Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/1981a o ¢ m iG ��Inxw ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Place City Council Chambers Times 3:00 p.m. Date: May 7, 1981 :v of N Beach *1* IXICommiss.ioner Cokas was absent. * * * IEX- OFFICIO.MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney * * * STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig.Bluel.l, Senior Planner Nancy Alvidrez, Secretary Pamela Woods, Secretary * * * General Plan Amendment 81 -1 (H) Proposed revisions to the Housing Element of . the Newport Beach General Plan. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach MINUTES Planning,Director Hewicker presented background information on this item and referred to a memo from the Assisant City Attorney, Mr. Bob Burnham, dated May 6, 1981, relating to the Housing Elemen He also stated that Mr. Leonard Hampel, repre- senting the law firm of Rutan and Tucker, is present to answer any ques.tions the Commission may have on his paper entitled, Affordable Housing - 1981 Style. He added that the law firm is representing the City of Newport Beach in the Davis litigation. Mr. Leonard Hampel, attorney, discussed with the Commission, the format and the ramifications of the new Housing Element legislation - AB 2853. He urged the Commission to complete their work on the Housing Element in a timely manner, for the purpose of complying with State law. • I�'IIII� -1 INDEX P.M. kMb-')KJNt" May 7, 1981 - 3:00 p.m. G W City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner McLaughlin stated that the draft Housing Element contains the word "shall" in many instances, where possibly-the word "should" needs to be utilized. She asked how specific the language needs to be. Mr. Hampel stated that the choice of the language to be utilized will become a part of the program. He added that he would favor the usage of the stronger language. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Hampel explained the.time constrain involved in approving the draft Housing Element. He added that additional public hearings will be held at a later date, after HCD has made their comments and suggestions. Commissioner Beek asked if it would -be appropriat for the City to submit proposed additions by local organizations to HCD, even though the Com- mission or the City Council has not formally accepted • the comments, in view.of the 90 day schedule and the October 1, 1981 deadline. Mr. Hampel stated that the City can certainly communicate with HCD on this basis. He also stated that it is not .mandatory that HCD receive all of the draft comments from the community organizations. He stated that HCD will ultimately receive from.the City, the final adopted Housing. Element. In response to a.question posed by Commissioner Allen,-Mr. Hampel stated that all of the cities and.counties in the State must comply with this. legislation and the absolute deadline. Mr. Ward Connerly, the City's .Hous.ing Consultant, stated thus far, HCD has only received 10 to 15 percent of the draft,Housing Elements from the cities. In response to a question posed by,Chairman Haidinger, Mr. Hampel stated that HCD is limited under AB 2853, to comment for the purpose of assisting the local governments. He stated that the basic objective.of the Housing Element.is to comply with State law. • 11111111 -2- • CCfMMISSKJNERS May 7, 19.81 3:00 p . m. MINUTES n = 11 C.) n i In I w I City of Newport Beach L CALL =1 I INDEX In response to a question.posed by Chairman Haidinger, Mr. Connerly stated that the State will conclude that the Housing Element is either adequate in response to .compliance with'AB 2853; inadequate and requires minor revisions; or, inadequate and requires major revisions. Chairman Haidinger asked for Mr. Hampel's comment on the draft Housing Element. Mr. Hampel stated that this plan is in response to, and generally follows the requirements of Arti:cle 10.6. He stated that he believes that it conforms to State law. In response to a. question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Hampel: stated that the programs to be included in the Housing Element are left to the discretion of the local jurisdiction. He stated that the impacts of the program as a whole, must be consistent with the objectives of the Roos Bill. Commissioner Allen asked what body of government makes the final determination as to whether or not the housing program is consistent with the State's goal. Mr. Hampel stated that the courts would make the final determination as to whether the Housing Element substantially complies with Article 10.6. Mr. Ward Connerly, the City's. Housing Consultant, stated that he has met with each member of the Planning Commission and the City Council, and that a strong commitment to provide housing for all economic segments of the City has been evidenced by all members. He referred to the word "shall" and stated that this is used in terms of what will be pursued and examined in the next five year peir.iod. He discussed the housing market and stated that the system of financing is undergoing radical changes which will have profound effects on the housing mar et. He stated that comprehensively, the Housing -3- 0 CO x (D 0X May 7, 1981 - 3:00 p.m. MINUTES City of Newport Beach INDEX Element is suggesting to let the housing mark �t I dictate how it will respond and adjust to the changes that are occuring. In response to a question posed by Commission Er Balalis, Mr. Dave Dmohowski; representing The Irvine Company, stated that they do not welco e the prospect of zoning for rental occupancy only, or that of restrictions on future condominium conversions. He stated that in order to provide substantial amounts of affordable housing, a certain amount of density increase is require c, along with a certain relaxation of developeen standards. He stated that they are in suppor of specific recommendations to.the Housing E1 men which would identify sites for this density; and certain modifications to the development Stan and which would keep prices,in line. Commissioner Balalis requested Mr. Dmohowski o also identify the type of density which will e . needed to accomplish this. Mr. Dmohowski sta ed that they will be studying this issue. Mr. Gordon Young, resident of 310 Encina, state that he is a realtor in Newport Beach. He st ted that the character of the market place is cha gin He suggested -that the Housing Element be kept as fluid as possible, rather than specific re- commendations at this time. Commissioner Thomas how the market will ly referred to the stated that this ma to the community. goal to strive for, asked Mr. Connerly to exp ain provide housing. Mr. Con er- Block Grant Program and y provide housing acceptab e He stated that this sets a along with the many other!. Commissioner Beek stated that subsidizing the developers may not result in low -cost housing Mr. Connerly stated that the de.v.eloper will hive to provide a smaller product of good quality, utilizing less land and higher density.' He stated that the first buyer will. then have affordable housing. • 11111111 -4= MMISSIONERS May 7, 1981 - 3:00 p.m. MINUTES R City of Newport Beach Commissioner Balalis stated th.at perhaps all the Housing Elements should pursue the State Legis- lature or the Federal Government to expand or