HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24/1986COMMISSIONERS REOuIAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PLACE: City Council Chambers MINUTES
Cv = TIME: 7:30 p.m.
m DATE: April 24, 1986
z C m a m =
a s = M z m City f Newport Beach
�z o >ao Y P
ROLL CALL INDEX
Present x x x
I ll
x x x x All Planning Commissioners were present.
x
Motion
Ayes
•
EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT:
James D. Hewicker, Planning Director
Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney
x • :
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator
Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator
Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator
Donald Webb, City Engineer
Dee Edwards, Secretary
* * x
Minutes of April 10, 1986:
Commissioner Turner requested that page 5, paragraph 3
be amended to state "that the installation of the
public improvements should be delayed until the plans
of the site have been finalized ". Commissioner Winburn
requested that page 28, paragraph 3, be amended to
state ....... and that she would like to give Mr. Blake
more time to come up with additional information... ".
Motion was made to approve the amended April 10, 1986,
x Planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION
xlxlxlxlxlxl CARRIED.
r, ■.r
-1-
Minutes
of
April 10,
1986
z ,,.`;' April 24; 1986
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX
•
is
Use Permit No. 689 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to amend a previously approved use permit which
permitted a 74 bed convalescent center in the M -1 -A
District. The proposed amendment includes a request to
construct a new building containing a laundry facility
and storage area. The proposal also includes a modifi-
cation to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed
building to encroach 9 feet into a required 10 foot
zone separation setback along the southerly side
property line. The proposed amendment also includes a
request to amend a previously imposed condition of
approval which requires one parking space for each two
beds. It should be noted that the proposed construc-
tion is part of a previously.approved use permit which
has expired.
LOCATION: A portion of Lot No. 614, First Addi-
tion, Newport Mesa Tract, located at
1555 Superior Avenue, on the north-
westerly side of Superior Avenue between
Fifteenth Street and Sixteenth Street,
adjacent to the West Newport Triangle.
ZONE: M -1 -A
APPLICANT: Newport Convalescent Center, Newport
Beach
OWNER: American Health Centers, Newport Beach
The public hearing was opened in connection with this
item, and Mr. Paul Edgren, applicant, appeared before
the Planning Commission. Mr. Edgren stated that he
concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit
"A ", with the exception of Condition No. 12 which
states that "mechanical equipment shall be sound
attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property
lines ", and Condition No. 13 which states that "the
applicant shall obtain the services of a professional
engineer practicing in acoustics who shall provide
evidence of existing ambient outside noise levels and
proposed interior noise levels ". Mr. _Edgren pointed
out that Condition No. 13 appears to state that there
would not be any noise from the laundry facility;
however, Condition No. 12 states that there would be
noise from an exhaust fan. Mr. Edgren. asked that both
Conditions No. 12 and No. 13 state that the sound from
the laundry facility not exceed 55 dBA at the property
lines.
-2-
No. 1
x 0
-
C o
0
x
m
2 C
2
m>
m
Z
m F
A
Z
2
M=
W
C
O 3
O O
0
M m
o
m a
r M
Z a
z
y z
r m
z ,,.`;' April 24; 1986
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX
•
is
Use Permit No. 689 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to amend a previously approved use permit which
permitted a 74 bed convalescent center in the M -1 -A
District. The proposed amendment includes a request to
construct a new building containing a laundry facility
and storage area. The proposal also includes a modifi-
cation to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed
building to encroach 9 feet into a required 10 foot
zone separation setback along the southerly side
property line. The proposed amendment also includes a
request to amend a previously imposed condition of
approval which requires one parking space for each two
beds. It should be noted that the proposed construc-
tion is part of a previously.approved use permit which
has expired.
LOCATION: A portion of Lot No. 614, First Addi-
tion, Newport Mesa Tract, located at
1555 Superior Avenue, on the north-
westerly side of Superior Avenue between
Fifteenth Street and Sixteenth Street,
adjacent to the West Newport Triangle.
ZONE: M -1 -A
APPLICANT: Newport Convalescent Center, Newport
Beach
OWNER: American Health Centers, Newport Beach
The public hearing was opened in connection with this
item, and Mr. Paul Edgren, applicant, appeared before
the Planning Commission. Mr. Edgren stated that he
concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit
"A ", with the exception of Condition No. 12 which
states that "mechanical equipment shall be sound
attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property
lines ", and Condition No. 13 which states that "the
applicant shall obtain the services of a professional
engineer practicing in acoustics who shall provide
evidence of existing ambient outside noise levels and
proposed interior noise levels ". Mr. _Edgren pointed
out that Condition No. 13 appears to state that there
would not be any noise from the laundry facility;
however, Condition No. 12 states that there would be
noise from an exhaust fan. Mr. Edgren. asked that both
Conditions No. 12 and No. 13 state that the sound from
the laundry facility not exceed 55 dBA at the property
lines.
-2-
No. 1
ROLL
MMISSIONERS
April 24, 1986
X
c o
E a 9
a v m
z c m a m =
C 2 N r o 0
M A= 9 a r m
j City
of
Newport Beach
Discussion followed between the Planning Commission and
staff regarding Conditions No. 12 and No. 13, and the
previously approved Conditions No. 14 and No. 15 from
the Planning Commission Meeting dated August 4, 1983.
Mr. Hewicker suggested that Condition No. 12 could be
modified and Condition No. 13 could be deleted.
Commissioner Goff suggested that Condition No. 12 could
be modified to state "any roof -top fans, vents and
other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated so
as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property lines and that
they be screened from view ".
The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was
made to approve Use Permit No. 689 (Amended), subject
to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ",
including modified Condition No. 12 stating, "any
roof -top fans, vents and other mechanical equipment
shall be sound attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at
the property lines and that they be screened from
Motion X1 view ", and to delete Condition No. 13. Motion voted
1x1x1x1 x Ix 11 xl EINDINGS N CARRIED.
1. That the existing and proposed use is consistent
with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and
is compatible with surrounding land uses.
2. The Police Department has indicated that it does
not contemplate any problems.
3. That the proposed additions will not increase the
parking demand of the facility inasmuch as no new
employees will be required and no additional
patients are proposed in conjunction with the
proposed alterations.
4. That adequate on -site parking is being provided
for the existing and proposed use of the property.
5. That the design of 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 development.
• 6. That the establishment, maintenance of operation
of the use of the property or building will not,
under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort
-3-
MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS I April 24, 1986
MINUTES
ROLL CALL I 11 I Jill I INDEX
and general welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be
detrimental or injurious to property and improve-
ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare
of the City, and further, that the proposed
modification to allow encroachments into a requi-
red setback area is consistent with the legisla-
tive intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code,
inasmuch as a 15t wide drive provides a substan-
tial separation between the proposed building and
adjoining mobile homes.
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial confor-
mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans,
and sections except as noted below.
II I I I I I 12. That all mechanical equipment, trash areas, and
l outdoor storage areas shall be screened from
is Superior Avenue and adjoining properties.
3. That a minimum of one parking space for each 2.47
beds (30 parking spaces) shall be provided in
conjunction with the subject convalescent hospi-
tal.
0
4. That continuous curb stops be installed in the
northerly parking lot, at least four feet from the
railing adjacent to Superior Avenue.
5. That a new concrete drive approach and paving be
installed at the southerly drive entrance. The
design of said drive approach shall be subject to
the approval of the Public Works Department and
shall be constructed under an encroachment permit
issued by the 'Public Works Department.
6. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the
public right -of -way be approved by the Public
Works Department.
7. Handicap parking spaces shall be designated by a
method approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
-4-
X x
f
a v
_
C
c z
a=
a
o r
0
T
0
m
I City
of
Newport
Beach
a=
MINUTES
ROLL CALL I 11 I Jill I INDEX
and general welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be
detrimental or injurious to property and improve-
ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare
of the City, and further, that the proposed
modification to allow encroachments into a requi-
red setback area is consistent with the legisla-
tive intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code,
inasmuch as a 15t wide drive provides a substan-
tial separation between the proposed building and
adjoining mobile homes.
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial confor-
mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans,
and sections except as noted below.
II I I I I I 12. That all mechanical equipment, trash areas, and
l outdoor storage areas shall be screened from
is Superior Avenue and adjoining properties.
3. That a minimum of one parking space for each 2.47
beds (30 parking spaces) shall be provided in
conjunction with the subject convalescent hospi-
tal.
0
4. That continuous curb stops be installed in the
northerly parking lot, at least four feet from the
railing adjacent to Superior Avenue.
5. That a new concrete drive approach and paving be
installed at the southerly drive entrance. The
design of said drive approach shall be subject to
the approval of the Public Works Department and
shall be constructed under an encroachment permit
issued by the 'Public Works Department.
6. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the
public right -of -way be approved by the Public
Works Department.
7. Handicap parking spaces shall be designated by a
method approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
-4-
COMMISSIONERSI April 24, 1986
MINUTES
ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX
S. That arrangements be made with the Public Works
Department in order to guarantee satisfactory
completion of the public improvements if it is
desired to obtain a building permit prior to
completion of the public improvements.
9. That the existing concrete block storage shed,
located in the southerly parking area, shall be
removed and the existing trash bins shall be
relocated so as to provide adequate space for five
parking spaces.
10. That the . employees shall be required to park on
site.
11. That the proposed laundry facility shall be for
the exclusive use of the Newport Convalescent
Center only.
12. Any roof -top fans, vents and other mechanical
4 I I I I I equipment shall be sound attenuated so as not to
I exceed 55 dBA at the property lines and that they
be screened from view.
13. Deleted.
14. That the applicant shall construct a continuous
six -foot high masonry wall along the southerly
side property line of the subject property, except
that said wall shall maintain a clear 10 foot
setback from the front property line and that the
last 10 feet of the wall closest to Superior
Avenue shall not exceed a height of 3 feet.
15. That all landscaping shall be regularly maintained
free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be
regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition.
16. That the parking area shall be resurfaced or
repaved and restriped in a manner acceptable to
the Traffic Engineer. The vehicular and pedestri-
an circulation plan shall also be subject to
further review by the Traffic Engineer.
17. That all improvements shall be constructed as
required by ordinance and the Public works Depart-
ment.
-5-
�x
c o
E
S
y
9
9
m
C 2
C M
N
p i
0
T
0
m
z
a a
i City
of
Newport
Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX
S. That arrangements be made with the Public Works
Department in order to guarantee satisfactory
completion of the public improvements if it is
desired to obtain a building permit prior to
completion of the public improvements.
9. That the existing concrete block storage shed,
located in the southerly parking area, shall be
removed and the existing trash bins shall be
relocated so as to provide adequate space for five
parking spaces.
10. That the . employees shall be required to park on
site.
11. That the proposed laundry facility shall be for
the exclusive use of the Newport Convalescent
Center only.
12. Any roof -top fans, vents and other mechanical
4 I I I I I equipment shall be sound attenuated so as not to
I exceed 55 dBA at the property lines and that they
be screened from view.
