The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/21/1981�R g m xw • Motion x All Ayes x X Motion X All AYes X X Motion All Ayes s x * REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. Date: May 21, 1981 tv VI XI(Commissioner Balalis was present at 8:25 p.m.) * ** EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: MINUTES William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary * * * APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 9, 1981, as written, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 23, 1981, as written, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * Staff advised that the applicant for Item No. 13- Resubdivision No. 686, has requested that this item be continued to the meeting of June 4, 1981. Staff also advised that the applicant for Item No. 6 - Use Permit No. 1966, has requested that this item be withdrawn. X I J I Motion was made to continue Item No. 13 - Resub- X x X * division No. 686 to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 1981, and to withdraw Item No. 6 - Use Permit No. 1966, which MOTION CARRIED. * ** -1- INDEX AL �m g o a i CALL May 21, 1981 11 MINUTES INDEX Request to consider the approval of Amendment Item #1,. No. 1 to the Traffic Phasing Plan for the re- maining development in the research and devel- opment areas of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. TRAFFIC PHASING LOCATION: A portion of Block 56, Irvine's PLAN Subdivision, bounded by Bison Avenue, Jamboree Road, Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard, in the APPROVED Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. CONDI- TIONALLY ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation, Aeromutronics Division, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant. • The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Thomas Morrissey, representing Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation, appeare before the Commission. Mr. Morrissey stated that this proposal will result in less traffic than that of the approved Traffic Phasing Plan. He added that they are in concurrence with the recommendation of the staff report. Motion X 11111 Motion was made for approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Aeronutronic Ford Traffic Phasing Plan, subject to the findings and condition as indicate in Exhibit "A ". Amendment Y Commissioner Beek recommended the following amend- ment to the motion: "If measurements by the City Traffic Engineer indicate that more traffic is being created than that of the originally approved Plan, the applicant will agree to install portable traffic meters, of the one car per green type." Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she would not accept this amendment to her motion. 0 1, 1111111 -2- MM1551VNtK5 May 21, 1981 MINUTES R y City of Newport Beach INDEX Amendment Ayes Noes X X X X Absent Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the ramp metering device may create problems with the operation of the main signal.. Commis - sioner Beek stated that traffic could be metered out of the gates and onto Bison Avenue. He stated that Bison Avenue could accommodate itself to the public signals. Mr: Webb stated that there will be three signalled access points to the development. JAmendment by Commissioner Beek was now voted on, X which AMENDMENT FAILED. Commissioner McLaughlin's moti on. for approval of All Ayes X X X X * X Amendment No: 1 to the Aeronutronic.Ford Traffic Phasing Plan, subject to the following findings and condition, was now voted on., which 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 environmental impact and that it is in sub- stantial conformance with the Aeronutronic Ford Certified Environmental Impact Report. 3. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capa- city of affected intersections. 4. That the applicant has taken into consider- ation in.the preparation of his plan charac- teristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation.or ' guide traffic onto less impact arterials or through intersections in the lease congested direction. CONDITION: • 1. That all conditions of the original Traffic Phasing Plan. shall be fulfilled. * * * -3- 9 kI� 7 N 7C W May 21, 1981 z t Beach MINUTES WI CALL ( IINDEX 0 0 Motion Ayes Abstain Absent 9 9 Request to permit a retail newspaper home distribution business on property located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 2, Block U of Tract No. 323 located at.3516 East Coast Highway on the northerly side of East Coast Highway between Narcissus Avenue and Orchid Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Nancy J. Fulton, Corona del Mar OWNER: Boice Trust, Corona del Mar Commissioner Allen stated that she would be abstaining from participation in this item, due to her involvement on the case. Planning Director Hewicker presented background information on this item.. He stated that based on the information submitted, staff is of the opinion that the existing land use of the subject property is a legal nonconforming use and there- fore, is able to continue its operation. He stated that there is no necessity for the Plannin Commission to become involved in this item. Chairma.n Haidinger asked if the Planning Commis- sion has jurisdiction in this matter. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction in this,matter, and should not hear the item further. Motion.was made to remove Use Permit No. 1990 from the calendar, which MOTION CARRIED. -4- Item #2 E COMMISSIONERS CL �o WL 5 r ;1N C May 21, 1981 M Beach MINUTES Request to permit the construction of a two unit residential condominium project and related garage spaces on property located in the R -2 District. AND Request to create one parcel of land for resi- dential condominium purposes where one lot and a portion of a second lot presently exist, so as to allow the construction of a two unit condominium in the R -2 District. LOCATION: Lot 14 and a portion of Lot 16, Block 139, Corona del Mar located at 216 Marguerite Avenue, on the easterly side of Marguerite Avenue between Seaview Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 • APPLICANTS: Deanie and Bruce Harkins, Laguna Niguel OWNER: Same as applicants ENGINEER/ DESIGNER: Dutton - Vernon Inc., Cerritos Agenda Item.Nos. 3 and 4 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Bob Dutton, representing the applicants, stated that they are in concur - rence with the findings and conditions of the staff report. Lotion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1991 All Ayes X X X X subject to .the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: • 11111111 -5 INDEX AND I� IT May 21, 1981 Of MINUTES ..11►!�Si FINDINGS: 1. That. each of the proposed units has been, de signed as a condominium with separate;`a:nd.,. individual utility connections. 2. The.proj,ect as conditioned,.wil.l'comply with all applicable standard plans and' zoning re- quirements for new buildings applicable to: the district.in which the proposed project is located.at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time - of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on- site,parki.ng spaces are:; Available for the proposed residential condo - mi.nium development. • operation 6. The.establish,ment, .maintenance or of the use or buil.din,g applied for will not, under tW circumstances of the, particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing.or working in.the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injur- ious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.. CONDITIONS 1.. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot..pl.an, floor plans, and elevations; except At note.d below: 2. That the plans.shall be revised to. p.r'o -vide a maximum of 5,994 sq.ft. of.gross floor area. 3. Th6t the proposed roof dormers be. revised to conform with the.,height.limit for this: dist- rict. 4. That all the conditions of'Resubdivision No. 685 shall be fulfi -lied. 9 o x May 21, 1981 ItV Of Beach MINUTES MotionX Motion was made to approve Res ubdivision No. 685 All Ayes X X X X * X subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the maps meet the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City,.all.applicable gen eral`or specific plan's and the P'lannin'g .Comm - ission is satisfied wit'h.the plan of.sub division. 2. That: the proposed resubdi.vision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel: map be filed • 2.;. That all improvements be _constructed as re quired.by ordi- nanc.es and the Public Works, Department, 3: That each dwell,ing.u.nit be served with in- dividual sewer laterals and water services unless otherwise.approved by.the'Public Works Department.' 4. That'a.11 vehicular access to the property be from the alley. 5: That a,standard'subdivis'ion agreement and accompanying surety be provided to.guarantee the satisfactory completion of the ;public improvements, i -f.it is desired . to obtain 'a building. permit'.or record the parcel map' prior to. the completion of the..public improve ments. 6. That approximately 4-0 sq..ft.'of displaced P ":C.C. sidewalk'be reconstructed along. the Marguerite Avenue frontage.of the site. • IIIIIIII INDEX May 21, 1981 K n m p 5 O W R> y y City of Newport Beach MINUTES Request to permit the establ.is.hment of an enter- tainment center with electronic games of skill in an existing commercial building located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: Lots 9 thru 15, Block 22, Newport Beach, located at 122 23rd Street on the easterly side of 23rd Street, between West Balboa Boulevard and West Ocean Front, in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Louis B. Dorfman, Newport Beach OWNER: Francis Ursini, Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner • Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Police Department does not anticipate pro- blems. He stated that the nois.e generated by this use is not anticipated to be any greater than those uses which are permitted outright. The public hearing opened in.connection with this item and Mr. Brad Dorfman, the applicant, stated that this proposed use will be operated with complete supervision. He requested that the hours of operation not be limited to 10:00 p.m., but rather to midnight. He stated that many of the businesses in the beach area are open to midnight during the summer. He sug- gested that he be allowed to operate this use until midnight for a probation period of 180 days, at which time the hours of operation could be reviewed. Commissioner Beek suggested that a. condition be imposed, that the area must be supervised at all times while it is open. Mr. Dorfman con- curred. we • INDEX May 21, 1981 MINUTES 9 T. ;pn y City of Newport Beach Mr. John. Shea, resident of 2214 Ocean Front, expressed the following concerns: traffic and access problems in this particular area; lack of landscaping, bike racks replacing benches, and the general problems related to entertainment centers. He suggested that the following condi- tions be imposed: 1) Closure of the door to the parking area; 2) Number of machines be limited to 15 20; 3) A later opening time for the entertainment center; 4) Any extensions beyond the one year.period be subject.to the approval of the Planning Commission, rather than. the Modifications Committee; 5) No outside music permitted in.the complex to attract custo- mers; and, 6) Entire area to be subject to the sign ordinance. Mr. Ron Chriss, supplier and coordinator of the project, stated tha.t he operates five other entertainment centers in Orange County, which are all fully licensed. He stated that there • will be an interior.wall constructed to screen the noise. He requested that a 180 -day probation period be approved to operate the use to midnight He also stated that they will comply with all ordinances of the City. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the sign ordinance would be enforced in this area. Commissioner Thomas asked who would be responsible for replacing the concrete posts in the sidewalk. Planning Director Hewic.ker stated that the con- ditions of approval on the Modification would have to be reviewed in order to make this determination. In response to.a question posed by Commissioner Beek; Mr. Dorfman stated that he only rents the property and can not "replace the.parking barriers Mr. Dorfman.stated that the side doors. to the parking area need to remain open for the bl-cycle traffic. • IIIIIIII -9- 1 " w � CL IC0n m x443 May 21, 198.1 z � r MINUTES INDEX In response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger,.Mr. Dorfman stated that they would be agreeable in changing the opening hours to 9:00 a.m. Mr. Dorfman stated that the outside music has been discontinued. He requested that they be allowed to install "at least 20 machines. Commissioner Balalis was present at 8:25 p.m. Motion X Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1992 as recommended in the staff report with the changes as follows: machines be limited to a maximum of 20; entertainment center shall not be open.before 9:30 a.m.; approval be brought before the Planning Commission rather than the Modifications Committee; no outside music shall be permitted; closing hour of operation shall be • 10:00 p.m.; a representative of the owner shall be present at all times to supervise the use; and, a barrier.wall be constructed. Mr. Dorfma.n stated that the barrier wail would help to contain the noise in the building. He stated that they would not allow excessive noise, because he must also operate his retail use in the building. He again requested that he be allowed to remain open until midnight. Amendment X Amendment to the motion was made to allow the use to be open until 11:00 p.m. for a 180 day probation period. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she .would not Amendment X accept the amendment to her motion for 11:00 p.m. but that she would amend her motion to reflect the 180 day probation period. Ayes X it X Amendment by Commissioner Thomas was now voted Noes X on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. Abstain. X 0 11111111 -10 COMMISSIONERS1 May 21, 1981 MINUTES ,w11 o W R D M Beach Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Dorfman if the barrier wall would be constructed from the floor to the ceiling. Mr. Dorfman stated that the barrier wall .would. be constructed 3 to 3 1/2 feet high with a plexi -glass partition for constant supervision of the arcade area. Amendment X Commissioner McLaughlin amended her motion to add to Condition of Approval No. 1 the following, "with the exception that the low wall shall be a floor to ceiling partition with a glass or plexi -glass upper portion. Amendment X Amendment to the motion was made to allow the Ayes X X X use to be open until midnight for a 180 day Noes X X probation period, which AMENDMENT FAILED. Abstain. Mr. Scott Lewis, resident of the area, stated that the use should be allowed to remain open until midnight during the summer, because the • kids need a place to go. Amendment X Commissioner McLaughlin amended her motion to reflect an 11:00 p.m. closure for a period of 180 days. Ayes X X X X X Commissioner McLaughlin's amended motion for Abstain X approval was now voted on as follows, which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED: U FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed entertainment center is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Draft Local Coastal Plan and is compatible with sur- rounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems with the proposed entertainment center at this location. 3i! INDEX COMMISSIONERS] May 21, 1981 MINUTES °R a o D y N City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1992 will not, . under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and.general welfare of. persons residing or working in the neighbor- hood or be detrimental or injurious to pro- perty or improvements in the: neighborhood or the general-welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. The development shall be in .substantial con - formance with the approved.plot plan and floor plan, with the exception that the low wall proposed between the skill game area and the.existing bike sales and rental area, shall. be .a floor to ceiling partition with a glass or plexi- glass upper portion. 2. That the number of machines be limited to a maximum of 20 machines. Any increase will require an Amendment to this Use Permit. • 3. That the entertainment center shall not be open.for business prior to 9:30 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m., except that an 11:00 p.m. closing time shall be permitted for a 180 day pro- bation period.. The Planning Commission shall review the approved closing time after said probation period. r1 U 4. That this approval shall be for a period of one year, and any extension shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 5. That permits for the proposed skill games shall be approved by the City Manager. 6. That bicycle racks shall be installed on the subject property in such a manner as to not impede pedestrian or vehicular movement. 7. The noise from the proposed skill games shall be confined to the interior of the facility. 8. That no outside.music shall be permitted. 9. That a representative of the owner shall be present at all times to supervise the use. -12- COMMISSIONERS May 21, 1981 MINUTES 0 °m City of Newport Beach LL I I I I I I INDEX Request to expand the "Net Public Area." of an existing restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages, located in the C -1 District, so as to include an outdoor eating area in conjunction with the restaurant use. Said application also includes a request to pay an annual fee to the City for that portion of the off - street parking spaces required for the proposed expansion in a nearby Municipal Lot in lieu of providing additional parking on -site. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel.Map 107 -40, (Resubdivision No. 552), located at 3201 East Coast Highway on the westerly side of East Coast Highway at the easterly terminus of Bayside Drive in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Hungry Tiger, Inc., van Nuys OWNER: Eugene Boero, Corona del Mar Staff advised that the applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn. Motion X Motion was made to withdraw Use Permit No. 1966 All Ayes X X XX X * X from. the calendar, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * Request to permit an addition to an existing .single family residence that is proposed to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot setback from the front property line. LOCATION: Lot 7, Block E, Tract No. 1219, located at 303 Kings Road, on the southerly side of Kings Road, easterly of Signal Road, in Cliff Haven. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: David B. and Shirlee Roberts, Newport Beach • OWNERS: Same as applicants. -13- it FI- May 21, 1981 MINUTES ='H o W R A N W w 3 City of Newport Beach INDEX Plan.ning Director Hewicker presented background information on this building remodel. The p.ublic.hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Julian Ertz, representing the applicants, stated that they were not aware of the encroachment problem until the addition to their home was half - -finished. He requested that the modification be granted to allow for the completion of the home where the framing is currently located. He stated that they would be agreeable to a condition, that should Kings Road be widened, the property owner would be forced to remove and restore the setback to its prior condition: He added that the applicants have incurred substantial expenses to date due to this error. He referred to the many letters of support in which the surrounding property owners have submitted. In response to a question posed by Commissioner • Allen, Mr. Ertz stated that the framing encroache on the outside curve of Kings Road, which aesthetically is less objectionable, than if it were located on a straight street. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that based on the information submitted, the City woul.d not have any liability on this matter. Motion I 1XI 1111 Motion was made to approve Modification No. 2683 with the proposed findings of approval for a 4 foot encroachment into the required 10 foot setback. Commissioner Beek asked staff to comment on the condition proposed by Mr Ertz. Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that there are no plans for the future widening of Kings Road at this location. The only improvements to occur would be improvements to landscaping and sidewalk • 11111111 -14- May 21, 1981 In w City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Amendment X Amendment to the motion to:allow a 10 foot en- croachment subject to the requirement that the applicant remove a portion of the building, if needed, for City improvements on Kings Road. Chairman Haidinger stated that the 10 foot en- croachment does not appear to create a problem for the neighborhood. Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr. Webb to explain what will happen if the applicant is allowed to build 10 feet into the setback. Mr. Webb stated that there will be 10.feet between the building and the curb. As it is presently designed, there will be a 2 foot roof overhang into the public right -of- way which will require an encroachment permit from the City Council. Commissioner.McLaughlin stated that she would not accept the amendment to her motion. • Mr. David Roberts, the owner of the.property, requested at least a 6 foot encroachment and explained to the Commission the hardships that he has encountered on this project. Amendment X Commissioner McLaughlin amended her motion to reflect an 8 foot encroachment with a 2 foot roof overhang. Commissioner Allen suggested that the motion be worded to reflect that there would be no en- croachment beyond the total of 10 feet. Chairman Haidinger stated that there should be no en- Amendment X croachment beyond the property line. Commissione McLaughlin amended her motion to reflect this change. In response to a question posed by. Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Roberts stated that they did not proceed with this room addition knowing that there was an encroachment problem.. Commissioner Beek stated that in view of the fact that the property is located on a curve, it is possible that they did not realize that the limits were being exceeded. All Ayes n U n LJ 0 N x w 7 XIX May 21, 1981 Z t Beach Commissioner McLaughlin's amended motion for approval of Modification No. 2683 was now voted on as follows, which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: MINUTES 1. That the proposed 10' encroachment into the required 10' front setback is a logical use of the property that would be precluded under the zoning requirements for this district. That the proposed setback encroachment is minor in nature. 3. That the proposed 10' encroachment into the required 10' front setback will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons re- siding or working.in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to .property and improvements in the neighbor - hood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That no encroachments shall be permitted beyond the front property line onto the Kings Road right -of -way including any roof overhang. -16- INDEX AAISSIONERS May 21, 1981 MINUTES n e� 5` o 0((pp0 ca 7� (gyp ]C W CALL Of t Beach INDEX Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to delete reference to the "two livable story" limit for residential construction in the R -1 and R -1.5 Districts. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker presented background information on this item. Motion Motion was made to adopt Resolution No, 1066 , All Ayes X X X X X X approving Amendment No. 562 as written and re- commending same to the City Council for adoption as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: R -1 DISTRICT 20.13.025 BUILDING HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA LIMIT. The total gross floor area, including • basements, garages, and carports contained in all buildings on a building site in an.R -1 District shall not exceed two times the buildable area of the site. For dwellings, the building height limit shall be as specified in Chapter 20.02. For accessory buildings, the building height limit shall be 15 feet. For residential developments in those areas of the City known generally as West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and Corona del Mar, building height and floor area limit regulations are as specified in Section 20.11.020 (a) of Residential Develop- ment Standards. R -1.5 DISTRICT 20.14.025 BUILDING HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA LIMIT. The total gross floor area, including basements, garages, and carports, contained in all buildings on a building site.in an R -1.5 District shall not exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. For dwellings, the building height limit shall be specified in Chapter 20.02. For accessory buildings, the building height . shall be fifteen (15) feet. -17- COMMISSIONERS 9 1 n N May 21, 1981 \ill t Beach MINUTES INDEX Request to construct a combined commercial - residential structure in the C -1 District, which contains two residential dwelling units on the second.floor and commercial area on the ground floor. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested since a portion of the required parking spaces are tandem spaces (where the Code requires that all parking spaces in the C- 1.District shall be independently accessibl and usable) and encroach into the required 10 foot rear setback adjacent to a 15 foot alley. LOCATION: Lots 3 and 4. Block 9, Balboa Island, located at 504 South Bay Front, on the northeasterly side of South Bay Front between Opal Avenue and Agate Avenue on. Balboa Island. ZONE: C -1 • APPLICANT: Fleetwood B. Joiner, Huntington Beach OWNER: Ed Ziemer and Bruce Chandler, Balboa The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Fleetwood Joiner, the appli- cant, stated that the project has b.een approved unanimously again, by the Balboa Island Improve- ment Association. Motion K Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1981, Ayes X X X .X subject to the following findings:an& conditions, Noes X which 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 The project will not have any si.gnificant environmental impact. I I I I I I I I . -18- LY COMMISSIONERSI May 21, 1.981 MINUTES �m �ao ao�i CALL �I f 3. With the exception of the minor encroachments into the front and rear setbacks the proposed development meets or exceeds all of the development standards of the C -R District. That the establishment of two residential tandem parking spaces on the site which encroach into the required rear setback will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, . comfort and general welfare of persons residing -or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 5. The approval. of Use Permit No. 1981 will not, • under the circumstances of this case,,,be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neigh - borhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood of the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That a final parcel map shall be filed. 3. That Parking Space Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 shal be designated for residential use only and shall be clearly posted as such. 4. That a minimum..of four (4) on -site parking spaces be maintained at all times for the commercial use of the property. • 11111111 -19 INDEX COAAMISSIONERSI May 21, 1981 MINUTES INV of Newport Beach PWLCALLI 11 1 Jill IINDEX 5. That all eight (8) on -site parking spaces shall only be used for vehicular storage. 6. That all provisions of:the.Uni.form Building Code (1976 Edition) be met, including the required distance between the two stairways in each dwelling unit from the third floor to the ground. 7. That the circular stairway at ground level .shall have a 44 inch, unobstructed, walkway to the public way. 8. That all applicable conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 668 be fulfilled. Agenda Item Nos. 10 and 11 were heard later in the Agenda. Request to consider amending a condition of approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 10391 as incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11377 and. the Final Map of Tract No. 11043, related to the maintenance of the proposed public park located at the south - westerly corner of Mac- Arthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue.in the Aero= nutron.ic Ford Planned Community. LOCATION: The Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community, located on property bounded by Bison Avenue on the north, MacArthur Boulevard on the east, Ford Road on the south and Jamboree Road on the west. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company, Inc.; Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach -20- Item #12 TENTATIVE TRAUT APPROVED on Ayes 0 X X X x m CL I May 21, 1981 Of In response to a question posed by Commissioner Bala.lis, Planning Director Hewicker stated that this item.does not necessarily preclude the construction of ball park facilities on the five acre site. MINUTES Ms. Joan Winburn of the Parks, Beaches and Re- creation Commission, stated that the five acre site has been dedicated for City use. She stated that ball diamonds and tennis court facilities have not been determined at this, time, but that an amphitheater has been approved. Commissioner Thomas expressed his concern for the turkish rugging area of the project; Plannin Director Hewicker stated that the turkish rugging is presently located in the area which has been fenced off. Commissioner Thomas recommended that Item D be removed, so as to further protect the turkish rugging. Motion was .made that Condition of,Approval No. 46 of the Tentative Map.of Tract NO. 10391, as incorporated i- nto`the.condtions of approval for the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11377 and the Final Map of Tract No. 11043, be amended to read as follows,.which MOTION CARRIED: Condition No. 46 46. That the applicant and the City shall be subject to the following responsibilities relative to the design, improvement, and maintenance of the public park located at the southwesterly corner of Bison Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard: The J.M. Peters Company, Inc., shall install and maintain all landscaping on the perimeter and buffer slopes of the park (except for the Turkish Rugging areas discussed below), until such time as the Homeowners' Associations are formed, who will then be responsible for the maintenance of said slope areas. -21- I z _91: *4 kMISSIONERS May 21, 1981 3n O N � City of Newport Beach "MINUTES PWL CALL I III Jill I INDEX 1111111 The perimeter and buffer slopes are approxi- mately 5 acres (see attached Exhibit "A" of Park Proposal). B. That J. M. Peters Company, Inc., shall retain a landscape architectural firm to prepare preliminary and working drawings for the park. Said plans shall be developed un.der the direction of the Director of Parks Beaches and Recreation, and shall be subject to his approval. C. The City shall assume all maintenance re- sponsibility for the flat portion of the park and Turkish Rugging areas. The flat park and Turkish Rugging areas are approxi- mately 5 acres. Request to create three parcels of land for • single family residential development purposes I 1111 where two parcels presently exist, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 38 of the Newport Heights Tract, located at 717, 717 112 and 723 Irvine Avenue, on the southwesterly side of Irvine Avenue between Laurel Place and Holl Lane in Newport Heights. [e, , ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Quist, Inc., Irvine OWNERS: Carl and Patricia M. Neisser and Edward B. and Lorraine F. Ball, Costa Mesa ENGINEER: Quist, Inc., Irvine Staff advised that the applicant for this item has requested a continuance to June 4, 1981. Motion X Motion was made to continue Resubdivision No. All Ayes X X X * Y 686 to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. -22- [e, , 9M s0MR N May 21, 1981 Of Beach "MINUTES Request to establish a single parcel of land where one lot and a.portion of a second lot presently exist, so as to allow the remodel of an existing office building on the site. LOCATION: Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2 of Tract No. 1136 located at 300 . North Newport Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner of Catalina Drive and North Newport Boulevard in the Old Newport Boulevard Speci- fic Plan Area. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Donald E. Stevens,. Inc., Costa Mesa OWNER: TKB International, Inc., Newport Beach • The public hearing opened in .connection with this item and Mr. Donald Stevens, the applicant, stated that he is in agreement with the staff's recommendation for approval. Ms. Pat Strang, representing Newport Heights Improvement Association, stated that they are in support of this project. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. All Ayes X X X X X 687 subject to the following findings and condi- tions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan.of subdivision. 2. That the proposed. resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. INDEX RLJ UL) - DIVISION NO. 687 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY n U n May 21, 1981 MINUTES x w. City of Newport Beach CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as re qu,ired by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That concrete sidewalk be completed along the Catalina Drive and Holmwood Drive frontage and that existing sidewalk along North Newpori Boulevard and Cataline Drive having,differen- tal settlement be reconstructed. That an access ramp be constructed at the corner of North Newport Boulevard and Catalina Drive. 4. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public im- provement if it is desired to record the parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That all work within the public right -of- way be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That the final design of the on -site vehicular circulation be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:30 p.m, and reconvened at 10:05 p.m. -24-- INDEX n U Q \MISSIUNkKS May 21 , 1981 o x y y. Citv of Newport Beach Proposed amendments to the Land Use, Resi- dential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND Request to consider a Traffic Study for a pro- posed expansion of the existing Marriott Hotel complex. MINUTES LOCATION: Parcel No. l; Parcel Map 75 -34 (Resubdivision No. 497) located at 900 Newport Center Drive, on the southwesterly corner of New- port Center Drive and Santa Barbara in Newport Center. ZONES: C -O -H, 0 -S APPLICANT: Marriott.Hotel, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Agenda Item Nos. 10 and 11 were heard concurrentl due to their relationship. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Commissioner Cokas would be able to parti- cipate and vote on these items. Planning Director Hewicker and Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, presented background information on these items. Mr. Talarico dis -. cussed the Orange County Transit District facilit request and a letter received from Mr. Shute, representing SPON. -25- OVA 10 TC7." AND May 21 , 1981 MNUTES I Nr I � City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Dick Cannon, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission and summarized the project with regard to the land uses, phasing and mitigation measures being proposed. In summary, Mr. Cannon stated that the straw votes taken by the Planning Commission at the last meeting, exceeds a reasonable limit and upsets the balance between public and private benefits. He.urged approval of the plan as proposed and related mitigation measures. In response to a question posed by.Commissioner Beek, Mr. Cannon explained that the burden of the traffic management -pl.an can become The Irvine Company's responsibility. He suggested that the phasing of Newport Center be tied into the succes of the traffic management plan to allow for three fourths of the local roadway improvements to be constructed for the City, while only one -half of the requested office square footage and.the hotel . would be allowed to proceed. He stated that in this way, Phase II could then be conditioned upon the performance standards of the traffic manange- ment plan and placement of Pelican Hills Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. Mr. Chuck Hersch, Vice- President of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce stated that:The Irvine Company has made diligent efforts to meet the concerns of the community with regard to this proposal. He strongly urged the Commission to reconsider their straw votes of the last meeting and approve the compromised package as presented by The Irvine Company. 