extend the mortgage rates. He stated that the Housing Element must also establish a goal for the moderate income levels. Mr. Connerly stat d that relaxation of the condominium conversion policy will accommodate this market. He state that the conversion of rental units to ownership units will provide an .increased opportunity in the market. Commissioner Thomas. asked what the displacement impacts will be to the existing residents of tie City. Mr. Connerly stated that a percentage o those persons in existing units may qualify fo ownership, but it is difficult to determine th percentage number. Mrs. Ida Williams, resident of 900 Sea Lane, stated that the only way in which the City can • obtain Federal or State Block Grants is to acc pt affirmative action guidelines.. She stated that she objects to these guidelines. Commissioner Thomas stated that he concurred with the suggestion by Commissioner Balalis on the mortgage.financing. He also stated that provisions need to be included in the condominium conversion policy. Commissioner Allen recommended that the sectio s be examined and acted upon separately.. Commis- sioner Balalis stated that he would be willing to send the document forward, but to study mor finite recommendations duri.ng the next 90 days Commissioner Beek distributed to the Commissio and all interested.parties, his proposed .chang s to the draft Housing Element. .(A copy of thes proposed changes are attached to the minutes a "Exhibit A "). 0 Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that it is appropriate to express significant concerns and changes at this time, as opposed -5- INDEX J"WIUNtK5 May 7,. 1981 - 3:00 p.m. 0 ca N y' City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX to making significant changes later. Mr. Conn r- ly suggested that judgement.be passed on those sections which the Commission can.concur. He stated that the Commission.can :then specify th se sections which require further debate. Commis- sioner Beek stated that more public input is needed during the next 90 days. Motion Motion was made to approve the draft Housing Element. in concept and forward to the City Cou cil The Commission will continue to hold public hearings on those items in which concerns have been identified. Commissioner Beek stated that there may be are s of the document in which the Commission should no approve in concept at this time, as there has of been sufficient discussion and debate. Amendment Amendment to the motion was ma.de.to forward th Ayes draft Housing Element to.the City Council with ut No X X X X X a recommendation ,.which.A.MENDMENT FAILED. .Ab�t * Ayes jXjXjXj*[j1jXj1rigina.l motion by Commissioner Balalis was no Noes voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent The Commission.identified the following concer s on the draft Housing Element: (Commissioner Beek's concerns are attached as "Exhibit A "). Section IV Housing.Program /Strategy Page IV -2 - Item 2) Implementation Plan - Commissioner Allen Page IV -8 - Item 2) Implementation Plan - Chairman Haidinger Page IV -9 - Item 2) Implementation Plan -. Commissioners Allen and Thomas • 11111111 -6- CALL • Motion All Ayes MMIJJIVNtKJI May 7, 1981 3:00 p.m. � City of Newport Beach MINUTES Page IV -13 - Items 2) a), b.) & c.) Implementat on Plan - Chai.rman Haidinger Page IV -14 - Item e) Commissioner Balalis Page IV -14 & 15 - Item f) - Commissioner Alle and Chairman Haidinger Page IV -16 - Item 2) Implementation Plan - Commissioner Allen Page IV -18 - Lan.guage relating to condominium conversions - Commi.ssioner Thoma Page IV -19 - Item 2a) Impleme,ntation Plan Commissioner Thomas Page IV -21 - Items 2a) & 2c) Implementation Plan Chairman Haidinger Page IV -24 - Commissioner Beek stated that It m 3c) should read, "Program object ve 12.(2c) ",.rather than 12 (2b). V - r: Commissioner Beek stated that he takes exception to all of Section V. The Commission identified the following concerns relating to the draft Housing Element, as stated in the.staff report dated May 7, 1981: Pages 9 & 10 - Items 5), 7a), 7b), 7c), 7f), 9a) & 9b) - Commissioner Thoma Page 9 - Item 2) - Commissioner McLaughlin Motion was made to hold a public hearing on * X X these items which the Commission has expresse concerns on June 4, 1981,:at 3:00 p.m., which MOTION CARRIED. • 11111111 -7- INDEX COMMISSIONERS gibs 0wpi: a m 7 s N 7C tp 7 May 7, 1981 - 3:00 p.m. of Newport Beach Commissioner Beek suggested that a letter be sent to all of the homeowner associations in- forming them of.the importance of the Housing Element.. Planning Director Hewicker stated that notices have been sent.to all community associations advising them of the public hearings. There being mo further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 5:10 p.m. • George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach • -8- MINUTES INDEX I Motion S s U "EXHIBIT A" 1 to insert.as the third paragraph on page I -42: Buildings which do,not meet current standards are rdin- arily upgraded at the time rroperty Is acquired by a new owner. As a protection to buyers, the City requires the seller to have an inspection made if the buyer requests one. 'owever, a.sub- stantial number of buyers omit the inspection and knowingly acquire substandard buildings as a means of reducing th cost of acquisition. and to insert as the fourth paragraph on pa�e IV -17.- the City can stop the perpetuation of sub .standard housing by requiring an inspection whenever property changes na as. If such inspection is made a routine administrative matter it will not be difficult to obtain inspection warrants whe e the owner refuses to allow inspection voluntarily. and to insert a new subhead under 2 on page IV -19: The City will adopt legislation requiring the inspi of pro._erty whenever a new owner'acouires title. and to insert a new subhead under 3 on page IV -19: This will be inplemented immediately Lotion T to delete the last paragraph on page,III -11, everything to "E" on -age III -12, the last sentence on rage IV -17, of page IV-19, the first four lines of page IV -19, item page IV -19, and item D on page IV -29, with,apz.ropriate i lettering and renumbering of the remaining items. Discussion: Condo conversion is a controversial topic, neither increases nor decreases the supply of housing, fore it is inapYropriate to discuss.it in a document dei to solving the housing problem.' :otion -U to delete Fart V entirely. • action down all 2a on but `Ehere- oted Discussion: This .art is identified as "quantificat'ion? but actually contains only one 'auantification (89 units per year, pale V -7). It is almost entirely devoted to repe ting and enlarging on topics discussed elsewhere under their proper headinEs . _lso item.9A on page IV -30 and the middle two r.aragraphs on .aye IV -12. to EA Motion V to insert as the second and third paragraphs on page IV -1: There is one tactic which would serve to make the supply of housing in Nev.