13. Deleted.
14. That the applicant shall construct a continuous
six -foot high masonry wall along the southerly
side property line of the subject property, except
that said wall shall maintain a clear 10 foot
setback from the front property line and that the
last 10 feet of the wall closest to Superior
Avenue shall not exceed a height of 3 feet.
15. That all landscaping shall be regularly maintained
free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be
regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition.
16. That the parking area shall be resurfaced or
repaved and restriped in a manner acceptable to
the Traffic Engineer. The vehicular and pedestri-
an circulation plan shall also be subject to
further review by the Traffic Engineer.
17. That all improvements shall be constructed as
required by ordinance and the Public works Depart-
ment.
-5-
COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES
,2
C o 0
x
C v y m
z c m s m z
M = n = M m City of Newport Beach
C 2 W p C o o
ROLL CALL INDEX
18. That the Planning Commission may add or modify
conditions of approval to this use permit, or
recommend to the City Council the revocation of
this use permit, upon a determination that the
operation which is the subject of this use permit,
causes injury, or is detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare'
of the community.
19. 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.
V. .v
Use Permit No. 3158 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing)
Request to amend a previously approved use permit which
permitted various alterations to the Balboa Inn and
• related restaurant uses. The proposed amendment
includes a request to establish an alternate outdoor
dining area on an existing second floor deck and on a
pedestrian bridge over the public East Ocean Front
sidewalk. Said dining area will not increase the
existing "net public area" of the restaurant inasmuch
as it will not be used simultaneously with the existing
outdoor dining area on the ground floor. The proposal
also includes a request to allow non - amplified live
entertainment in the two outdoor dining areas. The
proposal also includes the termination of a portion of
the approved Use Permit No. 3158 that permitted the
Caffe Nunzio Restaurant on the property. Said area is
proposed to be used for retail sales and a hotel
service area.
LOCATION: Lots 12 -16, Block 10, Balboa Tract,
located at 105 Main Street, on the
northwesterly corner of East Ocean Front
and Main Street, in Central Balboa.
ZONE: C -1 -Z
APPLICANT: Balboa Improvements, Ltd., Costa Mesa
OWNER: Same as applicant
Chairman Person stepped down from the dais because of a
possible conflict of interest.
Item No.2
UP3158A
Continued
to
5 -22 -86
V\MISSIONERS
April 24,
1986
X
C O n
z c m a m z
C= 0 p r 0 0
Z" T m
Z a=
I City
of
Newport
Beach
James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to a letter
dated April 22, 1986, signed by the Board of Directors
of the Rendezvous Condominium Association addressed
to the Planning Commission and received by staff.
The public hearing was opened in connection with this
item.
Mr. Dennis O'Neil, 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, appeared
before the Planning Commission on behalf of the
applicant. Mr. O'Neil briefly referred to the alleged
violations of the existing conditions relating to the
subject use permit, and advised that the matters will
be corrected. He commented that the cocktail lounge
area that was previously open before the permitted hour
of 3:00 p.m. can be monitored and corrected, although
the applicant will be requesting that the two
additional parking spaces resulting from the closure of
the Caffe Nunzio, reducing the approved 19 parking
spaces to 17 parking spaces, be applied towards the
ability to open the cocktail lounge before 3:00 p.m.
Mr. O'Neil stated that serving patrons outside of the
areas that are permitted for outdoor dining will be
monitored. Mr. O'Neil commented that the applicant is
requesting an amendment to the use permit in order to
provide outside dining on the second floor deck area,
and on a pedestrian bridge over the public East Ocean
Front sidewalk. He said that the in -lieu parking fees
for the 66 parking spaces were paid in a timely manner,
and the check for the additional required 19 parking
spaces has been submitted to the City.
Mr. O'Neil stated that there has not been any music in
the foyer or patio of the subject hotel since opening
night at which time a special events permit was issued.
He commented that the applicant intends to abide by the
condition that no live 'entertainment shall be
permitted.
Mr. O'Neil stated that the applicant concurs with the
findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A ", and
he asked for the Planning Commission or staff to
comment on Condition No. 3 relating to the time of
operation and whether or not the additional 2
parking spaces could be utilized to allow for the
Iopening of the cocktail lounge before 3:00 p.m.
-7-
MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
't x
c o O
x
_ C v v m
Z c m D m Z
C Z "' o r o o
M 2 p Z r m
a
April 24, 1986 MINUTES
City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL
INDEX
The public hearing was closed in connection with this
item.
Mr. Hewicker commented that the reason for requiring
the cocktail lounge to be closed prior to 3:00 p.m. was
that during the summer months when the Municipal
Parking Lot is full there is no parking available for
the public in that area until after 3:00 p.m. Mr.
Hewicker explained that the procedure to change the
operating hours of the cocktail lounge is to advertise
and hold a public hearing.
Commissioner Goff asked what the hours of the Caffe
Nunzio were, and he pointed out that the hours of
operation of the cocktail lounge were limited to after
3:00 p.m. based on the 1,365 square feet of "net public
area" of the restaurant that could be utilized before
3:00 p.m. William Laycock, Current Planning
Administrator, replied that the applicant previously
requested that the front portion of the interior of the
restaurant and ground floor patio area be utilized .,
•
until 3:00 p.m. instead of the cocktail lounge. Mr.
Laycock commented that the Caffe Nunzio's operating
hours were from 12:00 noon to 2:00 a.m. and that the
restaurant purchased the required 6 in -lieu parking
spaces for said use.
Discussion followed regarding the cocktail lounge's
operating hours and the restaurant's "net public
Motion
x
area ". Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3158
(Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 8,
1986, to allow staff and the applicant additional time
to clarify the operating hours of the cocktail lounge,
how the "net public area" could be utilized, and the
impact of transferring the in -lieu parking spaces from
Caffe Nunzio to the primary restaurant use.
Commissioner Koppelman suggested that the use permit be
renoticed if the applicant is interested in changing
the cocktail lounge's operating hours to an earlier
opening. Discussion followed regarding the length of
time that the applicant and staff would need to
evaluate the proposed and renotice the use permit. Mr.
O'Neil stated that the applicant would agree to a
continuation of the use permit until the Planning
Commission Meeting of May 22, 1986.
n
x
Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3158
the May 22, 1986, Planning Commission
x
x
x
x
x
x
(Amended) to
Absent
x
Meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED.
ROLL
0
•
COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986
x x
c O 0
x
m
z c m s m z
i z 9= m= T m( City of Newport Beach
Ic z N p r 0 0
A. Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) (Discussion)
Request to review a previously approved use permit
which permitted the expansion of an existing delica-
tessen- restaurant known as "Rothschild Cheese and
Wine." Said review is for the purpose of ensuring
conformance with the Conditions of Approval previously
established by the Planning Commission.
Mar
B. Resubdivision No. 751 (Discussion) (Extension)
MINUTES
INDEX
Item No. 3
UP1851A
Approved
and
R751
Request for an extension of time in conjunction with 3 month
the approved Resubdivision No. 751 that permitted the extension
establishment of a single parcel of land for the Approved
expansion of the Rothschild Wine and Cheese Restaurant
where one lot, a portion of a second lot, and a portion
of an abandoned alley presently exist.
LOCATION: Lot No. 1, Block B, Tract No. 740, a
portion of Lot 10, Block 730, Corona del
Mar Tract and a portion of an abandoned
alley located at 2407 East Coast
Highway, on the southeasterly corner of
Begonia Avenue and East Coast Highway,
in Corona del Mar.
ZONE: C -1
APPLICANT: Helmut Reiss, Corona del Mar
OWNER: same as applicant
ENGINEER: Raab Engineering, Inc., Orange
Mr. Helmut Reiss, applicant, appeared before the
Planning Commission in connection with this item. Mr.
Reiss advised that he was unaware that the parcel map
had been recorded, and that the trash area has been
screened. In response to a question posed by Mr. Reiss
regarding the closing hour of the restaurant, Chairman
Person referred to Condition No. 11, from the Planning
Commission Meeting of April 21, 1983, whereby the
condition states "that the restaurant facility shall
remain closed after 10:00 p.m. and before 10:00 a.m. ".
COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES
C 0 i�, , r v z c m s m
n z A= T m( City of Newport Beach
C Z 0 p r 0 o
ROLL CALL INDEX
Mr. Reiss asked for a clarification of Condition No.
19. Chairman Person replied that the condition has
been imposed on restaurants since the applicant
originally applied for his use permit, and that the
condition states that the Planning Commission has the
authority to review and modify the subject use permit
should the restaurant become a detriment to the
neighborhood or the community in the future. Mr. Reiss
stated that he had no objections that Condition No. 19
be added to the subject use permit.
Motion x Motion was made that Use Permit No.. 1851 (Amended)
All Ayes include added Condition No. 19, and that Resubdivision
No. 751 be extended until October 15, 1986. Motion
voted on, MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITION:
19. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify
conditions of approval to this use permit, or
• recommend to the City Council the revocation of.
this use permit, upon a determination that the
operation which is the subject of this use permit,
causes injury,, or is detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare
of the community.
I I I I I I I I
Use Permit No. 3196 (Public Hearing) lItem No.4
Request to permit the installation of outdoor tennis UP3196
court lighting on property located in the custom lot
residential area of the Aeronutronics Ford Planned Approved
Community. Said lighting will be installed on eight
poles with a fixture height of 22 feet.
LOCATION: Lot 28, Tract No. 11450, located at 5
Weymouth Court, on the southerly side of
Weymouth Court, easterly of Belcourt
Drive North, in the custom lot area of
the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community.
ZONE-
• 11111111 OWNERCANT:
M!
John S. O'Meara, Newport Beach
Same as applicant
-10-
ROLL
'NMISSIONERS April 24, 1986
X
c o O
V x y m
z c m y m z
Z j City of Newport Beach
C z N O r 0 0
The public hearing was opened in connection with this
item, and Mr. John O'Meara, 1215 Nottingham Road,
applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission.
Mr. O'Meara stated that he concurs with the findings
and conditions in Exhibit "A ".
The public hearing was closed in connection with this
item. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3196,
Motion x subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ".
-Ayes x x Ix x x x x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED.
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land
Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible
with surrounding land uses.
I 2. I 112. The project will not have any significant environ-
` mental impacts.
• 3. That the proposed illumination will be installed
in such a manner as to conceal the light source
and to minimize light spillage and glare to the
adjoining residential properties and streets.
4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3196 will not 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 or be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial confor-
mance with the approved plot plans and elevation.
2. That the lighting system shall be designed and
maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light
source and to minimize light spillage and glare to
the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be
prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engi-
neer; with a letter from.the Engineer stating that
• in his opinion, this requirement has been met.
3. That the tennis court lighting shall be turned off
by 11:00 p.m. daily.
*xte
-11-
MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
April 24, 1986 MINUTES
c o
x
FC s 9 a 9 m
c m y ," Z
Z N p; O O
Z z m z T m
City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Use Permit No. 3197 (Public Hearing) -
Item.No.5
UP3197
Request to permit the installation of outdoor tennis
court lighting on property located in the custom lot
residential area of the Aeronutronics Ford Planned
Approved
Community. Said lighting will be installed on eight
poles with a fixture height of 22 feet.