'Commissioner Thomas stated that commercial square footage generates the most traffic and the least revenue, as in- dicated in the cost revenue analysis. Mr. Hersch re- . sponded that he had not received, or had the opportunity to read the cost revenue analysis, but that the road improvements. as being requested of the .applicant, appear to be extremely costly. Ms. Dee Dee. Masters of Corona del Mar, stated that her primary concern is the traffic impact from Newport Center ' onto Pacific Coast Highway. She referred to a letter she had received from the Department of Transportation dated May 15, 19815 whidh addressed traffic in general, facing Corona del Mar. -26- soon R a FIR s 9 May 21, 1981 Z Beach MINUTES INDEX Ms. Jean Watt, representing SPON, stated that significant impacts are being created. She expressed a concern relating to more traffic in Corona del Mar and the removal of parking on Pacific Coast Highway as proposed in the Downcoast LCP. She stated that::the trip gener- ation factors must also be considered. Mr. Chriss Street, resident of Corona del Mar and member of the Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee (CEQAC), stated that Newport Beach is becoming an expensive retirement.commun - ity, while the schools are closing and retail companies are failing.. He stated that the full completion of Newport Center will be a positive step for the community. Mr. Paul Ruffing, of Ficker and Ruffing, repre- senting the Marriott Hotel, stated that the motio made by Commissioner Beek at the last meeting, with regard to the Marriott..Hote.l i.s; proper and acceptable. Motion K Chairman Haidinger moved that the Commission take the following action on General Plan Amendment 80 -3: Confirm all actions taken at the prior meeting, including deletion of hotel and one office tower, except: , 1. Clarify that residential is to be built before office building in Block 600. 2. Take definitive action to approve 80,000 square feet of office space at Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree. 3. Restore 100,000 square feet cut from Avocado /MacArthur. 4. Restore 80,000 square feet cut from Corporate Plaza. 5,. Amend the phasing plan to permit: Phase I - one residential building in Block 600 • - 208,750 sq. ft. of office in Newport Village -27- Sao co� May 21, 1981 Of r "MINUTES FWL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX ■ Phase II - all remaining. development Subject to: Phase I - City approval of the Traffic Management Plan - "Committed" road improvements - $4,000,000 of improvements selected by the City from prior list Phase II - balance of the $8,922,000 in road improvements - completion of Pelican Hills Road - San Joaquin Hills Road extension - Traffic Management Plan 20% trip reduction. 6. City can divert up to $2 million from desig- nated improvements to Pacific Coast Highway widening. 7. The establishment of an Airport Alternatives Fund to receive $200,000 annually of the increase in revenues produced by the project. 8. Marriott Hotel to make a contribution of $150,000 to the identified road improvements. 9. The 115 "floating units" not specifically identified to locations in the staff report remain approved but unlocated. 0. The staff to prepare specific general plan wording explaining why residential use is desired. This wording to be forwarded to the Council with the staff report. In.response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Chairman Haidinger stated that by in- creasing the office square footage, the City will gain the benefits of the much needs road improvements. r1 U May 21, 1981 MINUTES w City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Thomas referred to Item No. 7 and asked if $200,000 is an appropriate figure. Mr. Tal.ar_ico stated that there would most likely be sufficient funds for $150,000. Chairman Haidinge stated that the amount could be increased to $200,000 at such time as the remaining develop- ment were to take place. Commissioner Thomas stated that the floating unit should be located in a specific area, such as the Pacific Coast Highway frontage. Mr. Talarico -stated, that a specific site in Newport Center ha.s not beeh.identified as yet, to accommodate the units. Commissioner Beek stated that there has been a substantial net increase of resi- dential units in Block 600,.which may have in- cluded these floating units. Commissioner Allen stated that the motion at the last meeting for Block 600 did not fix a number of dwelling units in Block 600. She • stated that the intent of the motion was for two buildings of approximately 300,000 square feet and 225,000 square feet,.with whatever. number of.residential units would fit. She stated that this may cause a difference in the parking requirements, because the residential use may overlap the existing parking. Therefore, she stated that there may be room in Block 600 for these floating units. Amendment X Chairman Haidioger stated that he would incor- porate that into his motion as follows: 11. One structure of 300,000 square feet and one structure of 225,000 square feet as opposed to a number of units.-in Block 600. Plann.in.g Director Hew.icker asked if the square footage of these buildings are to include the parking structures. Commissioner Allen stated that the square footage would be included in the buil.ding mass. Chairman.Haidinger clarified that the parking would not be included in the square footage allowance. • 11111111 -29- l VM/v \IJJIVIVtKJ May 21, 1981 a0 D H U) City of Newport Beach L CALL Motion X Commissioner Balalis recommended the following changes to Chairman Haidinger's motion::. Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to remain the same. 5. Amend Phasing Plan to permit: MINUTES Phase I - one residential tower in Block 60 - 165 rooms at the Marriott Hotel - 225,000 sq. ft. of office space in Block 600 Phase II - all remaining development Subject To: Phase I - City approval of the Traffic Management Plan. - "Committed" road improvements - $4,000,000 of improvements selec • ted by the City from the prior list completion of Pelican Hills Road San Joaquin Hills Road extension Phase II - balance of the $8,922,000 in road improvements. - Traffic Management Plan 20 %.trip reduction 6. To remain the same. 7. The establishment of an Airport Alternatives Fund to receive $250,000 annually of the increase in revenues produced by the project. 