Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/1989COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. �G�9�o99f9�Q off. DATE: April 20, 1989 r ti ` ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Principal Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Public Comments: Public No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on Comments • non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, April 14, 1989, in front of City Hall. * x Request for Continuances: Request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No. Continuance 2, Variance No. 1152, Arthur Leeser and Robert Feiss, applicants, regarding property located at 2310 First Avenue, be continued to the May 4, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Variance No. 1152, All Ayes to the May 4, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONERS - a+y9�y��oso CITY OF NEWPORT BErkdh 1989 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Final Map of Tract No. 11937 (Revised)(Discussion) Item No.l Request to approve the Final Map of Tract No. 11937 FTM11937 (Revised) subdividing 22.99 acres of land into one lot for Revised a 138 unit residential condominium development, one lot for existing commercial use and a residual parcel not for Approved development. LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 55 and 94, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1200 East Coast Highway, on the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Regis Construction Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding the traffic circulation system, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the unimproved portion of Back Bay Drive will be paved as a part of the tract prior to the occupancy of any units. Mr. David Dmohowski appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company, and he concurred with the finding and condition in Exhibit "A ". Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Final Map of Tract All Ayes No. 11937 (Revised) and cause the map to be transmitted to the City Clerk and City Council. MOTION CARRIED. Finding 1. That the Final Map of Tract No. 11937 (Revised) substantially conforms to the Tentative Map of said Tract and with all changes permitted and all requirements imposed as conditions to its acceptance. Condition: 1. That all conditions imposed by the City Council in conjunction with its approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 (Revised) shall be fulfilled. -2- COMMISSIONERS ymG �N 99r%.pN='2'91t CITY OF NEWPORT BACA 1989 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Variance No. 1152 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to permit the construction of a single family V1152 dwelling which will exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site.on property located in the R -2 District. The Continued proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to 5 -4 -89 so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 16 feet into a required 20 foot front yard setback adjacent to First Avenue, 5 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback, and a request to construct a five ± foot high wrought iron spa enclosure that encroaches 20 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2 and 4, Block 429, Corona del Mar, located at 2310 First Avenue, on the northeasterly side of First Avenue, between Acacia Avenue and Begonia Avenue, in Corona del Mar. • ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: Arthur Lesser and Robert Feiss, Los Angeles OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that this item be continued to the May 4, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Variance No. 1152 All Ayes to the May 4, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES rya�y�`oe,v CITY OF NEWPORT SlUdh 1989 CALL11 11111 1 1 INDEX Use Permit No. 3349 (Continued Public Hearing) I Item No.3 Request to permit a change in the operational UP3349 characteristic of an existing restaurant with on -sale beer and wine so as to allow the addition of dancing and live Denied entertainment and to increase the hours of operation of the restaurant so as to be open from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. daily. LOCATION: Lots 4 -8, Block 159, River Section, located at 5930 West Coast Highway, on the northeasterly side of West Coast Highway, between 60th Street and the Seminouk Slough, in the Newport Shores Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -4 APPLICANT: James Patty, Newport Beach OWNER: Val Brown, Fallbrook The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. James Patty, applicant appeared before the Planning Commission. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". -4- In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Patty explained that he has sold hard liquor in the restaurant facility since he obtained a liquor license in August, 1987. Mr. Patty stated that the neighbors did not object to the liquor application when it was requested by the restaurant. Commissioner PersSn inquired if the applicant should have obtained an amendment to the use permit if the sale of hard liquor is considered a change in operational characteristics. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that it has been staff's determination that the addition of hard liquor in a restaurant facility is not considered a change in operational characteristics when on -sale beer and wine is already permitted. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, referred to the Restaurant Ordinance, and he commented that the Ordinance does not state that a change from beer and wine to hard liquor is an operational change that would require Planning Commission approval. -4- COMMISSIONERS yOG t� yo'Oyy�999y �"- . �y�o�y�`aso CITY OF NEWPORT Bkri4Ck 1989 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Patty and Commissioner Pers6n discussed when the bar was constructed, and when it was closed off so the bar would not be in public view. Commissioner Edwards inquired if the applicant had discussed the availability of the required 35 available parking spaces for the restaurant use with the tenants of the adjoining apartment complex. Mr. Patty explained that inasmuch as he leased the parking spaces from the property owner, he has permitted the tenants to use the parking spaces adjacent to the apartment complex. Mr. Patty commented that there is adequate parking in the area. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Patty explained that the apartment complex is adjacent to the restaurant and the apartment owner does not object to the restaurant's change in operational characteristics; that the restaurant's doors and windows shall remain closed at all times; the restaurant has an adequate air • conditioning system; that the neighbors' concerns with respect to the loud music and the doors open late at night were activities that were committed by the maintenance crew and have been corrected; and that he would comply with the Planning Commission's decision regarding the restaurant's hours of operation. Mr. Frank Spratt, 5903 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his opposition with respect to the restaurant's change in operational characteristics, and he also spoke on behalf of a few neighbors. Mr. Spratt inquired how Condition No. 17 in Exhibit "A ", regarding the restaurant operator's responsibility to inform the live entertainment groups to limit the volume of the music and singing, could be imposed. He inquired if the applicant had made any arrangements to soundproof the building inasmuch as he has heard sounds emitting from the maintenance crew and employees late at night. James Hewicker, Planning Director, responded that Condition No. 21 in Exhibit "A" states that the Planning Commission may call back the use permit for review if the restaurant's live entertainment is too loud. Mr. Hewicker explained that the restaurant's location on the inland side of West Coast Highway is somewhat isolated from the residential areas and the noise emitting from West Coast Highway could be louder than from the restaurant. Mr. Hewicker stated that the Planning Commission has the authority to add stringent sound conditions to the use permit. Chairman -5- COMMISSIONERS ril 2 1989 y CITY OF NEWPORT B A kdh MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Pomeroy suggested that the Planning Commission could add a condition that the use permit be reviewed in 90 days if the sound conditions were not added. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the subject request is not an appropriate use for the area. He referred to the letter from the West Newport Beach Association stating their opposition to the subject request, and the location of the parking lot as it relates to the patrons coming out of the Motion restaurant late at night. Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3349 subject to the Findings in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Winburn supported the motion based on the nebulous location of the requested dance floor, and the seating arrangement of the tables and chairs. Commissioner Debay stated that the subject restaurant is well respected by the local residents. She supported the motion based on the intensity of the restaurant use. Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3349 Motion * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Chairman Pomeroy stated that the use is permitted in the area, and the applicant received approval from the apartment owner. He requested that Condition No. 23 in Exhibit "A" be added stating that the use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in 90 days, and he concurred with staff's recommendation regarding the restaurant's operating hours as stated in Condition No. 5. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the substitute motion based on the restaurant's respect in the community. He referred to Condition No. 21 which states that the Planning Commission has the ability to call up the use permit for review if the restaurant should be detrimental to the area. Commissioner Edwards stated that he would not support the substitute motion based on inadequate findings to support the application, and the intensity of use. He stated that • the expansion will generate more traffic than the existing restaurant produces and that may not be compatible with the local residents. -6- COMMISSIONERS F � ZmGZ�Z.poy9'9P,ybd� . Zd yffONo IA U& 20 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI 1989 MINUTES R CALL INDEX Ayes Substitute motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. Noes * * * 3349, MOTION CARRIED. Motion to Reconsider * Motion was made and voted on to reconsider the substitute Ayes * * * * * * motion, MOTION CARRIED. No Ayes * * Substitute motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. Noes * * * * * 3349, MOTION DENIED. Ayes Motion was voted on to deny Use Permit No. 3349, MOTION No * * CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed change in operational characteristics of the subject restaurant represents an intensity of use which is greater than the . existing restaurant operation. 