-port Beach fully equal to the demand. i7ii's is to permit a drastic increase in density, with high -rise apartments and condominiums replacing the - resent low - density residential development. This tactic would.increase the supply of housing by a factor of 20 to 50, but would primarily operate by reducing the demand. The congestion, crime, and deterioration that would accompany such densities would make Newport Beach such a miserable place to live that most people would lose interest in living here. Thus supply and demand would become equal. The people of Newport Beach have firmly rejected this. tactic. They have adopted a General Plan with the overriding policy that Newport Beach is to be a high - quality residential community, and they have adopted zoning and density.limitations consistent with this overriding policy. .Therefore this element does not consider this tactic or any variants of it as means of equalizing supply with demand. ,otion ;t to delete Objective 3, paces IV -4 and IV -5, renumber the re- maining objectives accordingly, and delete item 1, page V -7. • Discussion: Density increases as cart of a s-ecific program Lo solve the housing problem are rational and are - roposed below. rut as the consultant points out on page III -I}, density increases alone make no contribution to solving the problem. i;otion R to delete the last two paragraphs on page III =10. Discussion: The R -1.5 district was developed srecifically to meet a perceived need to preserve the ouality of portions of Jewport Beach. To repeal it is to move in the direction, of the rejected tactic mentioned in motion V. • ►I 3 notion X to insert a new Objective, as follows: Objective X: To make it feasible for persons who work in Newport Beach to live in Newport Beach. 1. Findings: Employers in Newport Beach are having severe problems because their employees are unable to find housing. Over 80p of the people employed here do not reside here. The number of employed persons residing here is only 75% of the.number of persons employed here. As energy, air pollution, and transportation constraints become more severe, these imbalances will ,become increasingly intol- erable. This is the housing problem in Newport Beach. The City should start immediately to encourage the devel- opment of housing suitable for and preferentially avail- able to persons employed here. Specific formulas for preferential treatment remain to be worked out; rental subsidy based on proximity of employment is the most likely possibility. The implementation of this objective should be in the hands of the private sector: The employers who are being hurt and who have an interest in seeing the problem solved. The City should not be in the housing business. But the City can and should play an active role by coordinating and encouraging action, by providing necessary implement -' ing legislation, by serving as a sponsoring agency in seek- ing permits and approvals, by assisting in the selection of sites, and by adopting zoning as required to carry out the program. It is recognized that there will al =ways be a substan- tial number of persons who choose to live in Newport reach but work elsewhere, or to live elsewhere.but work in Newport Beach. This objective is specifically aimed at bringing these two numbers into balance. It is also recognized teat such a program will pro- bably require densities in excess of those 'allowed by current zoning. Such density increases are acceptable _in this particular circumstance because they coordinate with another aspect of such a program: Reduced dependence on automobiles. Three of the reasons for housing employees close to their work are to reduce energy consumption, reduce air pollution, and to reduce traffic congestion. All of: these point toward going to work by 'tram, bicycle, or on foot. Further benefits can be .gained by extending this same principle to the other major transpor'tat.ion need: Shopping. If housing can be within non - automobile distance from work, it can also be within nor. - automobile distance from neighborhood shop;, ing centers.. But to bring enough customers within.non- automobile radius to support' a neighborhood shopring center requires a fairly high density. 12 , 4 2. Implementation Plan: The City will immediately begin serious talks with major employers concerning irnglementa- tion of, such a program, and -with. government agencies.con- cerned with grants in support of.housing programs. 3. Target Dates: October 179-2 Determine program.structure. and parameters. Apply for funding from grant,sources. Detersi,ne appropriate sites. Commence zoning and other legislative implementation. October 1983 Commence construction. October 1984 Occupancy of first units. Motion Y to insert as the third paragraph on page ii, ahead of "Organ- ization of the Element ": This element represents the City's best effort to respond restonsibly to the , surplus of population relative to housing • in southern California. This surplus is not the responsibility of any city, nor of all the cities and counties colle'c'tively. Only the State and Federal governments have the pourer to insti- tute population policies and rectify the excessive population rowth which has created the problem. The problem can not be solved by attempting to jam more people into existing cities, in,excess of their optimum growth; the blight of big cities is too well known to warrant imitation. Rathar, the State , should take the lead in the creation of new cities in urpat- ulated areas where there is a sufficient water supply to meet their needs. In this way the State could help to avert the severe -crater shortage that will face the southern Fart of the state when the Arizona ;Dater Project is com- 'leted in 1985 and ruck of the water su_p -ly for southern California reverts to Arizona. ib encourage further growth of hcusing and population ,n southern California -,will only : ake tLis crisis worse. • 13 5 Votion Z to replace pages 1 to 4 of Part II, except for the last two paragraphs of ,page 4, with the following: II EXCESS DEMAND ASSTSS4= The demand for housing in Newport Beach is the sum of two components: 1. People who need to live here (people who work here). 2. People who desire to live here (roughly 'half of the retired or otherwise non - employed people in the United states). It is evident that the desire for housing in Newport Beach is hopelessly insatiable. Competition for housing is fierce, and only the affluent can compete successfully. Since this component of demand is insatiable, it would be futile to address it, and this element does not attempt to do so. The need for housing, however, is a matter that can be usefully addressed; and it is addressed in Part IV of this element. This destinction between demand,, need, and desire is particularly important for Newport .Beach because its unique geography.and climate make it one of the recreation capitals of southern California. For most localities the distinction is not significant. Consequently the methodology and termin- ology of housing su_xly and demand assessment do not reflect the distinctions, and generally use the word "need" to mean • "deficit", that is, demand minus supply. In order to maintain consistency with accepted and commonly understood methodology, and to maintain compatibility between figures in this element and figures from the Southern Calif- ornia Association of Governments (SCAG), the following assess- ment proceeds along conventional lines with conventional methodology. "Demand" is taken to consist of those people who now live in the City, plus those people wno now live in the surrounding region but