal of Newport Center is to insure viability in the coming decades. Mr. Seitz said that the retail, residential and office uses will function in a mutually supportive and inter - dependent way to meet that goal. He pointed out that the office and residential uses help support retail and the convenience stores support the office and residential uses, and overall contributes to a substantial tax revenue to the city. He pointed out that the new development will contribute more than $1 Million per year in surplus tax revenue over and above the costs of providing public services. Mr. Seitz commented that another benefit from a mixed use concept is that traffic impacts are reduced because housing, shopping and employment are closer together. He pointed out that many of the vehicle trips projected by the new development will never have to leave Newport Center, that they will have their origin and destination inside the area covered by the plan. • March 20, 1986 x x C o i s 9 m z c s m s m z Harbor Art Museum and the Newport Beach Library to z� m City of Newport Beach a m z and the Newport North site will complete the residential portion of Newport Center. In reference to residential use, Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company has come to the conviction that the residential sites in and next to Newport Center provide opportunities for creating or adding to real residential neighborhoods. He pointed out the two sites in Newport Center designated for residential use: Block 800 and Newport Village, and stated that they would be surrounded by non - residential uses and would become virtual enclaves. He explained that the proposed plan allows The Irvine Company to provide for residential communities with the amenities that people look for. Mr. Seitz stated that the office component of the plan consists of two multi -story office sites and three low rise garden office sites. He advised that the office proposal overall has a floor area ratio which is • consistent with the city's guidelines used in other parts of the city. Mr. Seitz pointed out that expanded quality office space is necessary to compete in the market place. The goal of Newport Center is to insure viability in the coming decades. Mr. Seitz said that the retail, residential and office uses will function in a mutually supportive and inter - dependent way to meet that goal. He pointed out that the office and residential uses help support retail and the convenience stores support the office and residential uses, and overall contributes to a substantial tax revenue to the city. He pointed out that the new development will contribute more than $1 Million per year in surplus tax revenue over and above the costs of providing public services. Mr. Seitz commented that another benefit from a mixed use concept is that traffic impacts are reduced because housing, shopping and employment are closer together. He pointed out that many of the vehicle trips projected by the new development will never have to leave Newport Center, that they will have their origin and destination inside the area covered by the plan. • Mr. Seitz described the proposed major cultural facility in the Civic Plaza area. He .pointed out that The Irvine Company has been working with the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the Newport Beach Library to 2PIM MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS March 20, 1986 C x f) C o x F y a v m Z c m a m = i Ic 9 z A= T m City of Newport Beach = 0 O C o o develop a plan for creating a cultural art complex which would combine an expanded museum, an improved library, and an auditorium and meeting facility to be used by the museum, library and the general public. Mr. Seitz presented slide pictures of the proposed plan and described each site as follows: Retail Sites and Major Roads: Fashion Island has proposed an additional 180,000 square feet of retail space which will allow The Irvine Company to completely renovate and reconfigure the existing shopping center, an increase of about 15 percent of what is there now. Newport Village - MacArthur Boulevard/East Coast Highway: 60,000 square feet of retail space would be allocated for restaurants and service- oriented retail in addition to the garden offices proposed. ana Hiiis which as prev! which was previ Corona del Mar apartments or characteristics Canyon. macArrnur i5ouievaro: - iu acre usly reserved as right -of -way for freeway extension. Approximately townhomes are proposed similar to the existing apartments in ite. the 80 in Big Newporter North - Jamboree Boulevard: Over 80 acres which provide an opportunity to create a complete residential community of up to 490 apartments and townhomes. He said that there are archaeological and topographic problems which would have to be worked out in detail planning of the project, but The Irvine Company believes there is a significant opportunity for a residential community. Villa Point - East Coast Highway /Jamboree Boulevard: 10 acres currently designated for office use. The Irvine Company is proposing that the area be changed to residential, that the new project should be attached visually and conceptually to the Villa Point project with 130 additional units. Mr. Seitz commented that all of the residential projects reinforce an image of quality and design in • terms of architecture and landscaping. Mr. Seitz further commented that The Irvine Company has attempted to address the objectives to the City's housing element -29- MINUTES by providing a significant portion of the units as affordable housing. Block 600 and Block 800: Block 600 next to the 4 Seasons Hotel has one office building of 300,000 square feet proposed, similar in height to existing buildings in the rest of the block. Block 800, 440,000 square feet is proposed, envisioned with two