2. That the proposed changes in the operational characteristics of the subject restaurant will require a greater amount of parking and generate more traffic than the existing restaurant use. 3. That the addition of live entertainment and dancing in conjunction with the late night operation of the subject restaurant will be incompatible with nearby residential uses. 4. That the proposed change in operational characteristics of the subject restaurant, so as to add live entertainment and dancing will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general. welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvement in the neighborhood, and the general welfare of the City. • -7- . COMMISSIONERS 0 `a0C CITY OF NEWPORT Sikh 1989 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX A. General Plan Amendment 89- 1(G) (continued Public Hearing) Item No.4 GPA89 -1G Request to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan so as to establish a precise alignment for the connection of Mesa Drive to Birch Street in Santa Ana A676 Heights; and the acceptance of an environmental document. Continued AND to 5 -18 -89 Amendment No. 676 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend the Santa Ana Heights Specific Area Plan so as to establish a precise alignment for the connection of Mesa Drive to Birch Street. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that he was • informed prior to the Planning Commission meeting that Mr. Lane, the owner of the Newport Beach Golf Course had not been informed of the subject public hearing. He stated that Mr. Lane requested that this item be continued so he could testify on the realignment of Mesa Drive inasmuch as the realignment would affect his business interests. The Planning Commission agreed to open the public hearing and to continue the public hearing to a later date for further testimony by Mr. Lane. Don Webb, City Engineer, withdrew to the exhibit area so as to describe the four alternate alignments. Alignment 1: Mr. Webb stated that the Mesa Drive and Birch Street intersection is designed to traverse a portion of the golf course at the southernmost extension of the alignment. He stated that the alignment would affect three houses on the easterly side of Birch Street. Mr. Webb explained that the alignment would allow traffic from the Mesa Drive /Irvine Street intersection on to Birch Street and into the business park northerly. He stated that Acacia Street would be widened to 70 feet, the intersections on Orchard Drive would be widened to 80 feet. Mr. Webb explained the houses on Mesa Drive between Acacia Street and Birch Street would be served by a cul -de -sac "T" • into Acacia Street just north of Mesa Drive /Birch Street. -8- COMMISSIONERS ZOp yN 9��y� yti y� �y �0�`��'� CITY OF NEWPORT BkrACN 1989 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Webb replied that a traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Orchard Drive and Birch Street. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pomeroy regarding the Newport Beach Golf Course, Mr. Webb explained that because Alignment No. 1 would remove Hole No. 4 and a portion of another hole located at the narrow end of the golf course, that the front nine holes of the golf course may need to be restructured. Mr. Webb said that the cost to restructure the greens and fairways, based on an estimate that he received by a golf professional, would be .50 cents per square foot times 1.2 million square feet, or approximately $600,000.00, or at the most $1.00 per square foot, that two - thirds of the revenue would be lost because the golf course would be out of business between six months to one year; therefore, the estimated total cost would be approximately $1.5 million to $2 million. He explained that the cost estimate of Alignment No. 1 of $5.07 million as stated in the staff report does not include the cost to restructure the golf course. Commissioner Edwards and Mr. Webb discussed the option of redesigning the driving range. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Webb stated that there would be a boulevard stop for traffic on the easterly side of Mesa Drive at Birch Street. Mr. Webb explained that Birch Street residents have the option to enter onto Irvine Boulevard from either Orchard Drive or Mesa Drive. Commissioner Pers6n stated that when the Planning Commission voted on the Santa Ana Heights Specific Area Plan in 1987 that the alignment through the golf course was favorably considered. Commissioner Pers6n indicated that he could not understand why the operator of the golf course was not aware that the Planning Commission was contemplating the possible alignment considering the cost to the City to restructure the golf course. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the traffic caused by the 4 homes located on Mesa Drive taking access to Acacia Street from the cul -de -sac, Mr. Webb explained that staff has estimated the residents -9- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES April 20, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1989 ROLL CALL INDEX would make approximately a total of 40 trips a day and approximately 8 of those trips would be during the peak hours. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Webb discussed the parcels that would be taken on Birch Street northerly of the vacant lot. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pomeroy with respect to the unused area between Alignment No. 1 and the existing Mesa Drive, between Acacia Street and Birch Street, Mr. Webb explained that the area would be 240 feet east to west, and 120 feet north to south. He described the reverse curve in Alignment No. 1 and the straightening of Mesa Drive in Alignment No. 2. Alignment No. 2 - Mr. Webb explained that Mesa Drive passes Acacia Street into a curve northerly to connect into Birch Street. He stated that the 11 houses that would be affected front on Mesa Drive and on the westerly side of Birch Street. Mr. Webb stated that Mesa Drive to the east would "T" into the new roadway, that Acacia Street would widen to 70 feet, that Orchard Drive would widen to 70 feet, and there would be a traffic signal at the intersection of Birch Street and Orchard Drive. He explained that Alignment No. 2 is level, and there are no reverse curves. He said that all of the alignments are designed for a 40 mph speed that would be posted as 35 mph. Alignment No. 3 - Mr. Webb stated that this alternate is a variation of Alignment No. 2 with the exception that Mesa Drive takes the curve northerly before Acacia Street to miss the houses that front on Mesa Drive. He said that the alignment goes up diagonally across the lower portion of the block between Acacia Street and Birch Street, and that with the exception of two houses, it would affect most of the houses that face on Birch Street. Mr. Webb stated that the alignment would take a large portion of a number of lots creating small remnants on both sides of the street. He stated that 13 houses would be affected. He explained that Mesa Drive could cul -de -sac at Acacia Street with access to the easterly Mesa Drive residential community, by Birch Street or Birch Street could cul -de -sac with • access to the easterly .residential community from Mesa Drive. -10- COMMISSIONERS 'k .p A - yp yl�O�O CITY OF NEWPORT Btkdh 1989 MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Alignment No. 4 - Mr. Webb stated that Alignment No. 4 was originally proposed by the County. He explained that Mesa Drive turns northerly into Acacia Street, into a "T" intersection off of Orchard Drive, and he described alternate traffic patterns that could serve the Birch Street residential area. Mr. Webb stated that the 1 million square feet of business /office that is currently zoned in the Land Use Plan for the County and the City would produce between 18,000 to 20,000 trips per day. He said that as the area develops the character of the area is going to change significantly, the businesses are going to require a way out of the business community, and Alignment No. 4 does not provide as good and as direct a route out of the area as the three other alternate Alignments. He said that a major difficulty would be that Orchard Drive would have to serve most of the traffic entering and exiting the area, and the traffic would back up from Irvine Avenue where it would be • difficult to make turns from Acacia Street to Orchard Drive. Mr. Webb indicated that a concern is to provide a circulation system that allows access for the planned development that also provides some relief for the streets outside of the Santa Ana Heights area. Mr. Webb stated that Alignment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 would divert traffic from Irvine Avenue and provide a better traffic service than an indirect route as suggested in Alignment No. 4. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding Alignment No. 4, Mr. Webb explained that two houses would be removed at Orchard Drive and Birch Street. He said that the Laff Stop would be removed at Birch Street and Bristol Street in all of the alignments. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Webb discussed a circulation system that could alleviate a potential backup of traffic at Orchard Drive and Acacia Street to Irvine Avenue. Mr. Webb stated that the existing cul -de -sac on Cypress Street that is temporarily closed off will remain permanently closed. . In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Webb stated that his order of preference from a traffic service standpoint would be Alignment Nos. 2, 3, 1, and 4. Chairman Pomeroy inquired if the reverse curve could be -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o, o G�.�N��,p9 9 �+ 9 oy � �P yo y `�' CITY OF NEWPORT Bkrdk 1989 ROLL CALL INDEX eliminated, and Mr. Webb explained that it was designed so as to miss the houses on Mesa Drive. Discussion ensued with respect to the parcels that would be affected if the reverse curve would be eliminated. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Webb estimated the property acquisition program would take from 9 months to 18 months. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay with respect to retaining the existing alignment of Birch Street and Mesa Drive, Mr. Webb explained that because of the deletion of University Drive from the Master Plan there are no alternate routes to carry the traffic from one side of the Back Bay to the other side with the exception of Bristol Street. Mr. Webb explained that the purpose for the alignment is to ease some of the traffic congestion that is currently on Irvine Avenue. He said that by eliminating the sharp turn and the hill at Mesa Drive and Birch Street, the four lane road will carry the traffic that will be increased by future development of the business community. Commissioner Merrill addressed the five project objectives as referred to in the EIR and the staff report, and he inquired as to the cost of the alternate alignments as identified in Item No. 5: "to construct the project in a timely and cost - effective manner "... . Mr. Webb replied that Alignment No. 2 from a cost estimate standpoint would be the least expensive, then No. 4, and depending on the cost of the golf course it would be either No. 3 or No. 1. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Webb described the residential designated properties that would be affected by each alignment. Commissioner Edwards and Mr. Webb discussed the affect that Alignment No. 1 would have on the golf course. Mr. Webb commented that the staff report's reference to Hole No. 9 is incorrect inasmuch as said hole is not in the vicinity of the alignment. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Frank Kluewer, 2401 Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Mr. • Kluewer regarding the intersection with easterly Mesa Drive adjacent to his house, Mr. Webb explained that a left turn pocket on Mesa Drive /Birch Street will be provided in the center of the street. Mr. Webb suggested that Mr. Kluewer -12- COMMISSIONERS q 9 N m CITY OF NEWPORT B�rACN 1989 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX could exit the area by using the traffic signals at Birch Street or Orchard Drive. Mr. Kluewer stated that his primary concern is that he would have to exit the area through two traffic signals. In response to questions posed by Mr. Kluewer regarding annexation, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the City has prezoned the area, and there is a possibility that the residents would approve annexation into the City. Mr. Hewicker explained that the purpose of the subject proposal is to give the residents and the owners of the business properties an indication of the positions of the City and County. Mr. Hewicker replied that the annexation would include all of the property in Santa Ana Heights easterly of Irvine Avenue. Mr. Bob Travers, 20391 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he would prefer Alignment No. 1 because it would have less impact on his • residential property. In response to a question posed by Mr. Travers, Mr. Webb replied that The Irvine Company has a master lease on the golf course. Mr. Travers contested the cost figures of the alignments inasmuch as the numbers depict the golf course would cost more than if the City purchased residential properties. Mr. Webb stated the projected cost of Alignment No. 1 at $5.07 million does not reflect the cost to restructure the golf course. Mr. Webb explained that land fill would be required to fill a 20 foot high and 400 to 500 foot slope area. Mr. Webb explained that the projected $4.45 million cost for Alignment No. 2 includes unused parcels that could be sold after the land acquisitions had been made and the alignment completed. Mr. Travers inquired if properties that would be obtained by eminant domain would be appraised at Newport Beach prices or County of Orange prices. Mr. Roger Summers, 20292 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the ABCOM Committee to inquire how many properties have been purchased by the County of Orange between Acacia Street and Birch Street on Mesa Drive. Mr. Rich Adler, County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, appeared before the Planning Commission in response to Mr. Summers' question. He stated that the County of -13- COMMISSIONERS G�y9 boy cC�� O� CITY OF NEWPORT BEX& 1989 MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Orange is in escrow on one property, negotiating with three other property owners, one property owner at the corner of Acacia Street and Mesa Drive dropped out of the Purchase Assurance Program, and he said that there is a vacant lot at the corner of Mesa Drive and Birch Street. Mr. Summers maintained that the foregoing properties may have an affect on which alignment is considered. Mr. Summers read the April 16, 1989, letter that the members of ABCOM addressed to the Planning Commission requesting adoption of Alignment No. 2 based on the best traffic circulation for their area. He read that the members support annexation into the City of Newport Beach. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, a straw vote was taken from the approximate 13 ABCOM members that were in attendance with respect to the number of property owners that would be affected by the alignments. Mr. Webb commented that widening of the roadways would take 10 feet on either side of the street. • The straw vote indicated that Alignment Nos. 3 and 4 would have the most impact on those residents. Mr. Adler reappeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of a question posed by Commissioner Edwards. Mr. Adler clarified the locations and status of the five properties and vacant lot that are currently being negotiated by the County. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:10 and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Fred Peterson, 20361 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Peterson emphasized that his primary concerns consist of what the time table is to implement the property acquisitions, and that the acquisitions be fair and decent. Mr. Peterson stated that his preference would be to remain at his location for a minimum of three years inasmuch as he would be eligible to retire from the Newport Mesa School District at that time. Mr. Peterson stated that the County offered him $365,000.00 for his property that includes horse stables, and he maintained that it would be impossible to replace the property anywhere else in Orange County. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Peterson stated that Alignment No. 3 would affect his entire lot. He said that he would prefer Alignment No. 1. -14- COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF NEWPORT Si fkdh 1989 In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy regarding the timetable if the City annexed Santa Ana Heights, Mr. Webb replied that the City's goal would be to complete the circulation system in five years. Mr. Adler reappeared before the Planning Commission. He speculated that the County would like to have the Mesa Drive - Birch Street alignment implemented within five years, or sooner if the funds would be available. He explained that a bond issue is necessary for the funding that is required for the realignment. Mr. Adler indicated that it will take two to three years before the tax increment is received by the redevelopment agency. Mr. Adler stated that the City and County have been working together with respect to the realignment. Mr. Adler stated that when the Board of Supervisors adopted the Santa Ana Heights Specific Area Plan in 1987 that they approved Alignment No. 4. He explained that the County believes that the City should initially adopt an alignment, and if the City selects Alignment No. 4, the County would abstain from doing anything. Mr. Adler explained that an amendment to the Specific Area Plan may be required because of the 80 foot right -of -way, and he discussed the steps to annexation. Mr. Adler stated that between the time the City adopts the alignment and the area is annexed by the City, the County would want to make certain that any development that would occur in the business park would be required to provide the proper dedication. Chairman Pomeroy depicted a scenario with respect to the time table after the City adopted a specific alignment and the County's public hearing to amend the Specific Area Plan. Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Adler agreed that it is possible that the residents would be informed of the adopted alignment by September, 1989. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Adler replied that it is possible that the Santa Ana Heights area could be annexed by Summer, 1990. Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Adler discussed the Redevelopment Funds that would be available to the City through the County's Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Roger Miller, 20435 Upper Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to questions posed by Mr. Miller, Mr. Hewicker reviewed the time frame of the adopted alignment and the possible annexation by the City. Mr. Miller summarized the four alternate alignments, and he concluded that he preferred Alignment No. 2 because it -15- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS A$. to 0.4 90 °2 \<" PQ$° A ril 2 1989 i y s CITY OF NEWPORT SEX& MINUTES ROL 7CA LL INDEX is proposed to have a better flow of traffic and it would be a straight roadway. Mr. Gerald Silsbee, 2352 Bay Farm Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Silsbee's opinion was that the staff report was not comprehensive, and he made a brief comment regarding the proposed alignments along Mesa Drive. Motion * Commissioner Pers6n made a motion to continue General Plan Amendment 89 -1(G) and Amendment No. 676 to the May 4, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. He requested that staff report back to the Planning Commission their discussion with the operator of the Newport Beach Golf Course with information concerning the possible cost and construction alternatives to Alignment No. 1. Chairman Pomeroy and Commissioner Pers6n discussed the possibility that the front nine holes of the golf course would be shortened because two holes would be eliminated and two new holes would be added elsewhere. In response to Commissioner Winburn's statement that when the Planning Commission approved the Santa Ana Height's Specific Area Plan, there was a different alignment that affected the golf course at Mesa Drive than what is currently being proposed. Mr. Webb replied that the previous alignment was recommended by a Santa Ana Heights property owner. Mr. Webb explained that the previous alignment had a number of deficiencies: it was not designed for 40 mph, the curve radius was too short, the alignment closely followed the grades of Mesa Drive, and the sight distance would not be adequate. Mr. Webb commented that Alignment No. 1 was designed to not affect five houses on Mesa Drive. Commissioner Edwards suggested that the operator of the golf course propose alternate designs to the Planning Commission. He referred to previous testimony during the public hearing and commented that staff submitted numerous documents to the Planning Commission for their consideration in addition to the staff report that was available to the public during the public hearing. i -16- COMMISSIONERS yOG to �099i9P929i.. .. : CITY OF NEWPORT BUdh 1989 MINUTES ROM 'CALL INDEX Following a discussion by the Planning Commission, the maker of the motion amended the motion to continue General Plan Amendment 89 -1(G) and Amendment No. 676 to the May 18, All 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION Ayes CARRIED. Discussion Amendment No 628 Item Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport No.l Beach Municipal Code establishing regulations controlling the installation of satellite dish antennas in the City; A628 and the acceptance of an environmental document. Scheduled Motion * Motion was made and voted on to set Amendment No. 628 for 5 -4 -89 All Ayes public hearing on May 4, 1989. MOTION CARRIED. PCM ADDITIONAL BUSINESS• Additional Business The Planning Commission discussed the proposed Central Balboa Specific Area Plan with staff. Central Balboa SAP ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 p.m. Adjournmen GARY DI SANO, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -17-