LOCATION: Lot 31, Tract No. 11450, located at 6
-
Weymouth Court, on the northerly side of
Weymouth Court, easterly of Belcourt
Drive North, in the custom lot area of .
the Aeronutronics Ford Planned
Community.
ZONE: P -C
APPLICANTS: Mr. and Mrs. William McFarland, Palos
Verdes Estates
•
OWNERS: Same as applicants
The public hearing was opened in connection with this
item. Because no one appeared to represent the
applicant or testify before the Planning Commission,
the public hearing was closed at this time.
Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3197, subject -
Motion
x
to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
x
voted on, MOTION CARRIED.
•
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land
Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible
with surrounding land uses.
2. The project will not have any significant environ-
mental impacts.
3. That the proposed illumination will be installed
in such a manner as to conceal the light source
and to minimize light spillage and glare to the
adjoining residential properties and streets.
-12-
ROLL
MMISSIONERS
April 24, 1986
x
c o
x
a y
v
z m c m a m z
c z a v r 0 0
z 9= a z T m
I City
of
Newport Beach
4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3197 will not 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 or be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial confor-
mance with the approved plot plans and elevation.
2. That the lighting system shall be designed and
maintained in such a manner as to conceal the
light source and to minimize light spillage and
glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans
shall be prepared and signed by a licensed
Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the
• Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this
requirement has been met.
3. That the tennis court lighting shall be turned off
by 11:00 p.m. daily.
•
-13-
MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES
x x
C O
x
- C v A a m
Z c m s m z 30
I z n a m z * m I City of Newport Beach
c z N v; O O
ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX
A. General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) (Public Hearing) 11tem No.6
Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circu- GPA 85 -1B
lation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the
Newport Beach General Plan, so as to allow construction Amendment
of an additional 1,275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, No. 9 to
248,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 LCP /LUP
residential units on property located in Newport Center
and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a Continued
revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to to
delete the Avocado - MacArthur one - way - couplet and. 5 -22 -86
establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two -way major
arterial roadway, and the acceptance of an environ-
mental document.
mill
No. 9 to the Citv of Newport Beach Local
111
I I Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program,
0 Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing,
and PCH /Jamboree sites.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc., 3151 Airway
Avenue, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning
Commission, representing The Irvine Company. Mr. Neish
reviewed The Irvine Company's proposed project that was
formally presented during the Planning Commission
public hearing on March 20, 1986.
Mr. Neish complimented the staff and the City's
environmental and traffic consultants for the work and
preparation of the documents that have been prepared
for the proposed project.
Ms. Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator,
presented the staff's analysis and recommendation.
Ms. Temple stated that in analyzing the proposed
General Plan Amendment staff has four primary
objectives from a land use standpoint: land use
compatibility; intensity of land use and compatibility
• to the adjacent areas; that no residential reductions
were desirable; and that the City did not want to leave
floating or transfer residential units within Newport
Center.
-14-
WAISSIONERS
April 24, 1986
�C F
C O
O
The high -rise tower proposed in Block 600 is similar
p y
x
-
Z C
9
A D fl
T
Z
C Z
z a=
0 p Z
a=
O 0
T m
I City
of
Newport Beach
Ms. Temple stated that The Irvine Company's proposal is
in keeping with the land use patterns established in
the original concept of Newport Center, and in the
development that has occurred over the years. She said
that the proposal in terms of intensity and style of
use is compatible with the existing development and the
existing land use pattern. She cited that the proposal
is not consistent with the long standing effort on the
part of the City to maintain an increased planned
housing stock in the City, both in Newport Center and
the City in general. Ms. Temple stated that the
concern over the housing stock stems from two areas:
compliance with the State Planning Law and the programs
in the City's Housing Element, and the circulation
system balancing effects of a.mixed use development.
in terms of intensity, Ms. Temple said that the project
fits within intensity limits within the City and the
prior actions of the Planning Commission. She stated
that when calculated for commercial sites and for the
• combination of the commercial and residential sites in
Newport Center, the Floor Area Ratio under the existing
General Plan is 0.41 and if the proposed project is
included the Floor Area Ratio is 0.47. When the land
taken for recreational uses is included, the country
club and the tennis club, the Floor Area Ratios are .30
and .35 respectively. In comparison to the other
Planned Communities in the City, Newport Place has a
0.37 Floor Area Ratio permitted, and Koll Center
Newport has a 0.525 Floor Area Ratio permitted. She
said that the older commercial areas within the City
allow significantly higher intensity ranges: Campus
Drive at 0.50 Floor Area Ratio; Mariner's Mile and
Cannery Village at 1.0 Floor Area Ratio; and other
older commercial areas such as Corona del Mar are at
2.0 or 3.0 Floor Area Ratio.
Ms. Temple analyzed the individual sites as follows:
Fashion island: Generally consistent with the
established land uses.
-15-
MINUTES
The high -rise tower proposed in Block 600 is similar
in size to the three existing office towers in Block
600 and is considered compatible with both these and
•
the hotel use which is currently under construction.
-15-
MINUTES
ROLL
P_.�
April 24, 1986
Beach
Civic Plaza area is developed with office and also the
existing City library and art museum. The proposal to
add 50,000 square feet of office use is compatible and
it is also compatible if the use is institutional.
Block 800 proposal would allow additional 440,000
square feet of office use. Block 800 currently has two
eight -story office buildings and a restaurant. From a
land use standpoint the proposal is considered
compatible, but the existing Floor Area Ratio in Block
800 is .55. The proposal, if approved as requested,
would result in a Floor Area Ratio of 1.55 on the
vacant portion of the site or would increase the
overall intensity of Block 800 to .92. in this respect
intensity proposed is significantly higher than that
which exists in the area.
East Coast Highway /Jamboree Boulevard: there are
currently two residential areas which are immediately
adjacent, Sea Island to the north and the approved
Villa Point apartment project to the east. The
addition of 130 apartments in this area would be a
continuation of the Villa Point apartment project and
can be considered compatible, particularly since the
development is a multi - family residential use which can
be accommodated in the arterial highway location
proposed.
Corporate Plaza West is an office development of
100,000 square feet which is similar in nature to the
Corporate Plaza existing to the east. This use is
considered compatible from a land use standpoint.
Office and retail commercial requested on Newport
Village is proposed to be an extension of the existing
Corporate Plaza development, but is a slightly higher
Floor Area Ratio. The only incompatibility that staff
would foresee of approval of this proposal is some
possibility of aesthetic impact on the residents across
MacArthur Boulevard which may result from signage or
parking lot lighting. These types of impacts are
mitigable.
I I Avocado /MacArthur Boulevard is proposed for garden
offices and is very similar to the Newport Village
1111 IIII proposal. It is generally compatible with the land
uses in the area although at a far less Floor Area
Ratio than the Block 400 development across Avocado
Avenue.
-16-
MINUTES
x
a
c o
n
e
a v
=
ti
v
e y
m
z c
m
a m
z
m a
C Z
a
N
z r
G;
m
O
o
o
i s
o
m a
1 City
of
Z
a z
r
m
April 24, 1986
Beach
Civic Plaza area is developed with office and also the
existing City library and art museum. The proposal to
add 50,000 square feet of office use is compatible and
it is also compatible if the use is institutional.
Block 800 proposal would allow additional 440,000
square feet of office use. Block 800 currently has two
eight -story office buildings and a restaurant. From a
land use standpoint the proposal is considered
compatible, but the existing Floor Area Ratio in Block
800 is .55. The proposal, if approved as requested,
would result in a Floor Area Ratio of 1.55 on the
vacant portion of the site or would increase the
overall intensity of Block 800 to .92. in this respect
intensity proposed is significantly higher than that
which exists in the area.
East Coast Highway /Jamboree Boulevard: there are
currently two residential areas which are immediately
adjacent, Sea Island to the north and the approved
Villa Point apartment project to the east. The
addition of 130 apartments in this area would be a
continuation of the Villa Point apartment project and
can be considered compatible, particularly since the
development is a multi - family residential use which can
be accommodated in the arterial highway location
proposed.
Corporate Plaza West is an office development of
100,000 square feet which is similar in nature to the
Corporate Plaza existing to the east. This use is
considered compatible from a land use standpoint.
Office and retail commercial requested on Newport
Village is proposed to be an extension of the existing
Corporate Plaza development, but is a slightly higher
Floor Area Ratio. The only incompatibility that staff
would foresee of approval of this proposal is some
possibility of aesthetic impact on the residents across
MacArthur Boulevard which may result from signage or
parking lot lighting. These types of impacts are
mitigable.
I I Avocado /MacArthur Boulevard is proposed for garden
offices and is very similar to the Newport Village
1111 IIII proposal. It is generally compatible with the land
uses in the area although at a far less Floor Area
Ratio than the Block 400 development across Avocado
Avenue.
-16-
MINUTES
April 24, 1986
t Beach
Big Canyon /MacArthur Boulevard is proposed for an
additional SO apartment units which would be an
extension of an existing apartment development in Big
Canyon. This use is considered compatible.
Bayview Landing is proposed for a restaurant complex
totaling 60,000 square feet. The location is
immediately adjacent to the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park
and the Newporter Resort,. and it is considered
appropriate for visitor related commercial uses. There
are some constraints on the site including dedication
for roadway improvements, the stability of coastal
bluffs and public view opportunities which may limit
the intensity which is appropriate on the site.
The proposed residential project on Newporter North is
similar in nature and density to other bluff -top
developments surrounding Upper Newport Bay such as
Eastbluff and Westcliff. Most of the Upper Newport Bay
is developed with residential uses in the medium or
• multi - family density ranges. Park Newport north of the
site is 24.5 dwelling units per acres. Depending upon
the amount of site approved for development, the units
proposed could result in density ranging from 7.5 to
25 dwelling units per acre.
The primary land use issue associated with the
Avocado Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard couplet is one of
site planning. The one -way couplet would isolate the
land in between roadways requiring additional
ingress /egress points, and in more land used for
roadway facilities. The reversion to MacArthur
Boulevard as a two way street will allow for more
favorable site planning and broaden the uses to which
the land in between can be used. Amending the Master
Plan of Streets and Highways is therefore, considered
compatible with the existing land uses and would allow
for greater flexibility and site planning in the area.
Ms. Temple stated that one of the primary concerns of
staff, the community, the Planning Commission, and the
applicant is the ability of the circulation system to
sustain both planned development and the additional
development proposed in the Newport Center plan. She
said that the City did extensive traffic work including
• I I I ( I ( an analysis of the circulation system as a whole, and
as a result, certain findings were made as follows:
-17-
MINUTES
F F
C O
O
a v
m
C
a
9
Z C
m
m
Z
Ol 9
`Z
A
N
Z K°
Z
°;
°
S
M m
O
m y
M
m
°City
of
Z a
z
a z
r
m
April 24, 1986
t Beach
Big Canyon /MacArthur Boulevard is proposed for an
additional SO apartment units which would be an
extension of an existing apartment development in Big
Canyon. This use is considered compatible.