structures similar in size and characteristics to the existing Pacific Mutual building in the same block. He commented that these two office sites would complete the crescent of taller buildings in Newport Center which is consistent with the original urban design concept of Newport Center. He said that the remaining office uses would be low -rise garden structures around the perimeter of Newport Center. Avocado- MacArthur site: 6 acres. One -half of the site area is committed to the Orange County Transit District for a "park and ride" facility, and the • remaining half of the site area would accommodate one or two small office buildings up to 40,000 square feet. Newport Village site: 33 acres. Proposed is a total of 345,000 square feet of office space for one and two story low rise garden offices. These garden offices would be planned and designed to respect the view planes of the adjacent neighborhood. Corporate Plaza West: 100,000 square feet is proposed to complete the 10 acre site. The building would be very similar in size and general character to the development that is currently there. Civic Plaza Expansion: The Irvine Company has requested 50,000 square feet to establish the cultural arts complex which would include the existing museum, library, and community meeting facilities. Mr. David Mudgett, 2012 Seadrift Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and described the proposed renovation of Fashion Island by pointing out sites on a display chart. Mr. Mudgett commented that the design, opportunities and greater variety of shopping, food and entertainment after the opening of Atrium Court have • created excitement in Fashion Island. Mr. Mudgett explained that these same elements will be continued into a major redevelopment program for the rest of Fashion Island. He commented that the proposed design -30- MINUTES INDEX March 20, 1986 x x f 9 9 5 ti 9 r V m 2 C y m 2 C_ M 0 a S 0 T 0 Z Z 9= City of Newport Beach m( Z by providing a significant portion of the units as affordable housing. Block 600 and Block 800: Block 600 next to the 4 Seasons Hotel has one office building of 300,000 square feet proposed, similar in height to existing buildings in the rest of the block. Block 800, 440,000 square feet is proposed, envisioned with two structures similar in size and characteristics to the existing Pacific Mutual building in the same block. He commented that these two office sites would complete the crescent of taller buildings in Newport Center which is consistent with the original urban design concept of Newport Center. He said that the remaining office uses would be low -rise garden structures around the perimeter of Newport Center. Avocado- MacArthur site: 6 acres. One -half of the site area is committed to the Orange County Transit District for a "park and ride" facility, and the • remaining half of the site area would accommodate one or two small office buildings up to 40,000 square feet. Newport Village site: 33 acres. Proposed is a total of 345,000 square feet of office space for one and two story low rise garden offices. These garden offices would be planned and designed to respect the view planes of the adjacent neighborhood. Corporate Plaza West: 100,000 square feet is proposed to complete the 10 acre site. The building would be very similar in size and general character to the development that is currently there. Civic Plaza Expansion: The Irvine Company has requested 50,000 square feet to establish the cultural arts complex which would include the existing museum, library, and community meeting facilities. Mr. David Mudgett, 2012 Seadrift Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and described the proposed renovation of Fashion Island by pointing out sites on a display chart. Mr. Mudgett commented that the design, opportunities and greater variety of shopping, food and entertainment after the opening of Atrium Court have • created excitement in Fashion Island. Mr. Mudgett explained that these same elements will be continued into a major redevelopment program for the rest of Fashion Island. He commented that the proposed design -30- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 20, 1986 Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I 1 I I I INDEX will include improved circulation, the same mediterranean design as in Atrium Court, new surfaces, landscaping, and fountains. Mr. Mudgett commented that The Irvine Company's reconfiguration of Fashion Island will allow movement of tenants, to change the tenants square footage, and to create a selection and broad mix of tenants. He further commented that the proposed clustering of tenants is for more efficient shopping. Mr. Mudgett stated that The Irvine Company will be adding food operations throughout Fashion Island: fast food restaurants, outdoor sidewalk cafes, family dining restaurants, and fine dining restaurants. He further stated that two restaurants are proposed in the service corridor between Buffums Department Store and Bullocks Wilshire that will take advantage of the ocean view. He pointed out the proposed parking facilities around Fashion Island, and he also stated that there will be an increase in outdoor seating to take advantage of the newly acquired spaces. Mr. Mudgett concluded his presentation by emphasizing the energy and vitality that Fashion Island will have, and the inner - action between Newport Center activities and the activities within Fashion Island. xx Mr. Roger Seitz reappeared before the Planning c o � 'ey 9v Commission by stating that transportation improvements x 9 m are an essential component to the Newport Center z c m y m z C = a ` N 0 = r °; 0 ° x o m a °City of 2 a Z a z w m Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I 1 I I I INDEX will include improved circulation, the same mediterranean design as