8. Marriott Hotel to make a contribution of $330,000 to the identified road improvements. ($2,000 per hotel room). 9. The 115 "floating units" to be placed in Block 600. 10. To remain the same. • 11111111 11. To remain the same. - 30- INDEX LMISSIONERS May 21, 1981 $o w X w City of Newport Beach 'MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Balalis stated that in approving the completion of Newport Center, it is also very important to protect the Corona del Mar area from further traffic impacts on Pacific . Coast Highway. He stated that this proposal will balance the needs of the community with the needs of the property owner. He stated that the construction of Pelican Hills Road is an important item. Commissioner Cokas stated that he will support the proposal by Commissioner Balalis in its entirety. Amendment X Chairman Haidinger amended Commissioner Balalis' Ayes X motion by moving Pelican Hills Road from Phase 1 Noes X X K X X X to Phase II, which MOTION FAILED. Acceptance X Chairman Haidinger stated that he would accept of the the modifications of Commissioner Balalis to Motion. his motion. • Mr. Cannon asked' -if the 115 floating units in Block 600 are in addi.tion to the buildings described by Commissioner Allen. Chairman Haidinger concurred. Planning Director Hewicker referred to the dollar amounts listed for the road improvements and stated that the costs may change due to inflation Mr. Talarico stated that The Irvine Company.has indicated that it is their intention to make the improvements,.not.to contribute a specific dollar amount. He stated that the wording could be modified to indicate "equal to ". Mr. Ruffing stated that the requirement of the Marriott Hotel to make a contribution to the road improvements has not been .discussed pre - viously. He stated that the. Traffic Study for the Marriott indicates that it will only create a minimum traffic impact. In response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Planning Director Hewicker stated that it would be more appropriate for this requirement to be included in.the general plan amendment, rather than the traffic phasing plan. -31- May 21, 1981 MINUTES x w City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Beek asked legal counsel if the Planning Commission has the power to create and appropriate.money for the Airport Alternatives Fund. Mr. Burnham stated that all recommendation of the Planning Commission are subject to approva by the City Council. Motion Ayes Motion was made to eliminate the requirement for Noes X X X X X the Airport Alternatives.Fund, which MOTION FAILE kbs tai n X Commissioner Allen referred to the Traffic Manage ment Plan and asked if the 20% traffic reduction is part of the total trip reduction or peak period reduction. Mr.. Talarico stated that the intent of the motion was to require that a Traffic Management Plan be approved and that Phase II provide for a 20% technical reduction to be determined at a later date. Commissioner Allen stated that she is uncomfortable with the definition of peak hour and that in measuring the performance of the Traffic Management Plan, the • normal peak traffic period should be utilized as opposed to the one -half hour between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Chairman Haidinger stated that this concern and the means of me.asuring the suc- cess of the Traffic Management Plan can be evaluated at which time the Traffic Management Plan comes before the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Allen referred to Item No. 6 and asked if $2 million is enough for the Pacific Coast Highway widening. Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City - Engineer, stated that.$.2 million will not be enough to provide three lanes in each direc- tion, without supplementing it with other funds. Amendment Il JJJ 'Amendment to the motion was made to revise Item Ayes X X X X No. 6 as follows: 6) City can divert up to Noes $3 million from designated improvements to :Pacific Coast Highway improvements, which AMENDMENT CARRIED. 'In clarification, Chairman Haidi:nger stated that .the residential uses in Block 600 shall be built ;before the office uses. Block 600 shall contain • -32- COMMISSIONERS May 21, 1981 MINUTES INDEX i 1x 5- 0CDR> w City of Newport Beach CALL Commissioner Allen referred to Item No. 3 and :General Plan Amendment 78 -2 and stated that this one office building of 225,000 sq. ft., one resi- proposal increases the total allowable develop- • dential building of 300,000 sq. ft. and one resi- ment on the Avocado /MacArthur site by 58,000 dential building of 225,000 sq. ft. In addition, sq. ft. over and above what was adequate three the 115 floating dwelling.units will also be ,years ago. Chairman Haidinger explained the located in Block 600. reasons he is in favor of restoring the 100,000 Commissioner Allen stated that it is equally sq. ft. to the Avocado /MacArthur site. Motion important to phase the remainder of the resi- XMotion was made to delete Item No. 3) Restore Ayes X dential development in Newport Center with the X X;100,000 sq. ft..cut from Avocado /MacArthur, Noes .office buildings. Chairman Haidinger stated XK which MOTION FAILED. Abstain that in order to retain more flexibility with X 'the remaining residential in Newport Center, the Motion :phasing should be determined at that time. Com- A Motion was made that there be no recommendation Ayes X missioner Thomas suggested that the remaining X on the additional 100,000 sq. ft. for Avocado/ Noes .residential phasing be implemented in Phase II XX MacArthur, which MOTION FAILED. Rbstain .and developed at the tentative tract level. Amendment X Chairman Haidinger:ac.cepted this as an amendment !Commissioner Allen.suggested a further recom- to his motion. INDEX Commissioner Allen referred to Item No. 3 and :General Plan Amendment 78 -2 and stated that this proposal increases the total allowable develop- • ment on the Avocado /MacArthur site by 58,000 sq. ft. over and above what was adequate three ,years ago. Chairman Haidinger explained the reasons he is in favor of restoring the 100,000 sq. ft. to the Avocado /MacArthur site. Motion XMotion was made to delete Item No. 3) Restore Ayes X X X;100,000 sq. ft..cut from Avocado /MacArthur, Noes X XK which MOTION FAILED. Abstain X Motion A Motion was made that there be no recommendation Ayes X X on the additional 100,000 sq. ft. for Avocado/ Noes X XX MacArthur, which MOTION FAILED. Rbstain X !Commissioner Allen.suggested a further recom- mendation to the City Council that the Commis - sion's intent was to approve the office commer- icial development at the intensity' at which it was approved. She stated that this will further !emphasize the residential additions. She stated 'that the residential development has been ap- proved for the economic vitality of Newport -33- INDEX K 1 " w o� May 21i 1981 MINUTES Z Center, th City as ev benefit an utilizatio housing an less traff missioner Commission action at facility n the Avo.cad concurred. M long term economic benefit to the dented in the consultant's cost . lysis, peak hour traffic, better of