Bayview Landing is proposed for a restaurant complex
totaling 60,000 square feet. The location is
immediately adjacent to the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park
and the Newporter Resort,. and it is considered
appropriate for visitor related commercial uses. There
are some constraints on the site including dedication
for roadway improvements, the stability of coastal
bluffs and public view opportunities which may limit
the intensity which is appropriate on the site.
The proposed residential project on Newporter North is
similar in nature and density to other bluff -top
developments surrounding Upper Newport Bay such as
Eastbluff and Westcliff. Most of the Upper Newport Bay
is developed with residential uses in the medium or
• multi - family density ranges. Park Newport north of the
site is 24.5 dwelling units per acres. Depending upon
the amount of site approved for development, the units
proposed could result in density ranging from 7.5 to
25 dwelling units per acre.
The primary land use issue associated with the
Avocado Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard couplet is one of
site planning. The one -way couplet would isolate the
land in between roadways requiring additional
ingress /egress points, and in more land used for
roadway facilities. The reversion to MacArthur
Boulevard as a two way street will allow for more
favorable site planning and broaden the uses to which
the land in between can be used. Amending the Master
Plan of Streets and Highways is therefore, considered
compatible with the existing land uses and would allow
for greater flexibility and site planning in the area.
Ms. Temple stated that one of the primary concerns of
staff, the community, the Planning Commission, and the
applicant is the ability of the circulation system to
sustain both planned development and the additional
development proposed in the Newport Center plan. She
said that the City did extensive traffic work including
• I I I ( I ( an analysis of the circulation system as a whole, and
as a result, certain findings were made as follows:
-17-
MINUTES
MMISSIONERS
April 24, 1986
xx
c o
f a y
ti y m
z c m y m z
a 2 N p r 0 0
z A= 9 a T m(
City
of
Newport Beach
In the existing circulation system the traffic
volumes exceed capacity in certain areas: East Coast
Highway between Poppy Avenue and Newport Boulevard;
MacArthur Boulevard between San Joaquin Hills Road and
Jamboree Road; Jamboree Road between East Coast Highway
and Back Bay Drive.
If the existing General Plan were built out along
with the planned circulation system, the projected
traffic volumes would exceed capacity in these areas:
East Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and
Marguerite Avenue; the Coast Highway Bay Bridge; West
Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile; MacArthur Boulevard
northerly of the couplet to Jamboree Road; Jamboree
Road east of MacArthur Boulevard; Marguerite Avenue
south of Fifth Avenue; Bristol Street North west of
Birch Street; Bristol Street west of Birch Street.
I I I I I I If the project is added, traffic volumes exceed
i capacity on East Coast Highway between Marguerite
• Avenue and Poppy Avenue in addition to the segments
previously noted.
In terms of overall capacity, Ms. Temple stated that
the circulation system is estimated to be in balance
with planned and proposed uses. Areas which remain
deficient are East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar
which has been considered by the City as a "planned
deficiency "; Pacific Coast Highway bridge; West Coast
Highway in Mariner's Mile; MacArthur Boulevard north of
San Joaquin Hills Road; Jamboree Road east of MacArthur
Boulevard which is in the airport area. She cited that
the deficiencies in the plan are not caused by the
project, the project adds traffic volumes in the range
of 2 percent to 3 percent, and in the immediate
vicinity of the project 7 percent to 11 percent.
Ms. Temple stated that one of the key issues in
considering the General Plan Amendment is the possible
deletion of the Avocado /MacArthur Boulevard one -way
couplet. She pointed out that detailed studies in terms
of intersection capacity and total traffic volume were
done in order to analyze this proposed change. In 1989
and 1993, which is the build out parameter of the
proposed General Plan Amendment, the one -way couplet
• and the two -way MacArthur Boulevard function appears
equivalent. Ms. Temple pointed out that if the couplet
is not installed, the intersection of MacArthur
Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road is the
intersection that experiences the most capacity
Eff-L
MINUTES
WAISSIONERS
April 24, 1986
C 0
Co
a a v
_ v m
a c m y m a
a V' o r 0 0
9= 9= T m
I City
of
Newport Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX
problems, with the couplet the intersection of East
Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard experiences some
capacity problems. She stated that one advantage with
two -way MacArthur Boulevard is that there would be no
access granted on MacArthur Boulevard, all access to
sites westerly of MacArthur Boulevard would be from
Avocado Avenue, thereby limiting the ingress /egress or
conflict traffic on MacArthur Boulevard, and would also
reduce some out -of- direction travel necessitated by the
couplet.
Ms. Temple stated that there has been a suggestion that
MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San
Miguel Road be limited to four lanes. She cited that
based on a six lane MacArthur Boulevard, the volume to
capacity ratio at build out is estimated to be .87;
however, if MacArthur Boulevard remains at 4 lanes, the
volume to capacity ratio goes up to 1.3, which is in
excess of the roadway capacity. Ms. Temple said that
in staff's estimation the circulation element
1111 designation for MacArthur Boulevard should be a six
10 1111 lane arterial.
Ms. Temple stated that San Joaquin Hills Road is
currently designated as a major arterial which is a six
lane divided roadway. She said that based on all of
the information in the traffic study and traffic
studies done by the County of Orange, the volumes do
not warrant this magnitude designation. She said that
staff is recommending that the Master Plan in the City
be changed to indicate the road as a primary arterial
which would be a four lane divided designation easterly
of Spyglass Hills Road, requiring the City to request
the County to amend the County's Master Plan of Streets
and Highways.
Ms. Temple stated that regional roadways play a
significant role to sustain the traffic proposed to
come onto the circulation system. She pointed out that
of particular importance in the short term is
construction of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road
bypass between Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur
Boulevard. She said that based on the information in
the traffic studies in the origin and destination
survey, the Pelican Hill Road would divert
• approximately 23 percent of the traffic on East Coast
Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and the easterly
City Boundary and 22 percent of the traffic on
MacArthur Boulevard. Ms. Temple stated that in addition
-19-
COMMISSIONERSI April 24, 1986
MINUTES
ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX
to providing additional capacity, the road serves to
improve Intersection Capacity Utilization ratios at the
intersections along these two routes as well. She
commented that the construction of Pelican Hill Road
will be a primary component of the improvement program
for this project if it is approved.
Ms. Temple stated that the extension of San Joaquin
Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road could also divert some
traffic during peak hours although it is not estimated
to divert nearly as much as Pelican Hill Road. In
terms of the proposed project, Ms. Temple commented
that the San Joaquin Hills Road extension would serve
traffic directly going into Newport Center. The
Pelican Hill Road connection primarially will serve
development which occurs north of Newport Center and in
the airport area.
Ms. Temple stated that in the long term, the most
important roadway in the City is the installation of
• the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. She
pointed out that the Corridor provides substantial
relief to East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and
MacArthur Boulevard. Additionally, the traffic study
indicates that all of the connections currently
anticipated by the County's planning for the Corridor
are needed for the Newport Beach circulation system to
function equitably on a system wide basis. She pointed
out that if San Joaquin Hills Road is not constructed
between Pelican Hill Road and the Corridor, the
traffic volumes increase on Ford Road and through the
Harbor View Homes area, particularly along San Miguel
Road, and if the Ford Road interchange is eliminated,
the traffic volumes along MacArthur Boulevard increase
significantly.
Ms. Temple stated that the Traffic Phasing ordinance
was 'amended in December, 1985. A supplemental Traffic
Phasing Ordinance will be prepared and must be
considered by the Planning Commission and the City
Council prior to final action of this project. She
said that the Traffic Phasing ordinance and the Planned
Community Text along with the Development Agreement
processed for this project would follow the Planning
Commission's consideration of the General Plan
I I I I ( I Amendment and the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
-20-
x A
C o
F
a
y
9
9
m
z c
m
y M
z
C
M 9
y
=
o;aol
9
�
City
v
of
Newport
P
Beach
a
m
MINUTES
ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX
to providing additional capacity, the road serves to
improve Intersection Capacity Utilization ratios at the
intersections along these two routes as well. She
commented that the construction of Pelican Hill Road
will be a primary component of the improvement program
for this project if it is approved.
Ms. Temple stated that the extension of San Joaquin
Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road could also divert some
traffic during peak hours although it is not estimated
to divert nearly as much as Pelican Hill Road. In
terms of the proposed project, Ms. Temple commented
that the San Joaquin Hills Road extension would serve
traffic directly going into Newport Center. The
Pelican Hill Road connection primarially will serve
development which occurs north of Newport Center and in
the airport area.
Ms. Temple stated that in the long term, the most
important roadway in the City is the installation of
• the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. She
pointed out that the Corridor provides substantial
relief to East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and
MacArthur Boulevard. Additionally, the traffic study
indicates that all of the connections currently
anticipated by the County's planning for the Corridor
are needed for the Newport Beach circulation system to
function equitably on a system wide basis. She pointed
out that if San Joaquin Hills Road is not constructed
between Pelican Hill Road and the Corridor, the
traffic volumes increase on Ford Road and through the
Harbor View Homes area, particularly along San Miguel
Road, and if the Ford Road interchange is eliminated,
the traffic volumes along MacArthur Boulevard increase
significantly.
Ms. Temple stated that the Traffic Phasing ordinance
was 'amended in December, 1985. A supplemental Traffic
Phasing Ordinance will be prepared and must be
considered by the Planning Commission and the City
Council prior to final action of this project. She
said that the Traffic Phasing ordinance and the Planned
Community Text along with the Development Agreement
processed for this project would follow the Planning
Commission's consideration of the General Plan
I I I I ( I Amendment and the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
-20-
ROLL
COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986
X x
c o
Z C M v m
C m y m z
I Z a a= T I City of Newport Beach
C 0 o r O O
In response to the noise impact in the change in the
roadway configuration from the one -way couplet to a
two -way MacArthur Boulevard, The Irvine Company
proposed a mitigation measure which involves the
lowering of MacArthur Boulevard. Ms. Temple pointed
out that MacArthur Boulevard would be lowered from zero
to 13 feet and in order to do this, the centerline of
the roadway would also move westerly approximately 50
feet, thereby providing a significant noise mitigation.
Ms. Temple stated that the Fire Department has
indicated that the proposed project will significantly
affect the demand for emergency services from the Santa
Barbara Drive station. She said that the Fire
Department has indicated that a desirable location for
an additional fire station in the north part of the
City would be the San Diego Creek North site. She
pointed out that the site is designated as
"Governmental, Educational - and Institutional
Facilities ", allowing a "park and ride" facility, and
• could also be used for a fire station.
Ms. Temple stated that a fiscal impact analysis was
done as part of the work for the General Plan Amendment
and indicated that if the proposed project is approved,
and constructed, the project would result in revenue in
excess of expenditures of approximately $1 million
annually. She pointed out that the City's consultants
feel that the City's fiscal model used in generating
this estimate is conservative and that the project
could generate an additional annual surplus of
$160,000.00 to $320.000.00. Ms. Temple stated that
denial of the project could have some revenue impacts
on the City. The City would not gain the revenue that
could be accrued by approval of the project, but also
the circulation system master plan improvements may
have to be partially paid for by the City.