in Atrium Court, new surfaces, landscaping, and fountains. Mr. Mudgett commented that The Irvine Company's reconfiguration of Fashion Island will allow movement of tenants, to change the tenants square footage, and to create a selection and broad mix of tenants. He further commented that the proposed clustering of tenants is for more efficient shopping. Mr. Mudgett stated that The Irvine Company will be adding food operations throughout Fashion Island: fast food restaurants, outdoor sidewalk cafes, family dining restaurants, and fine dining restaurants. He further stated that two restaurants are proposed in the service corridor between Buffums Department Store and Bullocks Wilshire that will take advantage of the ocean view. He pointed out the proposed parking facilities around Fashion Island, and he also stated that there will be an increase in outdoor seating to take advantage of the newly acquired spaces. Mr. Mudgett concluded his presentation by emphasizing the energy and vitality that Fashion Island will have, and the inner - action between Newport Center activities and the activities within Fashion Island. -31- Mr. Roger Seitz reappeared before the Planning Commission by stating that transportation improvements are an essential component to the Newport Center "Renaissance ". He said that the approval of the General Plan will enable The Irvine Company to finance road improvements which will exceed the needs of the proposed development and will contribute to regional traffic solutions that will benefit the entire community. Mr. Seitz pointed out that a major component is the construction of Pelican Hill Road providing a by -pass around Corona del Mar for regional through traffic that does not have any destination in Newport Beach._ Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company is committed to implementing Pelican Hill Road at the earliest possible time, and that The Irvine Company has already submitted plans for the road to the County for their original review and approval. He said • that assuming General Plan approval for Newport Center, The Irvine Company expects to be under,construction for Pelican Hill Road a year from now and have at least two lanes open to traffic by late 1988. -31- MMISSIONERS March 20, 1986 MINUTES Mx c o n - C v A 9 m z c m> m z M z 9= m m � City of Newport Beach c z m 0; 0 0 Mr. Seitz stated that road improvements around Newport Center include .completing Jamboree Road adjacent to Newport Center; completing MacArthur Boulevard from East Coast Highway to Bonita Canyon Road; on MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive, the plans are to lower the roadway, moving the roadway further to the west, underground the utilities and create a landscape median and parkway, all of which will reduce noise and improve views from adjacent residences; a creation of a landscaped open space parkway along MacArthur Boulevard between the Corona del Mar freeway and San Joaquin Hills Road; the Avocado Avenue couplet in the City's plan would be deleted and be replaced by the MacArthur Boulevard improvement; and intersection improvements around Newport Center. . Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company will be experimenting with transportation alternatives to the increase in automobile traffic, such as initiating a comprehensive transportation management program on an • experimental basis which will provide expressway bus service for Newport Center employees connecting with the "park and ride" facility in the North County area, and using the car pool lanes on the Costa Mesa freeway. He said that during the day the buses would provide a free shuttle service inside Newport Center. He commented that this shuttle service would also compliment the trolley system that has been initiated by the City. He said that there will be a full time transportation manager to coordinate car pooling, and to encourage better utilization of existing roadway facilities. He stated that all of the proposed types of transportation programs may not be successful to start with, but that The Irvine Company is hoping that other companies will also utilize the transportation facilities. Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company is currently negotiating with day care operators in order to provide a day care center, they are working with the museum and library to expand cultural facilities, they are bringing in national fast food outlets to Fashion Island, and they are talking to family health club operators for a family health club. -32- COMMISSIONERS March, 20, lase MINUTES t Beach INDEX In concluding the presentation, Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company wants Newport Center to be a place of great diversity and vitality, and a place with great potential for the future as Newport Beach's town center. He said that the General Plan is a long term plan, a long term vision, with development to occur over a ten to fifteen year period that would be phased with road improvements. Ms. Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, outlined the major issues associated with the General Plan Amendment, the scope of the Environmental Impact Report in preparation, the anticipated schedule for distribution of documents and the possible schedule for other applications associated with the General Plan. Amendment. Ms. Temple stated that the issues will also be addressed in the staff reports, and an ultimate recommendation by the staff on the project. I I I I I I I I Ms. Temple stated that the Transportation Model has • been updated, and computerized to enable the City to analyze alternatives requested by the Planning Commission in a very short order. She said that the most important to analyze is the capacity of the circulation system at Master Plan buildout to sustain additional development of the General Plan plus the proposed project. Ms. Temple commented that major revisions to the Circulation Element Master Plan are being proposed as part of the project including the elimination of the Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard one -way couplet. She commented that regional roadway completion is proposed by The Irvine Company as part of the project and plays a substantial role in the transportation and circulation needs of the project. She cited that the proposed project must comply with the provisions of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Ms. Temple stated that one of the sites does have significant cultural resource value and the preservation or salvation of these resources is going to be an item of significant discussion. She said that of particular importance to the staff is the affect the presence of archaelogical resources has on the timing of the residential development. Ms. Temple stated that land use issues include • compatibility of the proposed land use with the development pattern within the City, the appropriate mix of office, commercial and residential uses within the plan, and the issue of residential uses within -33- X 7 c o i y x o m 9 r o z c m y m z m a C 0 = r oso r 4] Z of 9 m 0 m T m City Ql Z a z a z � m t Beach INDEX In concluding the presentation, Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company wants Newport Center to be a place of great diversity and vitality, and a place with great potential for the future as Newport Beach's town center. He said that the General Plan is a long term plan, a long term vision, with development to occur over a ten to fifteen year period that would be phased with road improvements. Ms. Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, outlined the major issues associated with the General Plan Amendment, the scope of the Environmental Impact Report in preparation, the anticipated schedule for distribution of documents and the possible schedule for other applications associated with the General Plan. Amendment. Ms. Temple stated that the issues will also be addressed in the staff reports, and an ultimate recommendation by the staff on the project. I I I I I I I I Ms. Temple stated that the Transportation Model has • been updated, and computerized to enable the City to analyze alternatives requested by the Planning Commission in a very short order. She said that the most important to analyze is the capacity of the circulation system at Master Plan buildout to sustain additional development of the General Plan plus the proposed project. Ms. Temple commented that major revisions to the Circulation Element Master Plan are being proposed as part of the project including the elimination of the Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard one -way couplet. She commented that regional roadway completion is proposed by The Irvine Company as part of the project and plays a substantial role in the transportation and circulation needs of the project. She cited that the proposed project must comply with the provisions of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Ms. Temple stated that one of the sites does have significant cultural resource value and the preservation or salvation of these resources is going to be an item of significant discussion. She said that of particular importance to the staff is the affect the presence of archaelogical resources has on the timing of the residential development. Ms. Temple stated that land use issues include • compatibility of the proposed land use with the development pattern within the City, the appropriate mix of office, commercial and residential uses within the plan, and the issue of residential uses within -33- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 20, 1996, F c O y e a 9 m r v z c m o m z C 2 m o o 0 = City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Newport Center which has been a consistent concern of the City in the past. Ms. Temple stated that the noise issue to be analyzed includes the impact of the additional traffic on adjacent residential uses, and particularly, the noise impact associated with the change in the Circulation Element Master Plan. Ms. Temple stated that the recreation issues identified. include the appropriate requests for local parks and recreation facilities to serve the new residents and also demands for regional parks. Ms. Temple stated that the fiscal issues have. been identified and a fiscal impact analysis has been prepared. She said that staff believes that the benefits resulting in the implementation of the project and benefits and costs from the denial of the project need to be discussed. • Ms. Temple stated that housing has been a concern of the City for many years, and the role these proposals play in the City's overall housing program will be discussed in detail. Ms. Temple stated that the phasing issues that need to be addressed include phasing of residential with commercial development, phasing of project components with circulation system improvements, and the phasing of the project with the installation of regional roadways. Ms. Temple stated that the Environmental Impact Report includes all of the mandatory discussions required by the California Environmental Quality Act including a detailed discussion of project alternatives, and the implications of the project include significant irreversible issues of the project, growth inducing impacts, cumulative effects and incremental impacts. Ms. Temple cited that a number of technical reports have been prepared. Ms. Temple advised that the traffic report includes specific analysis of both the long -range ability of the circulation system to sustain planned and proposed development as well as the function of.intersections to accommodate the project, which