who should live in the City, according to tL:e SCAG fair share allocation. However, in order not to lose sight of the unusual situation which prevails in Newport Beach, the term Excess Demand is used throughout to represent "demand" minus supply, instead of using the conventional term "need ". true need is somet1iing very different. It is an objective of this element to satisfy the true need, even though "demand" forever exceeds supply. "Demand" minus supply equals Excess Demand motion and to delete the parenthetical "Positive figures indicate (.Co.nt.) need" on pages 10, 12, and.15 of,Tart II, and to replace the words "housing needs" or "need" with Excess Demand throughout: Page:, 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 19 20 21 contents ,_aces: 2 u 1 5 11 2 5 2 5 2 9 2 0 and to replace t ^e word "surplus" on page 8 with "excess supply ". i Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes �x c5, 0 WSW M K n_ ut vii �c w' * X REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. Date: May 7, 1981 WE Commissioner Cokas was absent. * * * - OFFICI ,lames. D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney * * * 'MINUTES William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary * * * Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meetings of April 9, 1981 and April 23 1981, was deferred until the next regular meeting * * * Staff recommended that Item No. 3, Use Permit No. 1989, b.e removed from the calendar and referred back to the Park, Beaches and Recreation Commis- sion for additional public hearings. Motion was made to remove Item No. 3, Use Permit X No. 1989.from the calendar, which MOTION CARRIED. Staff further advised that there has been a re- quest to continue Item No. 5, Use Permit No. 1990 and Item No. 9, Use Permit No. 1966 (Revised), t.o.the Planning Commission Meeting of May 21, 1981. X Motion was made to continue Item No. 5, Use X X X * X X Permit No. 1990 and Item No. 9, Use Permit No. 1966 (Revised) to the Regular Planni.ng Commission Meeting of May 21, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. -1- INDEX 7 � N 7c fA 3 CALL May 7, 1981 of Newport Beach MINUTES Proposed amendments to the Land Use, Residential. Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND Req.uest to consider a Traffic Study for a pro= posed expansion of the existing Marriott Hotel complex: LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 75 -34 (Resubdivision No. 497) located at 900 Newport Center Drive, on the southwesterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center. • ZONES: C -0 -H, 0 -S APPLICANT: Marriott Hotel, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Staff presented background information on these items and explained the revisions of the staff report relating to the.square footage cal,culation In response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that staff has recommended that the residential developments be located in three areas of Newport Center, as opposed to floating anywhere within Newport Center. These areas include - 225 units in Block 600; a maxi- mum of 145 units in the Pacific Coast Highway frontage;. and., .245 units in B1.o.ck.800, which is an existing residential site. 0 11111111 -2 IZL104 AND May 7, 1981 MINUTES Zi 0 m 1 ° � City of Newport Beach 7 N 7C f/i � Chairman Haidinger stated that it is significant to note that 115 residential units will be lost, excluding . the proposed tower. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Talarico. stated that the staff did not look towards deleting or adding units to Newport Center as a total, but rather, the appro- priateness of the density and.land use to the sites. The public hearing opened in connection with thes items and.Mr. Richard Cannon, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Cannon referred to his letter to the Planning Commission dated April 30, 1981, and the staff report; and made the following comments: Mr. Cannon stated that The Irvine Company is in agreement with the staff recommendations fdr • Newport Village, which includes the substitution of office use for 58,720_sq. ft. of retail use. He added that Harbor View Hills Drive will not be extended into Harbor View Hills. 0 Mr. Cannon stated that is is appropriate for Block 600 to be the urban development area of Newport Center. He stated that The Irvine Compan will agree to reduce the size of the hotel to 400 rooms. He referred to the proposed office towers and stated that the transportation manage- ment plan can mitigate the effects of the traffic He stated that they are prepared to tie their development to performance standards in the transportation management plan. He stated that the reality of development may not allow the construction of 225 residential units of 1,000 sq. ft. per unit. Mr. Ron Hendrickson., representing The Irvine Company, presented a drawing depticting Block 600 as it presently exists and the buildings as proposed. He stated that there would be an extremely difficult design problem, if one of the. towers were to be a residential tower. He -3- 11MrA w 0 a) 2 3 yy�_N N 7(DC 'f!/ May 7, 1981 1]J Beach MINUTES INDEX stated that a residential tower could not be designed to look like an office building. In .response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Mr. Hendrickson stated that the development of two towers of different natures, located in such close proximity is undesirable and creates a.potential conflict relating to access. In response to a question posed by.Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Cannon stated that parking will be an issue if a residential tower is planned. Mr: Hendrickson stated that their market studies indicate that a desirable unit consists of 2,000 to 3,000 sq. ft. He stated that there would be a fewer number of units built, in order to keep the building within a reasonable size. I.n response to a question posed by Commissioner. Thomas, Mr. Hendrickson stated that low and • moderate income housing can not be built on high valued property, such as this. Mr. Cannon referred to the Circulation System Improvements and stated that The ICompany's rvine C committment has.doubled in magnitude, since the original proposal was made. With regard to Phasing, Mr. Cannon stated that they are better able to deal with Pelican Hills Road as a condi- tion to phasing.in Newport Center, rather than the Corona del Mar Freeway. Mr. Talarico stated that there may be a need for smaller increments of development in Phase I. which would allow for the development of smaller increments to be matched with the circulation system improvements. He then recommended the following modifications to Page 8 of the staff report: Phase I 4a) Phase I development shall b.e proceeded by dedication of all right =of -way necessary for this widening owned by the applicant. w May 7, 1981 l J• Ewa MINUTES 2010 4b) If. funding for the Coast Highway.improvement become unavailable, it shall be the respon- sibility of the Phase I development to assur its construction. Phase II 3) Smaller increments of development for Phase I may be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council consistent with concepts of phasing road improvements and residential development with office construction. Mr. Talarico stated that Coast Highway is con- sidered to be the most critical link to the circulation system.. He stated that the proposed concept is to phase the office development, resi- dential development and roadway improvements together, in order to obtain more flexibility in the General Plan. . • Commissioner Thomas asked if any.of these improve ments are prior committed roadway improvements. Staff responded that the 8.5.mi.11ion dollars worth of improvements are not committed. Mr. Cannon stated that they do not intend for any office building development to be occupied, befor its related roadway improvements have been com- pleted. He stated that this could be accompli:she in the form of a development agreement. In response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Mr.,, Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the approximate cost of 4b) would be two to three million dollars. He stated that this roadway project is not currently funded. Mr. Cannon responded that this item has not been i.ncluded in their plans as a mitigation measure.. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Webb if there are any other improvements which can be exchanged for the Pacific Coast Highway construction. Mr. Talarico stated that the staff recommended program of improvements, is different from that as recommended by The Irvine Company. He stated -5- 0 cog, 7 N 7C !A May 7, 1981 Of Beach "MINUTES INDEX that the ICU calculations have assumed as a mitigation measure the Coast Highway widening improvements. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Webb stated that the concept of 4a) is to dedicate only the right -of -way owned by the applicant. He stated that the most substan- tial right -of -way cost would be for the reloca- tion assistance of the 14 to 15 mobile homes. Commissioner Allen asked for an approximate road improvement cost, not including the right -Of -way acquisition. Mr. Webb stated that this could range anywhere from two to four million dollars. Mr.,Cannon stated that if there is a guaranteed source of .funding for this project, it is certain that no primary funding will be available from the government. Chairman.Ha.idinger asked Mr. Cannon how the • transportation management program will measure the 20 percent reduction in peak hour traffic. Mr. Cannon stated that this will be measured at the entry points to Fashion Island by metering. He stated that the 20 percent reduction will be that which is identified in the EIR, which also takes into account future developments. Mr. Ray Moe, Traffic Engineer for The Irvine Company stated -that in no instance, would the traffic volume exceed 12,000. Commissioner Thomas stated that the existing level must be held, in order to achieve a.net reduction. In response to a question posed.by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Talarico stated that the staff recommended improvements would cost- an.addi`tiona.l $805,000, above those recommended by The Irvine Company. He added that this does not include Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Bill Ficker,..architect for the Marriott Hotel stated that the proposal requests 125,000 square feet,,which includes a 5,0.00 sq. ft. ball room, a 125 seat cocktail lounge, and 165 additional rooms. • V I I I -6- K o x man May 7, 1981 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Allen stated that according to the. figures she has been supplied, most of the events scheduled in the hotel consist of under 100 people. She suggested that rather than adding a 5,000 sq: ft. junior ballroom,. that meeting rooms be added to accommodate these needs. She stated that these meeting rooms could be designed so as to not open up into one large.ballroom. She stated that although the Marriott expansion of 165 rooms may not draw a convention, it may increasethe potential to draw a convention to the other hotels in the area. Mr. Ficker stated that they are not requesting to expand the existing ballroom by 5,000 sq. ft. He stated that they have tried to add only the minimum amount of public space:to the hotel. He stated that the proposed ballroom will not in crease the hotels capacity to have.a large con- vention. He stated that the size of the proposed ballroom, in conjunction with the proposed room additions is reasonable and will create a proper balance.with the existing facilities. Mr. Ficker concurred with Commissioner Allen in stating that 95 percent of the meetings taking place at the hotel consist of 100 or fewer people. He then stated that it would be a con - straint to only have small meeting rooms, rather than being able to open the proposed.ballroom on occasion.. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Ficker stated that they do not want to restrict the use of the ballroom by installing permanent walls for the meeting rooms. Mr. Frank Rhodes of 1417 E. Bay in Balboa, re- . presenting Causey & Rhodes,.referred to Block 400 and presented a rendering of his proposed medical office building. He stated that this proposed medical office would be a service facility to the community. He also stated that Hoag Hospital has requested space in the proposed 9 1111111 -7 May 7, 1981 MINUTES 9 o s X W WEI City of Newport Beach INDEX facility to include a 24 -hour ambul.atory care facility. Mr. Rhodes requested that the proposed 80,000 square foot medical office building be included in the proposed densities for Newport Center. In response to a question: posed by Chairman Haidi.nger, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the staff report has included the necessary language; in the event the Planning Commission wishes to accommodate this request in the General Plan Amendment for Block 400. He stated that this request could also be initiated as a formal request for a General Plan Amendment to create an 80,000 sq. ft. medical office; which would not be a portion of GPA 80 73.. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek,.Planning.Director Hewicker stated that further environmental documentation and traffic • analysis would be required before a specific recommendation on this request can.be made. Commissioner. Thomas stated that this request should be accommodated in such a manner, as the applicant will not have to rely 'on The Irvine Company for its approval. Mrs. Stewart, Present of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce, stated that the business people of Corona del Mar can not afford the loss of any parking on Pacific Coast Highway. She stated that the Business Property Owners Associ- ation of Corona del Mar have the same concerns, and are requesting that the development of Newpor Center not be allowed unless Pelican Hills Road and San Joaquin Hills Road are constructed. M's. Lynn.Bloomberg, Treasurer of the Mariners Community Association, stated that the Board of Directors have voted unanimously to oppose this proposal. She stated that further commercial development will have a serious effect on the City's effort to oppose expansions at John.Wayne Airport. �► IIIIIIII -B- MAAONUNMtK May 7, 1981 5 0 WWD 5 1 x y N City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Ms..Pat Str.ang, representing Newport Heights Improvement Association, stated that her neigh- borhood is already impacted by the flights at John. Wayne Airport, and urged that this proposal