Ms. Temple cited that the primary consideration
regarding staff's recommendations of land uses was
housing and employment balance. She pointed out that
this is important both from a housing standpoint and
also peripheral benefits in terms of the circulation
system since residential and commercial uses generally
produce traffic in opposite directions. Ms. Temple
• I j I I( I I presented staff's recommendations as follows:
-21-
MINUTES
P—j
MMISSIONERS April 24, 1986
x x
C
_ y A y m
z c m y m z
Z n= a= T m City of Newport Beach
c z 0 v r O 0
Bayview Landing: A site that has some access and slope
stability problems. The request is for 60,000 square
feet of commercial use for restaurants. Staff's
recommends that the request be reduced to 20,000 square
feet, and that the development be limited to the lower
portion of the site which would gain access directly
from Back Bay Drive. Ms. Temple recommended that the
upper portion be held as an open space to allow for
improvements at the Jamboree Road /East Coast Highway
intersection, a view park, and a bicycle and pedestrian
path and staging area.
Newporter North: Ms. Temple commented that there are
significant archeological sources which exist on the
site. Staff recommends the site for residential
development and has suggested that the area of the site
which is taken up by archeological resources be held as
a cultural resource reserve and that the 490 units
requested be developed outside those areas. This would
result in a project approximately the density of the
Park Newport Apartments.
Big Canyon /MacArthur Boulevard: Staff has suggested no
land use changes, and has recommended that the project
be approved as requested with 80 as residential units.
Civic Plaza: The Irvine Company requested to delete
1,350 theater seats and to increase the office/
institutional use by 50,000 square feet. The uses
proposed are compatible with existing development and
staff therefore recommends approval.
Fashion Island: Staff suggests that seats deleted from
Civic Plaza be placed in the Fashion Island Retail
Center. Further, the 40,000 square feet which staff
suggested not be built on Bayview Landing also he
allowed in the Fashion Island Retail Center. This will
result in an overall increase of 168,000 sq.ft. of
retail uses and 1,350 theater seats.
Block 600: A 300,000 square foot office tower is
proposed. The three other office towers in the area
are generally in the range of 300,000 square feet as is
the Four Seasons Hotel. Staff recommends that this
project be approved as requested.
-22-
MINUTES
INDEX
COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES
x x
C o 0
x
C v y m
z c m y m z
9 = City of Newport Beach
C z N p r 0 o
a
ROLL CALL INDEX
Block 800: The intensity is proposed somewhat higher
Than in the rest of the block, and staff suggests that
the office project be allowed to go forward, but at a
reduced intensity at a maximum of 300,000 square feet.
Corporate Plaza West: The garden offices are similar
to the existing uses in Corporate Plaza and staff has
recommended that the project be approved as requested.
Newport Village: The site has recently been designated
as predominently multi - family residential. Ms. Temple
stated that staff feels very strongly that the site
remain residential and rather than allow any commercial
development which is allowed by the existing General
Plan, staff is recommending that the entire 33 acres
be designated multi - family residential at a maximum of
530 residential units, a similar density to that which
is in the existing General Plan.
Avocado /MacArthur Boulevard: 44,000 square feet of
garden offices is requested. Staff feels that the .
request is appropriate and has recommended that the
project be approved.
Ms. Temple stated that other land use element changes
that are a result of the overall analysis are:
San Diego Creek North: Staff has recommended that a 2.5
acre fire station reservation be added to the site in
addition to the "park and ride" facility.
Westbay: Currently has 161 units designated, 75
percent of those units are transferred to Newport
Center under the existing General Plan. in the overall
land use recommendation, the floating transfer units
disappear, leaving 40 residential units on the Westbay
site. As part of the General Plan Amendment, staff is
recommending that the 40 units be deleted and Westbay
be designated for recreation and environmental open
space.
Ms. Temple stated that the modified project will result
in 1,414 new residential units constructed in Newport
Center, and on the adjacent sites. Staff has
recommended that the affordable housing required of
this project be consistent with the City's Housing
Element providing a total of 453 low and moderate
income units, and that this would include total
accounting for the remaining Haywood expansion, no
-23-
COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES
7 z
c o
r v
2 C T y m 2
z n Z A a r m City of Newport Beach
c Z w o s o o
a
ROLL CALL INDEX
floating units, no transfer units, and no pool
affordable units. Also recommended is that these
residential units be made available for twenty years.
Ms. Temple stated that there has,been a desire by staff
to insure completion of residential units early in the
Newport 'Center Development Program, and staff usually
keys commercial development programs to the
construction of residential units.
The following land use phasing is proposed by staff:
1) No Newport Center residential units required for
Fashion Island expansion; Civic Plaza expansion, or any
residential on the periphery of Newport Center.
2) 400 residential units in Newport Center must have
building permits issued and substantial progress in
construction before building permits are issued for
Block 600; Bayview Landing and Avocado /MacArthur.
• 3) 400 additional residential units in Newport Center
must have building permits issued and substantial
progress in construction before issuance of occupancy
permits for Block 600.
4) Completion and Certificate of occupancy for 800
residential units, which are the two previous 400
residential unit phases, must be issued before building
permits are issued for Block 800 and Corporate Plaza
West.
Ms. Temple stated that the completion of the proposed
project should also be phased with roadway
construction. She pointed out that there are five
components of the circulation system which will be
required to be constructed by The Irvine Company as
part of the project approval. The five components are:
1) Dedication of Right -of -Way for East Coast Highway
improvements.
2) Completion of Jamboree Road to six -lane major
arterial standards from East Coast Highway to San
Joaquin Hills Road.
• i { I I I 113) Completion of MacArthur Boulevard to six -lane major
Ij 1 arterial standards from East Coast Highway to Route 73.
-24-
COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES
xx
c o �
! y a c i m
z C m y m z
Z z D= T m City of Newport Beach
C 2 w o r o 0
ROLL CALL INDEX
4) Construction of Pelican Hill Road /Bonita Canyon Road
between Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard.
5) Construction of San Joaquin Hills Road between
Spyglass Hill Road and Pelican Hill Road.
Ms. Temple stated that these improvements shall be
required in the following phases:
1) Prior to issuance of any building permits for any
component of GPA 85 -1(B) all dedications from The
Irvine Company necessary for completion of the Coast
Highway Improvement Program shall have been made.
2) The following projects .may proceed after Coast
Highway dedications but before installation of Pelican
Hill Road: one -half of Fashion Island; Civic Plaza; and
any residential sites.
3) The balance of Fashion Island may proceed after
Coast Highway dedications and the completion of .
Jamboree Road, but before installation of Pelican Hill
Road.
4) Building or grading permits may be issued upon
commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and
MacArthur Boulevard improvements for Block 600; Bayview
Landing; Avocado /MacArthur.
5) Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued for
Block 600 until the completion of Pelican Hill Road.
6) Building or grading permits for Block 800 and
Corporate Plaza West may be issued upon commencement of
construction of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill
Road.
Mr. Mike Erickson, Director of Transportation, The
Irvine Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, appeared
before the Planning Commission. Mr. Erickson stated
that Pelican Hill Road is a roadway that The Irvine
Company is pursuing as quickly as possible because of
the roadway's important relationship to the Newport
Center General Plan Amendment. Mr. Erickson reviewed
The Irvine Company's proposal of Pelican Hill Road. Mr.
Erickson stated that Pelican Hill Road begins at
Pacific Coast Highway, where the horse.stables used to
be and where the main entrance to the State beach is on
the southside of Pacific Coast Highway. He described
-25-
COMMISSIONERS
April 24, 1986
X s
C O
x
a
_ v m
Z N O 3 o o
i? a m= T T
l City
of
Newport Beach
z
how the roadway climbs up the hill to Pelican Hill
Ridge, how the roadway intersects with Bonita Canyon
Road near the Coyote Canyon access road, and how the
four lanes will intersect with MacArthur Boulevard. He
said that the project is approximately six miles long,
at a cost of $15 million to $20 million. Mr. Erickson
stated that the road provides an alternate to the
current traffic problems in Corona del Mar and
MacArthur Boulevard, that the roadway is shorter with
fewer intersections, thereby less time would occur to
drive the route, and would become very attractive to
drivers that want to come from South County up into the
airport business complex area. He said that 10,000 to
12,000 trips per day have been projected, a 33 percent
diversion at the point where Pelican Hill Road takes
off from Pacific Coast Highway.
Mr. Erickson stated that The Irvine Company has
completed staff reviews with the State, the City of
Irvine, the City of Newport Beach, and the County under
whose direction The Irvine Company is processing, as
well as discussions with the Coastal Commission. In
reference to the Environmental Documentation, Mr.
Erickson commented that the notice of preparation
should be circulated within a week. He said that The
Irvine Company is anticipating the circulation of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report around July with the
certification in September or October of this year, and
the start of construction about a year from today. He
commented that the project should take approximately 18
months to complete, an expectation of opening day in
October, 1988.
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:08 p.m. and
reconvened at 9:20 p.m.
Commissioner Koppelman referred to the height of the
noise barriers on MacArthur Boulevard as documented in
the Environmental Impact Report, and she asked how many
lanes are assumed to be in for that noise barrier, and
assuming implementation of the depression, would the
barrier height exceed what is presently existing. Ms.
Temple replied that staff would address these questions
in the following General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) staff
report.
• I I I I Commissioner Koppelman asked how many .completed lanes
the Pelican Hill Road will have in October, 1988. Mr.
Webb replied that the roadway would immediately have
-26-
MINUTES
COMMISSIONERSI April 24, 1986
one lane in each direction with climbing lanes at the
steep hill areas; however, the grading would be done
for the entire six lane roadway. Commissioner
Koppelman asked who owns the Ford Road/Bonita Canyon
area. Mr. Webb replied that the City of Newport Beach
owns all of the existing. Ford Road, and any further
extensions of Ford Road would.be in the City of Irvine.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Winburn, Mr. Webb replied that approximately 25 percent
of Pelican Hill Road will be in the County of Orange,
and 75 percent will be in the City of Irvine.
Chairman Person asked if Pelican Hill Road involves
discretionary approval? Mr. Erickson reappeared before
the Planning Commission and stated that there is a need
for discretionary approval. He said that The Irvine
Company has a General Plan conformance from the City of
Irvine on Pelican Hill Road, and that they are
presently going through the process with the City of
Irvine.
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that
letters have been distributed by staff to the Planning
Commission from Jacques Furriers, Russo's, "Resolution
of Support" from the Newport Center Association, SPON;
and The Balalis Corporation.
Mrs. Deborah Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way, appeared
before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Allen stated that
she strongly supports staff's recommendation of the
Newport Village residential site and the mixed use of
residential /office /commercial in Newport Center. Mrs.
Allen referred to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard
between East Coast Highway to San Miguel /San Joaquin
Hills Road and stated "don't fix it if it is not
broken ". She said that the Harbor View Hills
Homeowners Association does not have any objection to
what is done to MacArthur Boulevard .north of San
Joaquin Hills Road. She commented that she strongly
supports deleting the one -way couplet, she supports an
Avocado Avenue that is two lanes and a straight road.