has been prepared under the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance prior to -34- COMMISSIONERS F F C O O F y 9 a v = r v m 2 G m y m z [a a D z r L1 2 Icz H 0 O OI ��I i s O m a a m Z a z March 20, 1986 Beach December, 1985. She further cited that the technical appendices will be available with the exception of the archaeological report. Also to be reviewed are the Newport Center Planned Community Zoning Text, the supplemental Traffic Study prepared in accordance with the revised Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and a Development Agreement. Ms. Temple advised that the aforementioned items will be available following the General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program, and Environmental Impact Report hearings, allowing the documents to be prepared to reflect and implement the Planning Commission's action on these items. Chairman Person asked that the subject public hearing be limited to issue identification only. I Ii I Mr. Barry Allen, 1021 White Sails Lane, appeared before I I the Planning Commission representing the Harbor View • Hills Homeowner's Association. Mr. Allen requested that no widening of MacArthur Boulevard be considered until after Pelican Hill Road is constructed. Mr. Allen commented that Pelican Hill Road should be connected to San Joaquin Hills Road. He also suggested that Avocado Avenue be increased to four lanes, and he asked how many vehicles would use the roadway in comparison with other roadways if Avocado Avenue would be straightened from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Coast Highway. Mr. Allen requested that a new public hearing be held and a new General Plan Amendment be required before MacArthur Boulevard is considered for widening. Mr. Allen representing himself, inquired where the 75 vacant acres are, and if the 75 acres are considered the golf course; and he further inquired what the increase of traffic on East Coast Highway will be allowed before there will be consideration given by the City to remove parking from East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Mr. J. R. Blakemore, a former board member of Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Blakemore stated his concerns • regarding the MacArthur Boulevard/East Coast Highway Newport Village retail and commercial land use; that if a post office is proposed for Avocado Avenue that the post office be developed away from East Coast Highway; -35- MINUTES INDEX y O Of a z March 20, 1986 Beach December, 1985. She further cited that the technical appendices will be available with the exception of the archaeological report. Also to be reviewed are the Newport Center Planned Community Zoning Text, the supplemental Traffic Study prepared in accordance with the revised Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and a Development Agreement. Ms. Temple advised that the aforementioned items will be available following the General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program, and Environmental Impact Report hearings, allowing the documents to be prepared to reflect and implement the Planning Commission's action on these items. Chairman Person asked that the subject public hearing be limited to issue identification only. I Ii I Mr. Barry Allen, 1021 White Sails Lane, appeared before I I the Planning Commission representing the Harbor View • Hills Homeowner's Association. Mr. Allen requested that no widening of MacArthur Boulevard be considered until after Pelican Hill Road is constructed. Mr. Allen commented that Pelican Hill Road should be connected to San Joaquin Hills Road. He also suggested that Avocado Avenue be increased to four lanes, and he asked how many vehicles would use the roadway in comparison with other roadways if Avocado Avenue would be straightened from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Coast Highway. Mr. Allen requested that a new public hearing be held and a new General Plan Amendment be required before MacArthur Boulevard is considered for widening. Mr. Allen representing himself, inquired where the 75 vacant acres are, and if the 75 acres are considered the golf course; and he further inquired what the increase of traffic on East Coast Highway will be allowed before there will be consideration given by the City to remove parking from East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Mr. J. R. Blakemore, a former board member of Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Blakemore stated his concerns • regarding the MacArthur Boulevard/East Coast Highway Newport Village retail and commercial land use; that if a post office is proposed for Avocado Avenue that the post office be developed away from East Coast Highway; -35- MINUTES INDEX ROLL March 20, 1986 t Beach that Pelican Hill Road be made a condition; that Avocado Avenue remain a couplet, however that the roadway be straightened. Ms. Jean Watt, No. 4 Harbor Island, representing SPON, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Watt defined "Renaissance" as a flowering of the arts and literature, and a beginning of modern science. She opined that the arts and literature within the plan is good, and she said that SPON wants to see the modern science approach to mitigation of traffic congestion, air quality and run off. She asked for consideration of four issues as follows: Traffic. Ms. Watt opined that Pelican Hill Road is presented as the attraction but the long term affect as the Irvine Coast is developed is not being discussed, that this is a strategy for short term traffic mitigation. She further opined that in the interim, Pelican Hill Road will take some traffic around Newport C 0 Beach, but the roadway's real function is to serve the C 0 i Irvine Coastal Development which is not being x c m i discussed. Ms. Watt asked what will the impact of z s m m 9 a Z r O O x City 9 O T D r I Z a M z a z r m VI March 20, 1986 t Beach that Pelican Hill Road be made a condition; that Avocado Avenue remain a couplet, however that the roadway be straightened. Ms. Jean Watt, No. 4 Harbor Island, representing SPON, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Watt defined "Renaissance" as a flowering of the arts and literature, and a beginning of modern science. She opined that the arts and literature within the plan is good, and she said that SPON wants to see the modern science approach to mitigation of traffic congestion, air quality and run off. She asked for consideration of four issues as follows: Traffic. Ms. Watt opined that Pelican Hill Road is presented as the attraction but the long term affect as the Irvine Coast is developed is not being discussed, that this is a strategy for short term traffic mitigation. She further opined that in the interim, Pelican Hill Road will take some traffic around Newport -36- MINUTES Beach, but the roadway's real function is to serve the • Irvine Coastal Development which is not being discussed. Ms. Watt asked what will the impact of traffic be from the Irvine Coastal Development, and if there is not an exact project for the Irvine Coast, then a range of projects is needed to analyze. She also stated that Pelican Hill Road is being used to divert attention of traffic impacts in Newport Beach. She quoted from the Environmental Impact Statement prepared in conjunction with the widening of Pacific Coast Highway that the work 'commercial traffic demand is rapidly approaching the recreational level of travel demand; therefore, development of a transportation system to accommodate the peak weekday traffic demand will provide capacity for recreational demand that occurs in the off day peak period. In summary, Ms. Watt stated that the City cannot use recreational traffic as an excuse for being unable to plan for an acceptable level of service; and in addition, an origin and destination study shows that 80 percent to 85 percent of traffic along Pacific Coast Highway begins and ends in the city. Ms. Watt opined that the City cannot use regional traffic as an excuse for being unable to plan for an acceptable level of service. She asked if this project will cause or make worse an • acceptable level of service on Newport Beach roads and intersections. Buildout: The height limit of the Planned Community Zoning in Newport Center is 375 feet. If this is the buildout, does the zoning allow for more -36- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS March.20, 1986 A c o 10 z C c m o m z C z 0 v C o O M z m m I City of Newport Beach a z or will this need to be made compatible. Run off: Ms. Watt opined that the state of the art is less precise, but the question is, is there some more sophisticated method of mitigation than the improvement techniques that have been used. Mr. Dick Nichol, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichol opined that traffic has reached gridlock in Corona del Mar, and he pointed out roadways within Corona del Mar that have congestion. Mr. Nichol opined that upon reaching gridlock, that there is a need for a more sophisticated traffic analysis, and he suggested that the traffic analysis be revised and improved to show the real situation. Mr. Nichol stated his concern regarding the noise and pollution issues along East Coast Highway.in Corona del Mar. He pointed out that parked automobiles that are idling are much more inefficient than automobiles that are moving. Mr. Nichol stated his concern that there is not an alternative means to provide traffic going south of I I I I I Corona del Mar. In summary, Mr. Nichol asked if the area is in gridlock, should there be consideration of retail and residential expansion in Newport Village. Ms. Karen Harrington, 441 Santa Ana Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Heights Community Association. In reference to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance issue, Ms. Harrington asked if Pacific Coast Highway will be widened, and if so, what numbers will be used. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Commissioner Turner made a motion that the public hearing not be reopened until such time as all of the backup material is available to the public and to the Planning Commission, and that the public hearing notices not be sent out until the documents are available. Chairman Person advised that he would support the motion as a direction to staff. All Ayes Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. • a The Planning Commission recessed at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 p.m. -37- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS March 20, 1986 MINUTES a x o a A 9 = - C v v m Z c m s m = M a = A = * MI City of Newport Beach C T W a r O O ROLL CALF INDEX k k k A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: Planning Director Hewicker discussed the possibility of relocating the Ma Cuisine Cooking School from the first floor of the Atrium Court in Fashion Island to the third floor of the building. He stated that the purpose of the relocation is to enhance the circulation of the Irvine Ranch Market fast food services. It was the determination of the Commission that a new use permit would not be necessary. The Commissioners reviewed the Projects List that may be discussed at the joint Planning Commission - City Council meeting on March 24, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. Motion x Commissioner Eichenhofer was excused from the April 10, All Ayes 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. • k. k k AD J0URNMENT: 10:35 p.m. • k PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ERIM Additional I Business Ma Cuisine I Cooking School Joint PC -CC Meeting E