be denied. Ms.. Trisha H.arriga.n, resident of l Hampton Court, asked if the relocation assistance for the trailers will be within the City of Newport Beach and will it be in cash grants; or relocation to another trailer. She stated that these questions must be dealt with. Mrs. Louise Greeley of the Newport Crest Home- owners' Association, referred to the.Housing Element and stated that the City must begin to make changes in land use if housing is to become available.. She stated that in considering the traffic problems and the airport situation, this proposal should be denied, unless there can be agreement on more residential development; perhap • apartments i.n place of the hotel, and two condo- minimum towers in place of the offices. Mr. Al Mace presented a peti.tion.with 262 signa- tures, in which it requests that the roadways be built out before further development occurs in Newport Center.. Mrs. Bathum, representing Santa Ana Heights Home- owners,' Association, stated that the City and the County need to adopt an ordinance to- specify how many daily ai.rline passengers will be created by each development being considered. Ms. Sue.Ficker of 110 9th Street, stated that a solution to the transportation problem was impose.d as a first phase condition to Corporate Plaza. She stated that there should be a legal obligation to implement this requirement before further development is approved. She.urged denial of General Plan Amendment 80. -3 in.that it will have .a negative impact upon the City and the issue of airport expansion. • 11111111 -9 �MISSIONERS May 7, 1981 . MINUTES o x a n D 0; F City of Newport Beach CALL INDEX Mr. Ronald Kennedy of 550 Hazel Drive, expressed his concerns relating to the San Joaquin Hills Corridor and the circulation system improvements. He also stated that the Downcoast development will include a 50,000 square foot conference facility. Mr. Paul Franklin, President of the Newport Harbo Costa Mesa Board of Realtors, stated that they are in full concurrence with the phasing and development of Newport Center. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m. In re.sponse.to an earlier question posed by Com- missioner Balalis, Mr. Webb explained to.the • Commission the roadway improvements that could be eliminated if the Coast Highway improvements were�to be added. Commissioner Thomas suggested that straw votes be token for each item .relative.to this general plan amendment. Chairman Haidinger concurred. Newport Village and Avocado /MacArthur NEWPORT VILLAGE Commissioner Allen asked if the utilities on MacArthur Boulevard will be constructed udder- AVOCADO/ ground. Mr. Hendrickson - responded yes., MACARTHUR Commissioner Allen referred to the restaurant sites and asked if sign restrictions should -be imposed at this time.. Planning Director Hewicker stated that sign and lighting restrictions are more appropriately handled in the planned commun- ity development plan, site plan review or use permit stage. Commissioner Allen stated that there should.be no internally illuminated signs in the Planned Community. She statedthat by not allowing the internally illuminated signs, the 40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -10- COMMISr SIONERS May 7, 1981 MINUTES 9� K. " m D 3 � fn 7c f/i 7 Of the 20,000 square have a minimum of residences. feet of commercial uses will impact upon the adjacent Commissioner Allen suggested that 20,000 sq. ft. of commercial be allowed by use permit, rather than identifying the restaurant uses. Commissioner Allen asked if the signal at San Nicolas Drive and Avocado for the transit facility should be recommended at this.time. Planning Director Hewicker stated that this is another item which can be addressed in the planned community development plan, site plan review or use permit stage. Commissioner Allen sta.ted that Harbor View Drive should not be extended across MacArthur Drive. She also stated that the OCTD facility should be located northerly of San Nicolas Drive. Moon X Motion was made to approve 208,750 square feet of office space and 20,000 square feet of com- mercial in Newport Village, including the recom- mendations of Commissioner Allen. Substitute Motion Ayes Noes Absent • Commissioner McLaughlin stated that there may be businesses located in this area which may need their signs on during the evening hours. Commissioner Thomas suggested that externally illuminated signs be utilAzed in these cases. Commissioner Beek stated that the intention of his motion.is to delete 100,000 square feet from this request. Mr. Cannon stated that by deleting this amount of square footage, the viability of the development along with the requested improve- ments is questioned. JJJ Substitute Motion was made to approve 308,750 X square feet of office space and 20,000 square X X. feet of commercial in.Newport Village, including X the recommendations of Commissioner Allen, * which STRAW VOTE FAILED. -11- INDEX COMMISSIONERS May 7, 1981 MINUTES $o �a m City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX Ayes X X X K X Commissioner Beek's original motion to approve Noes X 208,750. square feet of office space and 20,000 Absent square feet of commercial in Newport Village, including the recommendations of Commissioner Allen was now voted on as follows; which STRAW VOTE CARRIED: The following policies were added to the Land Use Element for the Newport Village Site: 1) Existing views will be preserved by extending the provisions of the Civic Center Height Plane ordinance across Newport Village, Corporate Plaza West, Pacific Coast Highway Frontage, and Coast Highway /Jamboree sites. 2) Grown Drive will not be extended across MacArthur Boulevard. 3) The OCTD facility will be located at the northerly end of the Avocado /MacArthur site. • 4) At such time as improvements.are made to the Avocado Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard couplet in conjunction .with this amendment, all utilities shall be undergrounded. 5) Harbor View Drive shall not be extended across MacArthur Boulevard. 6) There shall be no internally illuminated signs in the Newport Village area facing MacArthur Boulevard. 7) Any commercial development in the New Village area shall be subject to a use permit. 8) The OCTD facility shall be located northerly of San Nicolas Drive. Block 600 Commissioner Thomas stated that the residential tower and the hotel create a potential point of conflict. He suggested that the hotel be • 11111111 -12- 1 Motion jAmendment vv�i��wrvtiv May 7, 1981 MINUTES 0x C) w y S City of Newport Beach INDEX deleted and that the residential tower and office space remain. He stated that he is not opposed to increased densities in Newport Center, but that public benefits must also be accommodated, such as open space, road improvements and resi- dential uses. Motion was made to approve a residential tower and an office tower, but to delete the hotel request. Chairman Haidinger stated that.it is appropriate to reduce the intensity of this proposal by deleting the hotel. He stated deleting the hotel will cause a reduction in traffic, both on the ground and in the air. He stated that he would then be in favor of two office towers. Amendment to the motion was made to approve two office towers and delete the hotel. • Commissioner Allen suggested that possibly the hotel space should not be eliminated, but made into a very expensive residential area. -13- Commissioner Balalis stated that all, of the changes that are now being proposed, .will drama- tically effect the circulation system improve- ments being requested. Commissioner Allen .stated that residential density in Newport Center is not a big problem. She stated that The Irvine Company will have to redesign Block. 