the roadways, the balance between jobs, less energy consumption and c meaning better air quality. Com- homas concurred with these statements r Allen stated that the Commission's he last meeting placed the OCTD rtherly of San Nicholas Drive in /MacArthur site. Chairman Haidinger Commissioner Allen referred to the suggested findings i the staff report and asked if Finding No. 1 is n ;cessary to make. Mr. T &I.arico stated that each 9f the findings listed relates to mitigatibn1measures in the draft EIR. In respons to a question posed by Chairman • Haidinger, t Mr. Burnham stated that the procedure as recomme. ded by staff is appropriate. He stated that Finding No. I is not necessary to make, but hat Finding No. 2 could be modified to read, ) That the contents of the environ- mental doctment have been read and considered in the varnous decisions on this project. Commissioner Beek suggested that the wording, " Mitigatio measures to be incorporated" be changed to "Mitigation measures shall be in- Amendment K corporated'. Chairman Haidinger concurred with this chang and deleted Finding No. l.also. Commission`r Balalis stated that the 300,000 square feet being approved for the Newport Village aria is approximately .23 which is equivalent Ito the intensity for Corporate Plaza -34- • INDEX COMMISSIONERS May 21, 1 F;Z? n City of Ayes X X X X X Chafr.man Ha Noes X X General Pla Commissione actions of included th CARRIED: Approve the 80 -3" and s that the Ci Document is Statement o Considerati below: MINUTES Beach INDEX dinger's motion for approval of Amendment 80 -3, as amended by Balal.is and as amended by the he evening, was now voted on and following findings, which MOTION "Draft EIR - General Plan Amendment pportive materials thereto; Recommend y Council certify the Environmental complete; Direct staff to prepare a Facts and Statement of Overriding ns; and.Make the Findings listed FINDINGS: 1. That the contents of the environmental docaeeet has been read and considered in the various decisions on this project. . 2. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternatives to the proposed project. Mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project as listed below in numerical order corresponding to the numbering in the EIR: 1. (Page 22) On site culverts will be analyzed during the design phase and any necessary improvements will be installed. 2. (Page 22) To avoid impacts on the Sea Island storm drain system, a drainage study will be prepared for the Pacific Coast Highway /Jamboree Road site during the design phase. The study will define appropriate • drainage controls and examine -35- COMMISSIONERS May 21, 1981 MINUTES a o�D 5 1 y City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX potential groundwater problems and necessary mitigations. 3. (Page 22) The applicant will maintain all on and off -site desilting basins serving development within Newport Center. 4. (Page 36) To reduce aesthetic impacts, the City will require "Site Plan Review" prior to development of sites zoned C -0 -H. 5. (Page 36) Newport Village, Corporate Plaza West and Pacific Coast Highway /Jamboree shall be subject to an extension of the Civic Center Height Plane restrictions. 6. (Page 41) To reduce land use impacts, the City will require "Site Plan Review" prior to the development of sites in Newport Center zoned C -0. 7. (Page 68) Traffic Management Plan - (See staff report of 5/21/81). 8. (Page 69) Circulation System Improvements - (See staff report of 5/21/81). S. (b) Phasing of Development - (See staff report of 5/21/81). 9. (Page 69) The applicant shall work with the City to provide for a complete system of pedestrian and bicycle trails for all of Newport Center. 10.(Page 10) The City shall consider the establishment of a fund for sound walls along Pacific Coast Highway to shield nearby areas from noise. 11.(Page 100) To reduce fugitive dust associated with construction, grading will be performed in spring when soil moisture is highest, speeds on -36- COMMISSIONERS May 21, 1981 MINUTES n z y y City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX unpaved surfaces will be limited to 15 mph, and paving will be completed as soon as heavy equipment is finished driving across the construction site. 12.(Page 100) To reduce motor vehicle emissions the following measures will be taken: a. Safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be provided. b. Ride- sharing will be encouraged. c. Shuttle service from the airport to hotel facilities is being provided. d. Provide for modified work schedules to shift traffic to • non -peak hours. e. Provide for modified work schedules to shift traffic to non -peak hours. f. Provide free bus passes or company -owned vans to subsidize mass transit or carpooling. g. Maintain synchronized and /or demand - responsive signals and adequate roadway capacity. 13.(Page 101) To reduce emissions associated with energy consumption the following measures will be taken: a. Energy- conserving lighting will be used in parking lots and streets; decorative or non - functional lighting will be minimized. I I I I I I I I b. Energy conservation standards in addition to Title 24 will be applied. -37- kN\W1UNtKJ May 21, 1981 w X C D City of Newport Beach c. Natural heating and cooling mechanisms will be utilized, minimizing the use of typical energy intensive artificial in- terior environments. 14.(Page 102) To reduce energy consumption by motor vehicles, high - occupancy vehicles and alternate transportation methods shall be encouraged. 15.(Page 103) Active and passive solar energy system will be utilized. 16. (Page 103)Energy conservation experts will be consulted to develop energy conservation measures beyond Title 24 requirements. 17.(Page 103) Use of natural heating and cooling will be maximized. 18.(Page 103) Energy use for decoration, advertising, or other non- productive uses will be minimized. 19.(Page 106) To deter vandalism during construction, temporary fencing shall be used. 20.(Page 106) Office building security shall include security guards, alarms, and limited elevator access after business hours. 21.(Page 106) The proposed hotels shall have a 24 -hour security guard patrol and central communication system. 22.(Page 106) To conserve water, watering of landscaping during mid -day shall be avoided. 0 11111111 -38- MINUTES INDEX CALL a0((wpp W(n_p May 21, 1981 Of Beach 3. That the Land Use and Residential growth maps are hereby amended consistent with this action. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 1067 recommending amendments to the Land Use Residential Growth elements and maps of the Newport Beach General Plan. "MINUTES Motion 11 1 1IMotion was made to approve the Traffic Study for the Ayes X X X X Marriott Hotel expansion with the following Noes findings, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in .accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy . S -1, and; 2. That based on that Traffic Study, the propose project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major ", "primary- modified ", or "primary" street. There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 12:15 a.m. George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach • IIIIIIII INDEX