She presented statistics indicating that MacArthur
Boulevard is not "broken" now. Mrs. Allen commented
that Pelican Hill Road is expected to reduce traffic on
MacArthur Boulevard by 20 percent, and if the San
Joaquin Hills Traffic Corridor is built that will make
the road utilization even lower. She suggested that
the widening of MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes should
-27-
MINUTES
INDEX
a
c o
0
e
a v
=
y
9
r v
m
z c
m
y m
z
a 2
z p
m
p r
0
0
z
m=
m
l City
of
Newport
Beach
m
one lane in each direction with climbing lanes at the
steep hill areas; however, the grading would be done
for the entire six lane roadway. Commissioner
Koppelman asked who owns the Ford Road/Bonita Canyon
area. Mr. Webb replied that the City of Newport Beach
owns all of the existing. Ford Road, and any further
extensions of Ford Road would.be in the City of Irvine.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Winburn, Mr. Webb replied that approximately 25 percent
of Pelican Hill Road will be in the County of Orange,
and 75 percent will be in the City of Irvine.
Chairman Person asked if Pelican Hill Road involves
discretionary approval? Mr. Erickson reappeared before
the Planning Commission and stated that there is a need
for discretionary approval. He said that The Irvine
Company has a General Plan conformance from the City of
Irvine on Pelican Hill Road, and that they are
presently going through the process with the City of
Irvine.
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that
letters have been distributed by staff to the Planning
Commission from Jacques Furriers, Russo's, "Resolution
of Support" from the Newport Center Association, SPON;
and The Balalis Corporation.
Mrs. Deborah Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way, appeared
before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Allen stated that
she strongly supports staff's recommendation of the
Newport Village residential site and the mixed use of
residential /office /commercial in Newport Center. Mrs.
Allen referred to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard
between East Coast Highway to San Miguel /San Joaquin
Hills Road and stated "don't fix it if it is not
broken ". She said that the Harbor View Hills
Homeowners Association does not have any objection to
what is done to MacArthur Boulevard .north of San
Joaquin Hills Road. She commented that she strongly
supports deleting the one -way couplet, she supports an
Avocado Avenue that is two lanes and a straight road.
She presented statistics indicating that MacArthur
Boulevard is not "broken" now. Mrs. Allen commented
that Pelican Hill Road is expected to reduce traffic on
MacArthur Boulevard by 20 percent, and if the San
Joaquin Hills Traffic Corridor is built that will make
the road utilization even lower. She suggested that
the widening of MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes should
-27-
MINUTES
INDEX
VVMISSIONERS
April 24, 1986
x x
c O
a x
_ v m
z c m s m z
Z
C 2 m O K 0 0
City
of
Newport Beach
not be considered at this time and that the issue come
back in another General Plan amendment when MacArthur
Boulevard is "broken ", and she recommended that the
time to come back would be when the City had more
information on the Transportation Corridor. She
commented that according to the Newport Center
Environmental Impact Report the Newport Center
expansion project will not add significantly to
MacArthur Boulevard. Mrs. Allen referred to the
couplet which was a roadway considered to be six lanes
- three lanes on MacArthur Boulevard and three lanes on
Avocado Avenue, and she cited that if MacArthur
Boulevard is left at four lanes and there would be four
lanes on Avocado Avenue there would be eight lanes.
Chairman Person asked Mrs.' Allen for her opinion of the
proposed land use and density as it relates to the
proposed project and staff's recommendations. Mrs.
Allen replied that she had not had time to compare the
General Plan Amendment 80 -3 as approved by City Council
with the proposed project. She emphasized that she
strongly supports the residential land use in Newport
Center.
Ms. Luvena Hayton, Transportation Chairman, Corona del
Mar Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Planning
Commission. Ms. Hayton stated- that the Chamber of
Commerce does not accept staff's recommendation that
one -half of Fashion Island, Civic Plaza, and the
proposed residential sites proceed after East Coast
Highway dedications but before installation of Pelican
Hill Road. She stated that 21,949 automobile trips are
projected to be added, and that there will not be any
traffic ease for Corona del Mar. Ms. Hayton referred
to the proposed traffic improvements and pointed out
that not one of the improvements addresses Corona del
Mar. She asked that San Joaquin Hills Road be left a
major arterial, six lanes divided, instead of
decreasing to four lanes divided, because San Joaquin
Hills Road is the only planned outlet for the traffic
that is now congested on East Coast Highway. Ms.
Hayton cited that the taxpayers have built and
maintained San Joaquin Hills Road including
landscaping.
. Ms. Hayton requested a contingency deadline earlier
than stated by staff for construction of the San
Joaquin Hills Road or the connection of San Joaquin
Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road, which is the last
-28-
MINUTES
INDEX
COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES
x x
c o �
x
i y 9 A v m
c m y m z
J z a z a z r m j City of Newport Beach
C z m o r O o
ROLL CALL INDEX
phase of construction. She commented that this phasing
is totally unacceptable to Corona del Mar. Ms. Hayton
stated that the Chamber of Commerce agrees with staff .
that Newport Village be changed to residential, because
even with the proposed circulation improvements the
area cannot bear the extra traffic and congestion that
commercial site of stores and restaurants would add.
She opined that there is more of a need for housing
than a need for more retail, offices, and restaurants.
Ms. Hayton complimented The Irvine Company for the many
courtesies that they have shown to the community in the
presentation of the proposed project, and the listening
attitude to the concerns of the residents. she said
that the Chamber of Commerce has never opposed the
build -out of Newport Center, only the increase in
traffic. She said that the build -out will affect the
quality of life in Corona del Mar by adding traffic
that cannot be absorbed without circulation
improvements. Ms. Hayton stated that the Chamber of
• Commerce does not care for "planned deficiency ".
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff,
Ms. Hayton replied that the Corona del Mar Chamber of
Commerce is recommending immediate construction of the
Pelican Hill Road - San Joaquin Hills Road connection.
Mr. Gary Pomeroy, President of the Harbor View Hills
Community Association, appeared before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Pomeroy stated that the Harbor View
Hills Community Association is requesting that Pelican
Hill Road be built in order to relief traffic on
MacArthur Boulevard, and they are also opposing the
widening of MacArthur Boulevard until they find out the
impact of Pelican Hill Road. He said that if traffic
is still serious on MacArthur Boulevard after Pelican
Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road have been built,
then he asked that the widening of MacArthur Boulevard
be examined.
Mr. Bill Hamilton, President of the Newport Harbor
Chamber of Commerce and President of Western Canners,
owners of the Cannery Restaurant, appeared before the
Planning Commission. Mr. Hamilton read a letter from
the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce in
support of the proposed General Plan Amendment for
Newport Center. He said that the local businessmen and
businesswomen of the Chamber of Commerce approve of the
balance of office, retail, residential and residential
-29-
COMMISSIONERS I April 24, 1986
development which will revitalize and enhance the
business environment, and the compatibility of the
project with the surrounding residential communities.
He opined that Newport Center and Newport Beach have
lost some of their former prestige as a place to do
business because of the lack of expansion space, and
due to government regulations, there is not a
reasonable amount of commercial growth, consequently,
many local firms needing space to expand have relocated
in surrounding communities. He pointed out that many
Newport Beach residents have had to spend their dollars
outside Newport Beach due to inadequate retail shops,
activities, and services at Fashion Island. Mr.
Hamilton explained how Newport Center could become a
focal point to the residents of the community, and that
Newport Center is an important source of City tax
revenues. He cited that the General Plan Amendment
provides an opportunity to the City to secure a
commitment to complete the Master Plan of roads and
highways plus the construction of Pelican Hill Road to
provide the bypass for Corona del Mar. Mr. Hamilton .
expressed his desire that this generation carry the
Newport Beach area forward so that future generations
can enjoy the area as. much as the residents have
enjoyed the past work by those who have previously
changed Newport Beach.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Koppelman regarding the Chamber of Commerce's position
regarding the phasing of the roads and construction,
Mr. Hamilton replied that the Chamber of Commerce saw
nothing in the General Plan that they oppose as far as
the mixed use or the plan of phasing the various
traffic mitigating activities in the build -out. Mr.
Hamilton stated that the Chamber of Commerce took this
position before the Environmental Impact Report or the
Traffic Study was distributed.
Chairman Person asked what the Chamber of Commerce's
position is regarding the recommended housing units and
the housing that would be available for the employees
of Newport Center. Mr. Hamilton replied that in
general, the Chamber of Commerce feels that the
commercial use of Newport Center is more important in
providing revenue for the amenities that the City would
. . like to have and that these would be better funded by
commercial activities than they are by residences. The
Chamber of Commerce feels that The Irvine Company is on
the right track to provide more commercial space than
housing space in Newport Center to help pay for the
expensive traffic circulation requirements.
-30-
MINUTES
INDEX
z z
C O
O
m
C
Z c
m
y m
Z
c z
z
to
p r
O
O
a
a=
m
i City
of
Newport
Beach
Z
development which will revitalize and enhance the
business environment, and the compatibility of the
project with the surrounding residential communities.
He opined that Newport Center and Newport Beach have
lost some of their former prestige as a place to do
business because of the lack of expansion space, and
due to government regulations, there is not a
reasonable amount of commercial growth, consequently,
many local firms needing space to expand have relocated
in surrounding communities. He pointed out that many
Newport Beach residents have had to spend their dollars
outside Newport Beach due to inadequate retail shops,
activities, and services at Fashion Island. Mr.
Hamilton explained how Newport Center could become a
focal point to the residents of the community, and that
Newport Center is an important source of City tax
revenues. He cited that the General Plan Amendment
provides an opportunity to the City to secure a
commitment to complete the Master Plan of roads and
highways plus the construction of Pelican Hill Road to
provide the bypass for Corona del Mar. Mr. Hamilton .
expressed his desire that this generation carry the
Newport Beach area forward so that future generations
can enjoy the area as. much as the residents have
enjoyed the past work by those who have previously
changed Newport Beach.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Koppelman regarding the Chamber of Commerce's position
regarding the phasing of the roads and construction,
Mr. Hamilton replied that the Chamber of Commerce saw
nothing in the General Plan that they oppose as far as
the mixed use or the plan of phasing the various
traffic mitigating activities in the build -out. Mr.
Hamilton stated that the Chamber of Commerce took this
position before the Environmental Impact Report or the
Traffic Study was distributed.
Chairman Person asked what the Chamber of Commerce's
position is regarding the recommended housing units and
the housing that would be available for the employees
of Newport Center. Mr. Hamilton replied that in
general, the Chamber of Commerce feels that the
commercial use of Newport Center is more important in
providing revenue for the amenities that the City would
. . like to have and that these would be better funded by
commercial activities than they are by residences. The
Chamber of Commerce feels that The Irvine Company is on
the right track to provide more commercial space than
housing space in Newport Center to help pay for the
expensive traffic circulation requirements.
-30-
MINUTES
INDEX
MMISSIONERS
April 24, 1986
xx
C O
C
-
2 c
a r v
m y m
m
2
Z a
Z A z T
City
of
Newport Beach
m
Ms. Dorothy Hardcastle, 507 Jade Street, Balboa Island,
President of Speak Up Newport (SUN) appeared before the
Planning Commission. Ms. Hardcastle stated that the
Board of Directors feel strongly about the
implementation of General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B), and
are breaking their policy of only discussing plans and
issues without taking a position. She said that in so
doing, the Board of Directors are in complete accord on
the necessity of completing Newport Center and asked
for approval of the project. She further stated how
the proposed project will enhance the needs of the
employees and residents of the community. She also
suggested that 25 percent of the residential units be
made available to those of lower and moderate incomes.
She cited the need for the road improvements and the
need and conveniences of Pelican Hill Road. Ms.
Hardcastle stated that Fashion Island is the largest
single source of revenue in Newport Beach and that the
proposed project would increase the City's revenue.
She cited that the Board of Directors of SUN are urging
approval of the General Plan Amendment.
Mr. Jack Ryan, 48 Fashion Island, appeared before the
Planning Commission. Mr. Ryan pointed out that The
Irvine Company is proposing to bring in additional
medium priced stores that will be catering to the
career woman comparable to his store. He stated that
60 percent of his customers are Newport Center
employees, and that the success of many of the Fashion
Island businesses depend upon the approval of the
General Plan Amendment. He pointed out that The Irvine
Company will be implementing an express bus line from
communities outside of Newport Beach to bring in
employees and customers to Newport Center.
Mr. Bruce Lambert, 215 Atrium Court, President of the
Fashion Island Merchant Association, appeared before
the Planning Commission. He said that the 100
retailers in Fashion Island support the General Plan
Amendment in order that Fashion Island may be expanded
and improved to the benefit of the entire community.
He pointed out that residents will benefit by the
broader mix of retail opportunities, and that they will
not have to drive long distances to outlying shopping
malls. Mr. Lambert pointed out the proposed amenities
• ( I I I I I I that Fashion Island will offer. He cited that
residents in the community have stated.that they would
like to see Fashion Island become a "people place ".
-31-
MINUTES
INDEX
COMMISSIONERS
xx
C 0 0
- C o A a m
z c m a m =
C Y 0 O K 0 0
a z A= T m
S
April 24, 1985 MINUTES
City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL
INDEX
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner,
Mr. Lambert replied that the Fashion Island Merchants
Association has not addressed the issue of housing
within Newport Center, and that they would come back
with an answer at a later date. Chairman Person agreed
with Commissioner Turner that the opinion of the
Fashion Island Merchants Association would be helpful,
and he also asked for their opinion regarding
affordable housing within the area.
Ms. Gail D'Vorak; Vice President and General Manager of
Neiman Marcus, appeared before the Planning Commission.
Ms. D'Vorak recommended approval of the General Plan
Amendment, and the vital affect that the employees of
the surrounding office buildings have on the success of
Neiman Marcus. She commented that the growth of
Newport Center will serve the needs of future
generations.
Mr. Barry Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way, appeared before
the Planning Commission. Mr. Allen referred to the ..
.
staff's recommendation that MacArthur Boulevard be
widened to six lanes, and he stated that the traffic
study does not support the staff's recommendation. He
cited that MacArthur Boulevard is not operating at
full capacity. He stated that including the build -out
of Newport Center and future development, the future
usage of MacArthur Boulevard will drop to sixty percent
capacity with the building of Pelican Hill Road, the
which does not take into consideration the San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor, which he cited will
remove even more traffic from the area.
Mr. Allen stated that the following traffic figures do
not appear in the Environmental Impact Report: 15,000
automobiles a day reduced through Corona del Mar on
East Coast Highway; 14,000 automobiles a day reduced on
MacArthur Boulevard; 10,000 automobiles reduced on
Jamboree Road; in addition to the reduction that will
take place in the building of the Pelican Hill Road.
Mr. Allen stated that the aforementioned traffic
figures came from Mr. Ben Nolan, Director of Public
Works, told to the City Council in November, 1985, when
the City decided to join the San Joaquin Hills Freeway
Agency. He said that the traffic studies that are now
• 11111111 in existence and that have been done show no reason to
widen MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway
and San Joaquin Hills Road. Mr. Allen submitted
-32-
ROLL
"/V\ISSIONERS
April 24, 1986
z
c o �
C
a v m
y
o r v
2 C T y m 2
c z m o S 0 0
Z a Z M= T
City
of
Newport Beach
traffic figures pertaining to the current travel and
capacity of MacArthur Boulevard, and Pelican Hill Road
completion. He further commented that there is no
reason to widen MacArthur Boulevard,, leave it at four
lanes.
Mr. Allen commented that there are three lanes proposed
going down to East Coast Highway, which is going to
remain at two lanes in each direction, unless the
parking is taken away. He opined that roads are
proposed to be built and are being designed for six
lanes, which means that there are attempts to build a
six lane road on East Coast Highway. He further
commented that parking will be taken off of East Coast
Highway, and that there will be six lanes through
Corona del Mar, creating the Coastal Freeway. He
advised that the Coastal Freeway must be stopped by not
allowing the widening of roads when the roads do not
need to be widened. He opined that allowing MacArthur
Boulevard to be widened is building another freeway
. on -ramp to the Coastal Freeway. Mr. Allen stated that
Corona del Mar would be destroyed because no one wants
to shop next to a freeway. Mr. Allen concluded his
presentation by stating that there is nothing wrong
with MacArthur Boulevard, that the road is not broken,
so don't fix it.
Ms. Karen Harrington, 441 Santa Ana Avenue, President
of the Newport Heights Community Association, appeared
before the Planning Commission. Ms. Harrington
commented that The Irvine Company presented the
proposed project to the Newport Heights Community
Association, and that the Association approves of the
build -out of Fashion Island, including the cultural
improvements. She stated that the Association agrees
with staff's recommendations regarding Bayview Landing,
however, they would recommend one restaurant, leaving
the remaining area as open space, and to develop
Newport Village as residential including a park. Ms.
Harrington stated that the 1,200,000 square feet of
proposed office space in Newport Center is more than
adequate to meet the needs of the clients and the
clients that The Irvine Company may want to attract,
which would create more open space. Ms. Harrington
stated that the Newport Heights Community Association,
• I I I j I Cliffhaven Community Association, and Mariner's Mile
Business Association are on record opposing the
widening of West Coast Highway to six lanes, and the
-33-
MINUTES
ROLL
W"ISSIONERS
April 24,
1986
C 0
C o 0
x
ti v a m
z c m y m z
O z N o r 0 0
9= I
City
of
Newport
Beach
9 a
traffic intersection improvements, specifically Tustin
Avenue and Riverside Avenue, which would encourage the
traffic flow into the residential neighborhood. Ms.
Harrington expressed a concern regarding the protection
of the bluffs in the Back Bay area, and keeping
development away from the bluffs.
Mr. Richard H. Marowitz, President of Newport Center
Association, appeared before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Marowitz read the "Resolution of Support for
General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B)" which stated that the
completion of Newport Center is necessary to the
vitality of Newport Center and the City of Newport
Beach; that the Newport Center Association has reviewed
and considered all aspects of.the proposed General Plan
Amendment; and that the Board of Directors unanimously
recommend and endorse the approval by the City of
Newport Beach. Mr. Marowitz stated that the
Association recognizes the need for The Irvine Company
to build out Newport Center and the need of the 11,000
• work contingencies. He said that the completion of .
Newport Center will balance and enhance the existing
and proposed business, retail, and professional
locations and will provide the residents and guests a
wider variety of services and merchandise and price
points.
Mr. Marowitz stated that successful businesses should
have the opportunity to expand, and that opportunity is
virtually non - existent because the office buildings are
approximately 96 percent leased, and that many
businesses have never been able to reach their
potential. He pointed out that the adoption of the
General Plan Amendment will be a major factor in
allowing the retail and professional businesses to
bring their greater potential to fulfillment. He
pointed out that the opening of Irvine Ranch Farmer's
Market and Atrium Court has been incredible, that the
posture of the retail community has changed
significantly. Mr. Marowitz opined that what is needed
now is the balance of the plan. He reflected back to
the time that Fashion Island was opened in 1967 when
the goal was that Fashion Island was not only to be a
place to shop, to work, but also a place to come to and
to be. He opined that the new Irvine Company has the
• I I I I ( ( same goals and he urged the approval of the General
Plan Amendment.
-34-
MINUTES
MMISSIONERS
April 24, 1986
X
c o
? 9
y M
z c M
a M
M
z
c z W
C a z
0 r O
a=,
O
m
City of
Newport Beach
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Turner,
Mr. Marowitz replied that the Newport Center
Association opposes staff's recommendation of
residential development in Newport Village, that the
garden offices would be more useful to Newport Center.
Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the
Planning Commission on behalf of the Corona del Mar
Community Association. Mr. Nichols stated that The
Irvine Company has presented the project to the
Association, however, he has not read the Environmental
Impact Report. Mr. Nichols stated that they oppose the
high density of proposed Block 600, Block 800 and
Newport Village. He stated that the traffic in Corona
del Mar has come to a standstill and that there is a
need for mitigation. He commented that the Downcoast
Development does not appear to be in the Environmental
Impact Report /Traffic Study. Mr. Nichols opined that
the Association approves of staff's recommendation for
residential at Newport Village, because there would be
less traffic, and there would also be off -hour traffic. ..
Mr. Nichols stated that the Association agrees with the
Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce as previously stated
by Ms. Hayton, that Pelican Hill Road should be
constructed much sooner, however, two lanes may not be
adequate. Mr. Nichols stated that the Association
opposes staff's recommendation that MacArthur Boulevard
be widened to six lanes, and he described how lanes
could merge into MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast
Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Mr. Nichols stated
that the fact that tenants proposing to move out of
Newport Center because of inadequate office space
should not be a factor. Mr. Nichols opined that The
Irvine Company should have built additional east -west
roadways during the period when The Irvine Company was
developing Corona del Mar.
Ms. Pat Frey, 708 Avocado Avenue, appeared before the
Planning Commission. Ms. Frey stated that she approves
of the General Plan Amendment as a young businesswoman
who would like to remain in the Newport Beach area, and
she stated her approval of the affordable housing
element of the General Plan Amendment.
Ms. Grace Secketa, Planner from the County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency Parks and Recreation,
appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Secketa
requested that the County of Orange Harbor, Beaches,
-35-
MINUTES
'VAMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES
�F
C O n
ti v > a m
z C m a m =
X z A a T m 1 City of Newport Beach
C Z N O S O O
INDEX
and Parks District be designated the recipient of the
82 acres on Westbay. She pointed out that the County
of orange started the District and would like to
continue to do so.
Mr. Chuck Hirsch, businessman and a member of the
Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, appeared
before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hirsch pointed out
that business and residential growth generate traffic,
and that traffic is also generated from communities
adjacent to Newport Beach. He said that the growth of
traffic cannot be stopped but development agreements
can be provided to improve the circulation of traffic.
He said that Pelican Hill Road can divert an increase
of traffic off of East Coast Highway and MacArthur
Boulevard. He suggested that traffic noise could be
also diverted by the lowering of MacArthur Boulevard
and the construction of sound walls. Mr. Hirsch
recommended the approval of General Plan Amendment
86 -1(B).
Mr. John McKerren, 2520 Cliff Drive, appeared before
the Planning Commission stating that he opposes the
reduction of San Joaquin Hills Road from six lanes to
four lanes, and that he agrees with Deborah Allen's
previous remarks regarding MacArthur Boulevard "don't
fix it until it is broken ". He stated that he is very
impressed with the amount of work that has been
generated by staff and The Irvine Company regarding the
proposed project and he stated his approval of General
Plan Amendment 85 -1(B).
Ms. Irving Garn, Corona del Mar, appeared before the
Planning Commission. Ms. Garn stated that she shops in
Fashion Island, however she supports a wider range of
prices to enable more shoppers to leave their dollars
in Fashion Island.
Mr. Tim Paone, 1470 Jamboree Road, appeared before the
Planning Commission. Mr. Paone stated that he has not
been able to find adequate office space within Newport
Center to accommodate the growth of his law office;
however; he pointed out that everyone in the law office
has requested to remain in Newport Center because of
the vitality and identity that Newport Center brings to
a business. Mr. Paone commented that businesses feel a
part of the community, and that there are not many
commercial areas in the surrounding communities that
businesses can feel that way.
-36-
April 24, 1986
Edith Goodwin, 4810 Park Newport, appeared before
the Planning Commission. Ms. Goodwin stated her
approval of the General Plan Amendment and commented
that she walks to Newport Center. She opined, that
Atrium Court /Fashion Island is a sophisticated way of
going downtown. Ms. Goodwin stated that as a
businesswoman she sees the necessity of the
"Renaissance of Newport Center ", so that businesses can
survive and expand.
Mr. Bob Duke, 27 Bodega Bay, representing Spyglass Hill
Homeowners .Association, appeared before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Duke stated that the Association
supports the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor,
and the Association does, not oppose the proposed
project providing that the increase in traffic is
properly addressed. He stated that the Association has
a concern that the Environmental Impact Report and the
Traffic Study have addressed the present traffic
problems in addition to the increase in traffic from
projects which are now under construction, as well as
40 those that are included in the proposed project. Mr.
Duke stated that the Association opposes the widening
of San Joaquin Hills Road from four lanes to six lanes.
He cited Resolution 85 -11, approved by the City Council
on February 25, 1985, stating that San Joaquin Hills
Road would not exceed four lanes.
The Planning Commission recessed at 10:43 p.m. and
reconvened at 10:50 p.m.
Mr. Taylor Grant, 1985 Port Edward Street, appeared
before the Planning Commission. Mr. Grant asked for a
clarification regarding traffic, "that if there would
be a "do nothing" approach and Newport Center only
builds out on existing approval, and Pelican Hill Road
is not constructed, the traffic goes to a state of
"badness "; however, if Pelican Hill Road is
constructed, would actually improve upon the situation
even with the buildout of Newport Center ". Ms. Temple
replied that the total buildout of the General Plan in
2010 is included in all of the traffic projections. Mr.
Grant asked for a traffic model that goes out to 2010.
F
Mr. Grant referred to the removal of East Coast Highway
C
C O
=
parking in Corona del Mar during peak traffic hours.
Mr. Webb replied that the removal of parking would not
•
substantially improve the traffic flow through Corona
Z C
m
y m
Z
cz
MM n
y
os
O
M
O�
City
Y
f
Newport
Newport
Beach
a
a=
m
Edith Goodwin, 4810 Park Newport, appeared before
the Planning Commission. Ms. Goodwin stated her
approval of the General Plan Amendment and commented
that she walks to Newport Center. She opined, that
Atrium Court /Fashion Island is a sophisticated way of
going downtown. Ms. Goodwin stated that as a
businesswoman she sees the necessity of the
"Renaissance of Newport Center ", so that businesses can
survive and expand.
Mr. Bob Duke, 27 Bodega Bay, representing Spyglass Hill
Homeowners .Association, appeared before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Duke stated that the Association
supports the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor,
and the Association does, not oppose the proposed
project providing that the increase in traffic is
properly addressed. He stated that the Association has
a concern that the Environmental Impact Report and the
Traffic Study have addressed the present traffic
problems in addition to the increase in traffic from
projects which are now under construction, as well as
40 those that are included in the proposed project. Mr.
Duke stated that the Association opposes the widening
of San Joaquin Hills Road from four lanes to six lanes.
He cited Resolution 85 -11, approved by the City Council
on February 25, 1985, stating that San Joaquin Hills
Road would not exceed four lanes.
The Planning Commission recessed at 10:43 p.m. and
reconvened at 10:50 p.m.
Mr. Taylor Grant, 1985 Port Edward Street, appeared
before the Planning Commission. Mr. Grant asked for a
clarification regarding traffic, "that if there would
be a "do nothing" approach and Newport Center only
builds out on existing approval, and Pelican Hill Road
is not constructed, the traffic goes to a state of
"badness "; however, if Pelican Hill Road is
constructed, would actually improve upon the situation
even with the buildout of Newport Center ". Ms. Temple
replied that the total buildout of the General Plan in
2010 is included in all of the traffic projections. Mr.
Grant asked for a traffic model that goes out to 2010.
-37-
MINUTES
INDEX
Mr. Grant referred to the removal of East Coast Highway
parking in Corona del Mar during peak traffic hours.
Mr. Webb replied that the removal of parking would not
•
substantially improve the traffic flow through Corona
-37-
MINUTES
INDEX
ROLL
NAAAISSIONERS
April
24, 19 86
X
C 0 n
A y
m
_ C m v
z C y m z
C z 0 O i o 0
j
City
of
Newport
Beach
a a m
del Mar, that there are narrow curb lanes and parking
lanes, and that there would not be sufficient room for
two full lanes of traffic in the amount of space that
there is currently. He explained that normally there
would be 20 foot lanes and the lanes are currently
striped at 19 feet, which would be two 9 1/2 foot lanes
which is too narrow to carry a substantial amount of
traffic.
Mr. Grant questioned the revenue potential for Newport
Center, and he asked if it were possible to rerun the
analysis based on staff recommendation, and also to run
the same analysis based on the past recommendations
because he stated that he is concerned that there would
be considerable financial impact by the removal of some
of the square footage that staff is suggesting. He also
asked for an analysis of fiscal benefit, if there would
be an additional 200,000 square feet of office space.
He opined that this is a consideration that has to be
made, since after transportation improvements are made,
• if additional revenue is generated the City could spend
the dollars elsewhere such as on the park problem in
West Newport or to improve an intersection in upper
Newport Heights.
Mr. Grant referred to the schools, and the number of
school children generated by the proposed plan. He
opined that the school system operates better if there
are more children. In reference to Bayview Landing,
Mr. Grant approved of staff's recommendation, that the
additional square footage be transferred to Newport
Center. He opined that Newport Village is a poor site
for housing because of the noise factor. Mr. Grant
concluded his presentation by stating that the General
Plan Amendment is an opportunity to get some of the
dollars back that have been going to adjacent
communities.
Commissioner Turner stated that the proposed project
includes a substantial amount of area for restaurants,
and he asked staff to come back with a report regarding
same.
Commissioner Eichenhofer stated that she has a concern
regarding the noise factor at the intersection of East
Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. She asked if it
would be possible to develop commercial at the point of
land at the intersection as a sound buffer, and the
remaining area be developed as residential.
SKr
MINUTES
NAMISSIONERS
April
24, 1986
�C F
C O O
x
z c m y m z
C Z H o S O o
a z A= m j
City
of
Newport
Beach
Chairman Person expressed his concern regarding. the
MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway
intersection. He asked if there could be a green belt
affect and some commercial, rather than purely a
residential development. He commented that he has
previously stated concerns regarding the Bayview
Landing and Newporter North sites.
Commissioner Kurlander stated that he does not recall
the reference to the Downcoast traffic generated in the
Environmental Impact Report, and how the Downcoast area
would affect the proposed development, Pelican Hill
Road, or Corona del Mar. He opined that the Downcoast
area could have affect on the proposed project, and
that maybe it could be the "straw that breaks the
camel's back" to some of the proposed project. Mr.
Webb replied that the traffic modelling and projections
comprised in the General Plans for the surrounding
areas including the Downcoast areas, and those traffic
projections are currently in the documents. Chairman
• Person stated that it may be appropriate for staff to
show more detail of those traffic projections. He
pointed out that the public perceives that there will
be some development Downcoast, and he requested that
the the County of Orange, The Irvine Company, and the
State plans be included.
Commissioner Goff stated that he will be asking staff
questions after he has thoroughly studied the
Environmental Impact Report of the proposed project,
and that he would like those questions addressed. He
asked for a parking impact regarding the additional
40,000 square feet in Fashion Island and the additional
theater seats as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Koppelman referred to the MacArthur
Boulevard widening to six lanes, and the question of
the removal of parking on East Coast Highway in Corona
del Mar. She asked staff to obtain an answer from
Cal -Trans regarding exactly what the situation is in
Corona del Mar.
Commissioner Goff stated that Commissioner Koppelman's
question also pertains to West Coast Highway and the
Mariner's Mile area, and he asked staff to address the
issue in the staff report.
-39-
MINUTES
INDEX
ROLL
Motion
Ayes
Abstain
0
•
April 24, 1986
Beach
Chairman Person referred to the possible phasing of
lanes on MacArthur Boulevard, and if an Environmental
Document would be necessary at such time.
Commissioner Turner stated that because of the
x voluminous documents to be studied, he made a motion to
continue the General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) Public
Hearing and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 9
Public Hearing to the Planning Commission Meeting of
May 22, 1986. Commissioner Goff stated that he would
support the motion to allow him enough time to study
and absorb the documents as much as possible.
Motion voted on to continue General Plan Amendment
85 -1(B) Public Hearing and Local Coastal Program
x x x x x Amendment No. 9 Public Hearing to the Planning
Commission Meeting of May 22, 1986. MOTION CARRIED.
F'i l
ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 P.M.
PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
-40-
MINUTES
A x
c °
n
f
9 9'
_
m
2 c
m
y m
z
m A
`z
M
N
z r
°;
0
°
x
°j
City
M m
°
m
T
T
of
s a
z
a z z
r
m
April 24, 1986
Beach
Chairman Person referred to the possible phasing of
lanes on MacArthur Boulevard, and if an Environmental
Document would be necessary at such time.
Commissioner Turner stated that because of the
x voluminous documents to be studied, he made a motion to
continue the General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) Public
Hearing and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 9
Public Hearing to the Planning Commission Meeting of
May 22, 1986. Commissioner Goff stated that he would
support the motion to allow him enough time to study
and absorb the documents as much as possible.
Motion voted on to continue General Plan Amendment
85 -1(B) Public Hearing and Local Coastal Program
x x x x x Amendment No. 9 Public Hearing to the Planning
Commission Meeting of May 22, 1986. MOTION CARRIED.
F'i l
ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 P.M.
PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
-40-
MINUTES