600 to accommodate the addi- tional residential uses. Motion and Commissioner Thomas withdrew.his original motion Amendment X X and Chai.rman Haidinger withdrew his amendment Withdrawn. to the motion. Motion X Motion was made to approve 225,000 square feet. of office and 450 units of residential-in two buildings. Commissioner Balalis asked what the square footage will be of these proposed units. Com- missioner Allen stated that the size of the -13- n D E. 7 � x �p N 7C N 7 ICI May 7, 1981 M Ewa a MINUTES INDEX unit does not matter. Commissioner Thomas stated (This motion was subsequently clarified at the meeting of May 21, 1981, so as to include one residential structure of 225,000 sq. ft..and one residential structure. of 300,000 sq. ft. with the number of dwelling units unspecified). Block 900 Motion X Motion was made to approve an additional 165 All Ayes X X * X X :rooms to the existing Marriott Hotel in Block .900, with the condition that the addition to the:Marriott Hotel shall.be designed in.such a • manner so as no ballroom or meeting room has a capacity in excess of 100 persons, or the abilit to merger with another room to create a capacity of over 100 persons, which.STRAW VOTE CARRIED. -14- :that the size of the unit will depend on what the market will support. Motion X Substitute motion was made to allow one tower :of 225,000 square feet for office, one residen- tial tower of 225 units, and a hotel of 400 .rooms. Fifty percent of the revenues derived from the hotel will be used by the City to fight airport expansion. Commissioner Beek stated that the Commission can not direct the City how to spend its money .which comes in: through the. general fund. Ayes Substitute motion by Commissioner Balalis was Noes X Y X K I,now voted on, which.STRAW VOTE FAILED. Absent •.Commiss.ioner Allen stated that two key issues, :over and above the transportation issue, relate to the preservation of the residential quality • :of the City and the economic vitality of Fashion Island. .She stated that these. two goals are not linconsistent with a residential addition in Block 600. She:stated.that the applicant may !want to build larger residential units, but !fewer in number. She stated that this is an !alternative to the hotel. Commissioner Beek ;concurred and stated that the Fashion Island merchants need a local, built -in market. :Motion by Commissioner Allen to approve 225,000 Ayes X X X square feet of office. and 450 units of residen- Noes tial for Block 600, was now voted on, which Absent * STRAW VOTE CARRIED. (This motion was subsequently clarified at the meeting of May 21, 1981, so as to include one residential structure of 225,000 sq. ft..and one residential structure. of 300,000 sq. ft. with the number of dwelling units unspecified). Block 900 Motion X Motion was made to approve an additional 165 All Ayes X X * X X :rooms to the existing Marriott Hotel in Block .900, with the condition that the addition to the:Marriott Hotel shall.be designed in.such a • manner so as no ballroom or meeting room has a capacity in excess of 100 persons, or the abilit to merger with another room to create a capacity of over 100 persons, which.STRAW VOTE CARRIED. -14- May 7, 1981 MINUTES n � 5 O 07 D City of Newport Beach INDEX P11/Jamboree lotion X Motion.was made to approve 80,000 square feet of office development on the PCH /Jamboree site. Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, stated that there is currently no allowances for office development designated on this site in the existing General Plan. In .response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Chairman Haidinger stated that the 23,450 square feet currently exists on a combination of the three parcels. Commissioner Beek stated that the existing, office developments on these three.parcels• are appropriate. He stated that Newport Beach has enough office development, without enough.residential devel- opment to serve it. substitute Substitute motion was made that no additional Icon development be approved on the PCH /Jambore.e site. Commissi.on.er,Al.len- asked.if there is any language that can be.added,- which will ensure that this constitutes the completion of Newport Cen.ter. Chairman Haidi.nger stated that it may be appro- p.riate for The Irvine Company to comment on their development intentions for-this site. Mr. Talarico stated that mitigation measures suggest the extension of a height plane ordinance across this property, which will definitel.y have a limiting affect as to developments in the future. ayes X X X Substitute motion by Commissioner Beek was now Voes Y X X voted on, which STRAW VOTE FAILED. absent 1yes Y X Original motion by Chairman Haidinger was now Voes X X X Y voted on, which STRAW VOTE FAILED. lbsent Commissioner Allen stated that she voted no on 'the motions because.the applicant was not willing to make a moral promise that this will be the • extent of the development. -15- g ��T iO�1W D 7 •: tai, -w CALL May 7, 1981 IoJJ t Beach MINUTES Mr. Cannon stated that at this point, they have. no .idea as to what the outcome of the recommenda- tions to this plan will be. He stated that they are morally committed to their'plan, as requested. He stated that 80,000 square feet of office devel.opment is what they have viewed for this particular piece of property. Chairman Haidinger suggested that this item be discussed at a later time. 11CH Frontage Motion X.Motion was made that future development on the All Ayes X X * X x. •PCH Frontage be limited to }145 residential dwelling units, which STRAW VOTE CARRIED. oroorate Plaza W Motion X Motion was made, to approve an additional 20,000 • square feet of office development in Corporate Plaza West, which would equal 43,450 square feet of office development. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Cannon stated that in terms of com- pletion for Newport Center, the essence of the plan is what they will seek to retain in the future. Amendment [JXJ*J Amendment to the motion was made to approve Ayes X X 123,450 square feet of office development in Noes X Corporate Plaza West, which STRAW VOTE FAILED. Absent Ayes K x X X Commissioner Beek's original motion for 43,450 Noes X square feet of office development in Corporate Absent * Plaza West, was now voted on, which STRAW VOTE CARRIED. Block 4.00 - .Medical Offices Motion x Motion was made that commercial development in- All Ayes K X X * XX X tensities may be transferred from one.site to another, subject to Planning Commission and City Council approval, and adequate Environmental Documentation, which STRAW VOTE CARRIED. -16- INDEX PCH FRONTAGE CORPORATE PLAZA WEST' BLOCK 400- MEDICAL FFICES May 7, 1981 MINUTES _ S 0 CO CD IN Gtv of Newport Beach INDEX Airport In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Dan Haney of Peat, Marwick, Mitchel and Company stated that the data utilized for this study was from the latest data available., He stated that the actual airport. activity data is from the.years 1979 and 1980. Motion X Motion was made that an urban run -off facility, such as a holding lake, be included somewhere in Newport Center, to handle the impacts of increased urbanization. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Webb explained how the storm drains and the sites would have to be modified, in order to accommodate a holding lake. • Mr. Hendrickson stated that a requirement for such a lake at this stage of planning is inappro- priate. He stated that it would be more appropr.i to to further study its feasibility. Commissioner Thomas stated that Newport Bay con - tains high levels of hea.vy metals. He stated that holding lakes are currently being utilized in other parts of the country for water quality problems. Mr. Talarico stated that staff and the environ- mental impact report has identified all practical and feasible mitigations measures,-related to water quality. He stated however, that the Corporate Plaza West site, would be more suitable for such a lake, rather than the Newport Village site. Commissioner Allen referred to the revised letter from CEQAC concerning desliting basins and grease traps. Commissioner Thomas stated that these are separate issues. In response to a question posed.by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Hendrickson stated that.grease traps • have been included in all of the new developments in Corporate Plaza. -17- COMMISSIONERS May 7, 1981 MINUTES I I City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX Ayes X tX X Motion by Commissioner Thomas was now voted on, Noes X X which. STRAW VOTE FAILED. Absent Motion X Motion.was made that each environmental docu- All Ayes X X Xk X X X mentation.for a future development in Newport Center shall evaluate the potential for an urban storm water run -off facility, such as a "holding lake" to intercept parking lot run -off, which STRAW VOTE CARRIED. Circulation System Improvements C.h:airman Haidinger referred to the staff report and stated that the circulation system improve- ments to Coast Highway and Oran:ge.:Street and Coast Highway and Superior Avenue are not located n.ear.Newport Center and therefore, can not be considered project related items, Moon X Motion was made to require all of the following All Ayes X X X X X.circulation system - improvements: Coast Highway and Bayside Drive Coast Highway and Jamboree Road Jamboree Road and Ford Road MacArthur Boulevard and San.Joaquin Hills Road, and Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road (west side) Jamboree Road from Ford Road to East- bluff Drive (west side) MacArthur from couplet to Ford Road (both sides) MacArthur from Ford Road to University Drive (east side in City of Irvine) (does not include curb, gutter, side 7 walks and emergency parking lanes). Further, that the City have the option of choosing any item on.the list so.long as the total.. dollar amount required of The Irvine Company is not exceeded, which.STRAW VOTE CARRIED 11111111 -18- May 7, 1981 MINUTES ��oao$a 3 y y City of Newwrt Beach Phasing of Development Commissioner Beek referred to the traffic.manage- ment program and asked if this can be imposed as a condition to occupancy. He also asked if The Irvine Company would'be willing to vacate portion of their buildings to bring the traffic levels back down to 12,000 cars per day,.in the event the program does not work: Mr. Cannon stated that they are prepared to.phase the traffic management program with future developments, so that in the event the program is not working, future developments can not proceed. INDEX PHASING OF DEVEL OPMENT Chairman Haidinger requested a detailed inter - pretation from the staff, as to how the phasing of the traffic management program can be applied. Commissioner Beek stated that conditions sho.uld not be on occupancy, but - rather on the start of construction. • Phase I Commissioner Allen asked how.Pelican Hills Road will be phased with the development and the time frame for-its construction. Mr.. Webb stated that it may be four to five years before it can actually be constructed. Commissioner Balalis recommended that Pelican Hills.Road be included in Phase II, rather than Phase 1. Chairman Haidinger concurred. Motion Motion was made to remove Item Nos. 15 and 16 Ayes x X (Pelican Hills Road with San Joaquin Hills Noes X X X X Corridor connection to MacArthur Boulevard.) from. Absent Phase I to.Phase II, which.STRAW VOTE FAILED. Motion Motion was made to approve Phase I as follows: All Ayes X X * X X 1) City approval of Traffic Management Program. (TMP). 2) All "Committed" road improvements in place. -19- INDEX PHASING OF DEVEL OPMENT n U Motion Ayes Noes Absent Motion Ayes Noes Absent P X ID P May 7, 1981 of Newport Beach MINUTES 3) Circulation System Improvements 4 thru 7, and 10_thru 13 (to be constructed by The Irvine Company). It shall be demonstrated that funning is available for these improve- ments, all necessary approvals have been obtained and that there is an assurance of construction. 4) Circulation System Improvements 9 (Coast Highway widening from Bayside to MacArthur), 15 and 16, (Pelican.Hills Road with San Joaquin Hills Corridor connection to Mac- Arthur Boulevard). It shall be demonstrated that funding is available for these improve- ments, all necessary approvals have been obtained and that there is an assurance of construction. 4a) Phase I development.shall be proceeded by dedication of all right -of -way necessary for this widening owned by the applicant, which STRAW VOTE CARRIED. Phase II Motion was made to approve Phase II as follows: 1) San Joaquin Hills Road extended to Pelican Hills Road. 2) Demonstration that the .Traffic Management Program (TMP) is reducing P.M. peak trips by 20% and will continue to do so, which STRAW VOTE CARRIED. Development in Phase I Motion was made to allow development in Phase I equal to the following: Block 600, Newport Vill.age, the Marriott Hotel, residential and the development permitted by the existing General Plan. Including that 'smaller increments. -20- INDEX 0 'w 5Inw May 7, 1981 Of Beach MINUTES IMLL CALL I III III I I INDEX of developmen.t for Phase I may be approved by the Planning Commission and City.Council con - sistent with concepts of phasing road improve - ments.and residential. development with office construction, which STRAW VOTE CARRIED. PCH /Jamboree, PCH/ IJAMBOREE Motion Motion was made to approve 80,000 square feet Ayes X of office development on ..the PCH /Jamboree site, Noes X X X which.STRAW VOTE FAILED. Absent Chairman Haidinger stated that the question on the floating dwelling units and the traffic . management program.should be addressed in the next staff report. M on X Motion was made to continue the general plan A X X X amendment and the traff.ic'study to the regular Noes X Planning Commission Meeting of May 21, 1981, Absent * at 10:00 p.:m., which MOTION CARRIED. * * * All remaining agenda items were continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 21, 1981, due to the lateness of the hour. * * * There being no further business, the Planning. Commission adjourned at 11:50 p.m. * * * George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach