Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-01-1986 - Agendar CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P ARK S , BE ACH ES AN D RECREATION COMMISSION • xi REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD. TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1986 i` �} CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA I. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of June 3, 1986 4. Adoption of Agenda II. ACTION ITEMS 5. Seating of New Commissioner - Virginia Herberts 6. Election of Officers for 1986 -87. • 7. Request to Prohibit Sponsorship of Foot Races by Alcohol and /or„ Tobacco Companies (Report Attached) 8'. Request to Remove Parkway Tree at 220 Heliotrope (Request and Report Attached) 9. Encroachment Permit Request for 2727 Ocean Blvd. (Request and Report Attached) 10. Designation, of Bayside Drive Park (Letter and Report Attached) 11. Ad Hoc Sign Committee (Report Attached) 12. Review of General Plan Amendment for Newport Center (Verbal Report) III. PUBLIC COMMENTS IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS 13. Recreation Division (Report Attached) 14. Park and Street Tree Division (Report Attached) V. SPECIAL, URGENT OR LAST MINUTE ITEMS VI. ADJOURNMENT • 1 Item No. 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 17 • IN arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission June 3, 1986 City Council Chambers 7 p.m INDEX Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes Adoption of Agenda Adult Basketball Program Ex Officio Member Present: Ronald A. Whitley Staff Present: Mark Deven, Recreation Supt. Dottie Flohr, Secretary I. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Item #1 The meeting of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission was called to order at 7:10 P.M. Item #2 Roll call was taken. Commissioners Brenner, de Boom, Hopkins, Springer, Taft and Wolfe were present. Commissione Konwiser was absent (excused). Item #3 Motion was made by de Boom and seconded by Springer to approve the minutes of the May 6, 1986 meeting. Unanimous. Item #4 The agenda was adopted as presented with the addition of Oasis, Clarification of Park Credits, Park Sign Subcommittee Encroachment Request, Bicycle Trail at Community Youth Center, Youth Ad Hoc Committee and South Orange County Board Commission Meeting. II. SPECIAL COMMISSION RECOGNITION Item #5 - Adult Basketball Program Ron Whitley reviewed the adult basketball program and ex- pressed appreciation for the local sponsors that support the teams. The team being honored at this meeting represents the Villa Nova Restaurant which just,won the Southern California Municipal Athletic Federation Tournament. They have won the Southern California Championship two out of the past three years. Mr. Jim Dale and his wife of the Villa Nova Restaurant congratulated each of the players, and both the players and Chair Wolfe thanked them for their sponsorship. INDEX Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes Adoption of Agenda Adult Basketball Program CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Page 2 City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX Joint Meeting with City Council Budget Review by City Council Police Patrol on Beaches Personal Liability of Commissionee I. ACTION ITEMS Item #5 - Joint Meeting with City Council - June 23, 1986 Chair Wolfe reported the-Commission's Joint Meeting with the City Council will be June 23 at 2:00 P.M. and encouraged each of the Commissioners to attend. Chair Wolfe will meet with staff and Commissioner Brenner the week of June 16 to prepare the agenda. Ron Whitley suggested the Recreation Facility Directory done,by Mark Deven be distributed to Council. Commissioner Brenner will speak on the recreation programs and West Newport Park will also be addressed. Chair Wolfe will organize the subject& and time frames for the Commissioners who will be addressing Council. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS Item #6 - Budget Review by City Council Ron Whitley reported that this item is on the agenda for the Commission's information. The review was approved by Council with the addition of funding for Cliff Drive Park. Item #7 - Police Patrol on Beaches Commissioner de Boom contacted the Police Department con- cerning problems on the beach, specifically at the 32nd - 34th Street location. Ron Whitley stated he talked to the Police Department and they will have additional funding for more foot patrol at the problem areas commencing July 1. Item #8 - Personal Liability of Commissioners Chair Wolfe reported the memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney included in the Commission's agenda packet addresses Commissioner Brenner's concern over liability insurance for the Commission. . Commissioner Hopkins advised the Commissioners not to worry about this issue since the City would represent a Com- missioner if they were to be found liable. Joint Meeting with City Council Budget Review by City Council Police Patrol on Beaches Personal Liability of Commissionee CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Page 3 City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX Item #9 - Status of West Newport Park Status of West Motion x Ron Whitley provided a written report on West Newport Newport Seconded x Park and reviewed the chronology and status of the develop- Park Ayes x x x x x x ment of the park. Contrary to the Commission's and West Newport Improvement Association's recommendations, the Coastal Commission's staff directed a condition of 100 -200' parking spaces be required. Since the condition can' be appealed before the Coastal Commission, Mr. Whitley explained that he wrote a letter asking for a continuance as the next Coastal Com- mission meeting will be in San Francisco. In this way the appeal process can be delayed until their July meeting in Marina del Rey. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Hopkins moved that the Commission reaffirm their position of having West Newport Park developed as submitted to the Coastal Commis- siorr - without parking and authorize that Chair Wolfe appear before the Coastal Commission to testify on this matter be transmitted to the City Council. Seconded by Brenner. Unanimous. At their Study Session on June 23, the Commission will ask Council to reaffirm their position to have the park develop- ment without parking and to obtain authorization from Council to have Chair Wolfe represent the City at the Coastal Commission in July. Item #10 - Recreation Subcommittee Recreation Subcommitte Mark Deven reviewed the Recreation Programs Subcommittee Meeting of May 13 attended by Commissioners Brenner, Taft, Recreation Supervisor Nancy Beard, and himself. A summation was included in the Commission's agenda packet. The sub- committee meets quarterly and discusses in detail one specific program per meeting. Adult sports was reviewed at their last meeting and it was noted that although the City does not have many lighted fields, the softball twiligh leagues work out very well. Mr. Deven also stated that bids are presently being reviewed for improvements to the Theatre Arts Center. Chair Wolfe . thanked the committee for doing such a fine job which will be beneficial to the City. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • • arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Page 4 City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX Park and Street Tree Division, Recreation Division Oasis Clarifica- tion of Park Credits Park Sign Sub- committee Item #11 - Park and Street Tree Division Commissioner Brenner reported she received complaints con- cerning the grass at Grant Howald Park. Ron Whitley replied that this area, located north of Oasis Passive Park, is the responsibility of the developer and they are working to get the problem resolved. Commissioner Taft asked when the trees will be planted on Marine Avenue on Balboa Island. Mr. Whitley will follow up on this with Jack Brooks upon his return. Item #12 - _Recreation Division Mark Deven reported that at the Friends of Oasis request, their joint meeting with the Commission will be August 5 due to their recent elections. Mr. Deven also commended staff on their hard work on the Corona del Mar 5K Run which will be held June 7: Concern was expressed over the possible closing of restrooms and /or dressing rooms from midnight to 6:00 A.M. Mr. Whitley will gather further information and report back at the next Commission meeting. Item #13 - Oasis Commissioner Springer reported she has last year's balance sheet for Oasis and'their list of events for June should anyone want a copy. Item #14 - Clarification of Park Credits Commissioner Brenner reported she received a call expressing concern over the fact that park credits east of the bay are being used to develop parks west of the bay. Mr. Whitley said he also received this call and referred the individual to the Planning Department. Mr. Whitley then reviewed the park dedication ordinance, specifically pointing out that a developer must dedicate 5 acres of land for park purposes per 1,000 projected population. Item #15 - Park Sign Subcommittee Ron Whitley reported the subcommittee attended by Commissioners Konwiser, as Chair, Springer, and Taft met and reviewed sign potentials, costs, production, etc. They will meet again in June and plan to bring their recommendations to the July 1, 1986 meeting for final adoption. Park and Street Tree Division, Recreation Division Oasis Clarifica- tion of Park Credits Park Sign Sub- committee CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Page 5 City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX Item #16 - Encroachment Request Encroach- ment Ron Whitley passed out a letter and the preliminary plan Request he received from Gary Hamilton, 2727 Ocean Blvd., requesting an encroachment permit for pedestrian access to his front door. Mr. Hamilton is proposing to improve the right -of- way at his driveway and is only asking to get rid of the liability problem., Staff is in support of his request as it will not only provide more beauty to the area but will also solve the liability matter. Commissioner Springer stated she would like to review the situation before voting on it. Motion Seconded x x Following discussion•, Commissioner Hopkins moved the Ay K x x x Commission approve Mr. Hamilton's request for an encroach - ment permit. Seconded by Taft. Motion fails. N x x Motion Seconded x Commissioner de Boom motioned to place this item on the Ayes K x x x x x July 1, 1986 agenda as an Action Item. Seconded by Nay x Springer. Motion passes. Item #17 - Bicycle Trail at CYC Bicycle Trail at Mark Deven reported Bert Tarayao, Project Architect, has CYC been asked to include consideration of an alternate or additional route for the bicycle trail. The recommendation was transmitted to John Wolter, Staff to the Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee, and they are in agreement with the Commission's recommendation. The committee has suggested that one of their members, Mr. Deven and the Principal of Harbor View School meet on the matter. Mr. Deven will keep the Commission informed on the status of the bicycle trail. Item #18 - Youth Ad Hoc Committee Youth Ad Hoc Com- Mark Deven reported the Youth Ad Hoc Committee has trans- mittee mitted a report to Council asking for a budget appropriation of $10,000 to conduct a study to determine the economic viability of a Teen Center. The Irvine Company and the Restaurant Association will each contribute $2,500 to • create a budget of $15,000. The proposed building site will be at Bayview Landing r (. Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree). In addition, The II Irvine Company has proposed terms and conditions for a J, ground lease and building construction loan. It has not CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Page 6 City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX been decided whether there will be three or four restaurant facilities at the site, one of which could be the Teen Center. Mr. Deven explained the selection of the Youth Council from the two high schools. He also noted there will be a selection of 15 community representatives for the Board of Directors of the Newport Youth Association which will be involved in fund raising and support. Chair Wolfe thanked Mr. Deven and commended him on the fine job he has been doing as staff liaison to the Youth Council. Item. #19 - South Orange County Board Commission Meeting South Orang County Ron Whitley passed out an invitation to the South Orange Board Com- 'County Board Commission Members Dinner on Monday, June 23, mission in Laguna Beach. Subject of the program is the homeless Meeting • in Orange County. Should any of the Commissioners desire to attend, they should contact Mr. Whitley by June 16. V. SPECIAL, URGENT OR LAST MINUTE ITEMS For the Commission's information, Mr. Whitley reported he has not yet heard from Mr. Donald Griswold regarding his property at the corner of Begonia and Pacific in Corona del Mar. Bonita Creek Park is moving along for development in the next fiscal year. The sign for Old School Park is being prepared. Mark Deven reported the contract for the CYC building has been signed by the architect and staff is reviewing his working drawings. A time line will be provided for the Commission at their next meeting on July 1. Commissioner de Boom announced she will miss the Commission'' July and August meetings due to her vacation. Chair Wolfe announced it would be appreciated if the Commissioners would arrive on time. He would like a phone call if a member is going to be late. Ron Whitley reported Jack Brooks' brother, Albert Brooks, recently passed away'and suggested this meeting be adjourned in his memory. As this was Commissioner Hopkins' last official meeting, he thanked the colleagues he has served with and said he particularly enjoyed working with this Commission. Chair Wolfe replied this Commission will miss him and Ron Whitley said staff has appreciated his service to the community. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Page 7 City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission adjourned in the memory of Albert Brooks at 8:50 P.M. Dottie Flohr, Secretary OR q • Item No. 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department DATE: June 24, 1986 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: SPONSORSHIP OF FOOT RACES The City Council referred a letter from Mr. Lars de Jounge regarding tobacco and alcohol companies being allowed to sponsor events in the City to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and recommendation I have included in this report communications from my office to all those concerned that will bring the Commission up to date on this matter. If there are any questions, please feel free to call. • - m t 16 � % City of Newport Beach Newport Beach CA 92663 Lars de lounge 20SMartgold Avenue Corona del Mar, CA. U.S.A. 926 25 C71'D673 8253 Attention City Mgr Bob Wynn FOR CITY COUNCIL 0 5/10 1986 Dear Bob , . I hereby request that you forward to the City Council Members my suggestion that a City Ordinance be adopted that will • prohibit any Tobacco or Alcohol company from sponcoring sports events in our city. I� i N � y„4 1pf Q 1RL5 5� `. `Y`1\� �Ma�as gtath 1 am enclosing a copy of my letter to Spring Tuneup Run, to give you the background. The benefits of my request are self explenatory but should you need further information 1 would be happy to comply. Your Very Tr Lars de Joung� cc Letter dated 5 4 86 _ Lars de lounge' I — 208 MARIGOLD AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 USA RESIDENCE 714/673.8253 5 4 1986 Spring Tune Up Run :.•.... .,,,, ;:.F• :. Sord Aerospace PO Box A Ford Road Newport Beach. CA 92660 • Dear Sirs, Yesterday I had the pleasure to run your 10 -K and thereby do something good for Orange County youth, your beneficiary. Normally I read flyers about the various races I participate in but not this time. I would not have come had I known that Miller Brewing Company, owned by a tobacco company, would be one of the sponsors. Now I instead got a firsthand opportunity to see what happens. About Sam the 5 -K runners are getting back from thel,r run and what is thereto drink. The largest area the prime first 4 is for beer only. You have to search hard to find anything else to drink. By the time 1 made it back after my race there was about 2/3 of the racers drinking beer because they had no other choice. Many were obviously under age. I request that you In future years keep an event like this free from alcohol and your youth will not n be unnessecarily — tempted to start a morning with drinking beer on empty stomach. I would like to make a few more comments. When we run most of us would throw;-:-, the watercups in a drum or a trash bin if provided. The watering places looked terrible for a fellow like me who is at the end of the race. Same thing applies for the starting /goal area. There were a few dumpsters but far too few trash bins. I'f you have plenty of bins and request a couple of times over the luod speaker you will see that the American youth is not as messy as you now make them out to be. • Your ery Truly 1 ars de Jounge � CC: Newport Beach City Council with a request that no alcohol sponsored sports events be allowed. n CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS. BEACHES AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT P.O- BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (714)644 -3151 June 10, 1986 Mr. Lars de Jounge 208 Marigold Avenue Corona del' Mar, CA. 92625 Dear Mr. de Jounge: Your letter to the City Manager regarding the sponsorship of sporting events by tobacco and alcohol companies has been referred by the City Council to my office for consideration and recommendation. For your information we co- sponsor two foot races a year with the local Chambers of Commerce and have control over the commercial involvement in these races. The others that are approved are done • through a special event process and are somewhat independent. I have enclosed my comments to the City Manager for your information and review. • I To enable decisions on this matter to be implemented, I have scheduled a public hearing on the agenda of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission scheduled for Tuesday, July 1, 1986, at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard. Your input at this meeting is encouraged, and if there are any questions regarding this problem, please feel free to call. Cordially, Ronald A. Whitley Director Enc. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach A t i I -21 BIKE 8 FOOT RACE POLICY It is the policy of the City Council that all races using. City streets, beaches or parks shall be administered through the Special Event procedure established by the City Manager. Organizers of a race must prove the ability to pay for required City safety and maintenance services. Races shall be restricted to courses approved by the City Manager. Races shall not be held during summer months (June 15 through September 15) and shall not exceed 12 per year. The City shall also receive registration fees or a cash deposit as proof of ability to pay for City services provided. It shall additionally be ,required that organizers of races provide a certificate of insurance co- insuring the City or purchase a City approved Special Event Policy providing a minimum of $1,000,000 coverage. • It is the intent of this policy to minimize inconvenience to City residents and maximize safety precautions for races. 0 _ Adopted - February 14, 1983 Amended - November 14, 1983 • I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department DATE: May 15, 1986 TO: Robert L. Wynn, City Manager FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: ATHLETIC EVENTS SPONSORED BY TOBACCO OR ALCOHOL COMPANIES I tend to agree with Mr. de Jounge's comments in the attached communications. Philosophically, those in my business would li,ke to think the activities we provide are wholesome, designed for fitness and would attract young people. We, in fact, have denied, either at the staff or commission level, involve- ment with cigarette and alcohol firms requesting to sponsor large'recreational events. Those we do co- sponsor are with the local Chamber of Commerce that use local sponsors. (See attached.) If desired, we could amend City Council Policy I -21, Bike and Foot Race Policy, to include a section on prohibiting tobacco and alcohol sponsors to be able to obtain a Special Event Permit. This probably would not be received well by major race promotions, i.e., Olympic Run has always had a beer company as a principle sponsor. If there are any further questions or information needed, please advise. Enc. Rona A. Whit ey CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS. BEACHES AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (714)644 -3151 June 18, 1986 TO THOSE CONCERNED: The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at their meeting of Tuesday, July 1, 1986, at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Blvd., will be considering a request to prohibit providers of foot races from having their events sponsored or supported by companies that deal in tobacco and /or alcohol products. To enable a fair discussion on this matter to occur, this notifica- tion is being provided to many groups and organizations that coordinate 5K and 10K races in Newport Beach. For some groups this would have no impact; others are financially supported by companies • as described. • 11 1 You are encouraged to attend the mentioned meeting and provide appropriate comments if you have an opinion on this subject. If there are any questions regarding this procedure, please feel free to call. Cordially, Ronald A. Whitley Director: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach V • • • Item No. 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department DATE: June 24, 1986 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Request for Tree Removal The attached request and reply to the Chaneys is transmitted to the Commission in accordance with City Council Policy I -9 (attached). The Commission subcommittee has reviewed the request with representatives of Corona del Mar and is recommending to retain the street tree. MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFICD PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS H. K. CHANEY� c • 1880 LORAIN ROAD SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA 51108 M� { (213) 282.2814 �MM �t IU C^ Boegpe tb G X%zv G °6 April 25, 19-B c _ cM ,< Mr. Robert L. Wynn City Manager, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach,, California 92663 Dear Mr. Wynn: After our walk with the departments assessing the work that might be needed to repair curbs, sidewalks, etc. on Heliotrope, we would like to address ourselves to the statement in the letter, "The retention or possible replacement of street trees will be a mayor item studied at this time." The tree in the parkway at 220 beautiful tree, has become a ha: • large limb cracked off and fell into our yard. Fortunately, no evident that the tree has become liability. Heliotrope, while a card. Not long ago a acoss the sidewalk and one was hurt yet it is a source of potential The roots have broken the curbing, cracked and lifted the sidewalk, and made the parkway difficult for people getting in and out of their cars. Two gardeners have told us they can not sod our lawn as the roots in our yard make it impossible to mow and the needles would kill any lawn that we would plant. The tree is so tall now that the needles are being blown over our house and into the back yard. HELP! We would like to make the front yard attractive. We have installed a sprinkler system, hired a gardener but between roots and needles it is impossible. Our neighbors agree with us that the time has come for the tree to be removed before it can cause any more damage. Sincerely, H. K. Chaney • tt w• : SEW PO @� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT cq��aRN�r P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8916 (714)644 -3151 June 17, 1986 Mr. and Mrs. H. K. Chaney 1680 Lorain Road San Marino, CA. 91108 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Chaney: The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission will be considering your request to remove the parkway tree at 220 Heliotrope at their meeting of Tuesday, July 1, 1986, at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Blvd. You are invited to provide testimony to this request in addition to your letter which will be provided,to the Commission. • For your information, in Policies on street tree on parkway trees has met retained. If there are please feel free to call • f' I., Cordially, Ronald A. Whitley Director accordance with adopted City Council retention, the Commission's subcommittee and is recommending that the tree be any questions regarding this procedure, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ,; 0 RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF PARK AND PARKWAY TREES It shall be the responsibility of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission to develop and maintain a rather restricted list of trees in the community which should be retained to the exclusion of all normal problems. This list will contain landmark trees, special trees of extreme beauty, stately trees which contribute to an entire neigh- borhood, dedicated trees, etc. These trees will be identified, mapped and recorded. Subsequent to this they will be given all types of special treatment to retain them, including the use of asphalt sidewalks, realigned curbing, etc. Whenever it is necessary to prune tree roots in parkways or other public areas in order to correct or prevent damage being caused by the subject•tree, every reasonable effort shall be made to save.the tree, including the use of high grade asphalt sidewalk sections. It will still be necessary to meet the Cityts standards relative to grades and alignments, with the exception of those special trees discussed _ in Paragraph 1 of this policy statement. If it is necessary for a tree other than that included in Paragraph 1 to be given special treatment, each tree shall be considered individ- ually on its own merits to determine whether the tree should be retained or replaced. All parkway trees included in this category must be sub- OF jected to and meet the following criteria: K 1. Have sufficient root system to sustain life and' t remain in a safe condition after root pruning; 2. Have sufficient life expectancy to merit special consideration; 3. Have adjacent property owners be desirous of retaining tree in light of "patchy sidewalk effect" that would be created next to their homes if asphalt sidewalk is to be used to save the tree;. i 4. Not be of an undesirable species that has been removed from the official street tree list by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission; 5. Not have had a consistent history of damaging utilities such as sewers, water mains, etc.; 6. Not interfere with acceptable drainage if alternate methods of curb repair are utilized. • I -9 • I -9 RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF PARK AND PARKWAY TREES -- Page 2 Application of the criteria on parkway trees will be conducted by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department in coordination with the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. In applying the criteria, other departments of the City will be consulted as necessary. If there is any conflict between the application of the criteria and established standards of the City which cannot be resolved at staff and Commission level, final resolution will be determined by the City Council. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission is required to establish a standing Street Tree Committee to assist the Commission in developing a community awareness program and provide input to the total street tree program. Objectives of this Street Tree Committee will be: 1. To obtain representation for each situation as it arises in a community and /or neighborhood. 2. To develop innovative techniques that will enable trees • to be saved when concrete is removed and replaced. 3. To provide recommendations to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission when tree removal requests are received. 4. To inform the public and further the philosophy of the value of trees in a community. 5. To pursue procedures whereby larger replacement trees can be used when trees are removed. 6. To assure that no community has a mass removal effect as projects occur. 7. Annually review landmark tree locations for inclusion in Council Policy I -9. When a tree is removed from the parkway for the sole benefit of the adjacent property owner, the property owner will be responsible for the cost of removal. Removal must still be done in accordance with City approvals. Adopted - May 9, 1966 Reaffirmed - December 13, t973 Reaffirmed - August 30, 1966 Reaffirmed - November 11, 1974 • Amended - August 14, 1967 Amended - November 12, 1985 Reaffirmed - November 12, 1968 Reaffirmed - March 9, 1970 l; i Item No. 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH is Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department E • DATE: June 24, 1986 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Parks,•Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Encroachment Request, 2727 Ocean Boulevard The attached encroachment request is submitted to the Commission for review and recommendation to the Public Works Department. I encourage all Commissioners to drop by and look at the property in question. Staff of this Department is recommending that a 4' sidewalk be required the entire width of the property to improve pedestrian access on Ocean Boulevard. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Jack or me. Ronald A. Whitley K 0 SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Gary Hamilton President June 2, 1986 fir. Ron Whitley City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: 2727 Ocean Boulevard Pedestrian Access /Encroachment Permit Dear Ron: Thank you for the time you spent with Ken Perry and'me last . week. As promised, enclosed please find a preliminary plan of the proposed improvement area. The purpose of this proposed improvement is to provide pedestrian access to the front door of my residence and to discourage pedestrian access at the driveway which we all agree is an unsafe condition. • This plan reflects the extension of the four -foot sidewalk and retains 100 percent of the grass area to the north of the new pedestrian access, which grass area would be the only remaining area to be maintained by the City of Newport Beach. As you can see, I have relocated the existing fence to the area directly behind the new sidewalk and as it moves north, it will follow the existing turf in ,a free -form fashion. The entire area inside this fenceline will become my responsibility to maintain. As you can see from this plan, I am anticipating going to great lengths to enhance this area both for the benefit of the public and for the aesthetic value to my residence. At the same time, it is my primary goal to eliminate the terribly unsafe condition. In other words, if I have to construct a new access, I might as well do it right for the benefit of all. 'We discussed numerous conditions of approval .which would be imposed by the City, most of which I have listed below: All improvement costs are the owner's sole cost and expense. 363 San Miguel Drive, Newport Beach, California 926601 P.O. Box 1880192658-8924 1 Phone (714) 644-6440 Y 0 Mr. Ron Whitley -2- June 2, 1986 2. owner would indemnify the City of Newport Beach for liability arising from an occurrence in the old and new maintenance areas. That is to say that the City would now be responsible for the existing grass or park area only. 3. You mentioned that retaining the view corridor was important. With the exception of the existing landscaping material, any new improvements or landscaping would not exceed the height of the exi -sting condition. The existing 42 -48 inch fence would therefore become the highest point of improvement or plant material. 4. The owner would also be responsible for the physical maintenance of this area to include irrigation, sweeping, and landscaping. After your submission of the enclosed to the Parks and Recreation • Committee, I would like to get together to discuss your comments. In the meantime, if you have any questions, you can call me at my office. The phone number is 644 -6440. Very truly yours, Ga 1 ton cc: Don Clark, Insurance Agent Greg Grisamore, Architect Ken Perry, Public Works Department cjs u I Item No. 10 J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department DATE: June 24, 1986 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Vehicular Access Restriction for Bayside Drive Right -of -Way Between Carnation Avenue and Jasmine Avenue Recommendation: Request the City Council to adopt a Resolution prohibiting vehicular access, except for emergency and public utility vehicles, on the Bayside Drive right -of -way between Carnation Avenue and Jasmine Avenue. Discussion: As indicated in the attached letter from Mr. Ed Giffen, a number of Corona del Mar residents would like to assure that Bayside Drive Park developed on road • right -of -way be guaranteed to remain as a park. In 1904 the original Corona del Mar Subdivision Maps identify this roadway as Electric Way at a width of 120'. A resubdivision map recorded in 1922 shows a similar alignment identifying the area as Street right -of -way and not dedicated for Park purposes. 0 In reviewing this matter with the City Attorney, it was his opinion that the City does not have the authority to designate the land or dedicate the land as a park. If the land is not used for road purposes, it could be subject to reverting to the original owner or a portion of the adjacent residential lots as appropriate. As an alternative to protect the area it is recommended that the Commission find the Bayside Drive right -of -way between Carnation Avenue and Jasmine Avenue is no longer needed for vehicular trafffic purposes and that a Resolution be adopted to that effect as provided for under Section 21101(a) of the California Vehicle Code. REA L 116 Ir • June 19, 1986 Ron Whitley, Director & Commissioners Parks & Recreation Department City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Director and Commissioners: Over the objections of a number of residents in the area the City Council on June 9, approved a plan to make a parking area out of a parcel of land now used as a park at Jasmine Avenue and Bayside Drive. • We would not want the existing six -block greenbelt area to meet the same fate. • Therefore we recommend that the existing greenbelt area along Bayside Drive from Carnation Avenue to Jasmine Avenue be zoned as a park and placed under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recrea- tion Department. Thank you. Ed Giff n 307 Larkspur Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 r RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE RIGHT -OF- WAY BETWEEN CARNATION AVENUE AND JASMINE AVENUE TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD SAME WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY RECORDER. WHEREAS, Vehicle Code Section 21101 authorizes the closing of any highway (street) to vehicular traffic when the legislative body determines that it is no longer needed for such traffic; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Newport Beach has determined that subject to certain rules and regulations, said highway is no longer needed for vehicular traffic; and WHEREAS, this subject finding is predicated on the satisfaction of various conditionsas set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, resolves as follows: 1. The excess right -of -way on Bayside Drive between Carnation Avenue and Jasmine Avenue, subject to satisfaction of the conditions set forth is herein, is no longer needed for vehicular traffic; and 2. Upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth below, subject highway shall be closed for vehicular traffic consistent with the rules and regulations provided in this Resolution; and 3. The following rules and regulations are hereby set forth as conditions to the closure of subject street: (a) Emergency and utility vehicles shall be allowed access as needed for emergencies and repairs; and (b) That bicycles are allowed to continue to operate on Bayside Drive right -of -way between Carnation Avenue and Jasmine Avenue. (c) The City Council is not precluded from repealing this Resolution and returning said street to its vehicular status at any time. 41 0 Item No. 11 MEMORANDUM TO: STERLING WOLFE, CHAIRMAN PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FROM: JOHN KONWISER RE: PROGRESS REPORT, AD -HOC SIGN COMMITTEE DATE: June 18, 1986 The Ad -Hoc Sign committee of the PBR Commission met for the second time on June 16th at the PBR office's, and immediately adjourned to the sign shop at the City Maintenance Yard. Mr. George Millikin explained what he understood the signs for all city parks would be, based on our first meeting at Mr. Whitley's office, combined with the abilities of his staff at the sign shop. In addition to Mr. Millikin, the meeting was attended by Commissioners Diana Springer, A. Z. Taft, John Konwiser and PBR Director Ron Whitley. • All those in attendance agreed a sign for each of the city parks could be installed within a twenty four month period. This would be at the rate of approximately one per month. There would not be any priority of installation other than perhaps alphabetically, or whatever was most efficient for Mr. Millikin. There would be two basic sign sizes, nine feet long and six feet long. The signs would be shaped similar to the one currently being constructed for the Corona del Mar main beach. The widened center portion would contain the city seal painted in blue and white. The post would be two 4 X 6 posts on each side of the sign at each end (a total' of 4 posts per sign), shaped on top and routed several inches down from the top. The area of the sign outside of the post would be left as clear redwood. The area of the sign between the posts would be sandblasted with raised letters painted in blue and gold acrylic paint, similar to the Lido Sands sign on Lido Penninsula. The background would be painted dark brown. Examples of the design and coloration will be available at the next PBR Commission meeting. The cost of the nine foot sign will be $846.00 this includes $175.00 for the clear redwood, $40.00 for masking material, $60.00 for sandblasting, $540 miscellaneous costs, and $25.00 allocated for installation, for a total of $306.00 for basic materials. Labor at the standard rate of $18.00 per hour is estimated at $520.00 for the total cost of $846.00. It is the committee's recommendation the commission approve the above program to start immediately. is cc: Ron Whitley �y Item No. 13 RECREATION DIVISION JUNE, 1986 PROGRESS REPORT ial Interest Activities The 5th Annual Corona del Mar Scenic 5K attracted 1,900 participants to the streets of old Corona del Mar on Saturday, June 6. The overwhelming registra- tioh created logistical probl.ems not anticipated; however, the coordination of the Department and the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce resulted in a safe race and sponsorship of fifteen local businesses, some of which provided event day services. Preparations have already begun for next year's race. At the top of the "Need to Improve" list are registration, course marking and water. The success of this year's event will prepare the co- sponsors for continued heavy registration. Registration in Special Interest activities, including dance,•yoga, fitness and karate classes, is continuing through the first week of classes. Updated figures will be provided at the meeting. Youth Activities Youth sports, including girls softball and the aquatics Swim Team, are off and running this summer. Girls softball Teague play began June 23. Registration for the Swim Team continues to grow. On June 11 a,competitive meet was held • with a team from Cerritos, with Newport coming away as the winner. The Community Youth Center 'began extended summer weekday hours on June 23 and will continue through September 5. The Mariners Park July 4th event will be among next month's highlights. The traditional bike parade will be joined by the Newport Trolley as activities begin at 9;00 A.M. on Friday, July 4th. Sports and Aquatics Adult softball play, is continuing although play is suspended June 30 - July 4 in observance of the national holiday. Sailing classes began the week of June 23, the first of ten week long sessions giving instruction on Sabots, Lido 14's, Hobie Cats and Sailboards at four different sailing bases. Seniors The Oasis travel program lifted off from the Center on June 3 for Vancouver, British Columbia and Expo '86. The destinations include numerous sites in British Columbia and Washington State. In connection with the senior housing project to the east, grading has begun by the Bren Company to the land north of Oasis for a future park dedication. Additional center activities included.blood pressure testing, a shared housing mixer and Outreach volunteer training. Mark Deven 6 y Item No. 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department • • DATE: June 24, 1986 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Encroachment Request, 2727 Ocean Boulevard The attached encroachment request is submitted to the Commission for review and recommendation to the Public Works Department. I encourage all Commissioners to drop by and look at the property in question. Staff of this Department is recommending that a 4' sidewalk be required the entire width of the property to improve pedestrian access on Ocean Boulevard. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Jack or me. 21-1' • SANTA AN /TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Gary Hamilton President June 2, 1986 fir. Ron Whitley City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: 2727 Ocean Boulevard Pedestrian Access /Encroachment Permit Dear Ron: Thank you for the time you spent with Ken Perry and me last week. As promised, enclosed please find a preliminary plan of the • proposed improvement area. The purpose of this proposed improvement is to provide pedestrian access to the front door of my residence and to discourage pedestrian access at the driveway which we all agree is an unsafe condition. • This plan reflects the extension of the four -foot sidewalk and retains 100 percent of the grass area to the north of the new pedestrian access, which grass area would be the only remaining area to be maintained by the City of Newport Beach. As you can see, I have relocated the existing fence to the area directly behind the new sidewalk and as it moves north, it will follow the existing turf in a free -form fashion. The entire area inside this fenceline will become my responsibility to maintain. As you can see from this plan, I am anticipating going to great lengths.to enhance this area both for the benefit of the public and for the aesthetic value to my residence. At the same time, it is my primary goal to eliminate the terribly unsafe condition. In other words, if I have to construct a new access, I might as well do it right for the benefit of all. We discussed numerous conditions of approval which would be imposed by the City, most of which I have listed below: All improvement costs are the owner's sole cost and expense. Zv 363 San Miguel Drive, Newport Beach, California 926601 P.O. Box 1880192658 -8924 1 Phone (7141 644 -6440 Mr. Ron Whitley -2- June 2, 1986 2. Owner would indemnify the City of Newport Beach for liability arising from an occurrence in the old and new maintenance areas. That is to say that the City would now be responsible for the existing grass or park area only. 3. You mentioned that retaining the view corridor was important. With the exception of the existing landscaping material, any new improvements or landscaping would not exceed the height of the existing condition. The existing 42 -48 inch fence would therefore become the highest point of improvement or plant material. 4. The owner would also be responsible for the physical maintenance of this area to include irrigation, sweeping, and landscaping. After your submission of the enclosed to the Parks and Recreation . Committee, I would like to get together to discuss your comments. In the meantime, if you have any questions, you can call me at my office. The phone number i,s 644 -6440. V&truly s, • cc: Don Clark, Insurance Agent Greg Grisamore, Architect Ken Perry, Public Works Department cjs Item No. 10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 01 Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department DATE: June 24, 1986 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Vehicular Access Restriction for Bayside Drive Right -of -Way Between Carnation Avenue and Jasmine Avenue Recommendation: Request the City Council to adopt a Resolution prohibiting vehicular access, except for emergency and public utility vehicles, on the Bayside Drive right -of -way between Carnation Avenue and Jasmine Avenue. Discussion: As indicated in the attached letter from Mr. Ed Giffen, a number of Corona del Mar residents would like to assure that Bayside Drive Park developed on road • right -of -way be guaranteed to remain as a park. In 1904 the original Corona del Mar Subdivision Maps identify this roadway as Electric Way at a width of 120'. A resubdivision map recorded in 1922 shows a similar alignment identifying the area as Street right -of -way and not dedicated for'Park purposes. In reviewing this matter with the City Attorney, it was his opinion that the City does not have the authority to designate the land or dedicate the land as a park. If the land is not used for road purposes, it could be subject to reverting to the original owner or a portion of the adjacent residential lots as appropriate. n U As an alternative to protect the area it is recommended that the Commission find the Bayside Drive right -of -way between Carnation Avenue and Jasmine Avenue is no longer needed for vehicular trafffic purposes and that a Resolution be adopted to that effect as provided for under Section 21101(a) of the California Vehicle Code. 4 0 June 19, 1986 Ron Whitley, Director & Commissioners Parks & Recreation Department City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Director and Commissioners: Over the objections of a number of residents in the area the City Council on June 9, approved a plan to make a parking area out of a parcel of land now used as a park at Jasmine Avenue and Bayside Drive. • We would not want the existing six-block greenbelt area to meet the same fate. • Therefore we recommend that the existing greenbelt area along Bayside Drive from Carnation Avenue to Jasmine Avenue be zoned as a park and placed under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recrea- tion Department. Thank you. Ed Giff n 307 Larkspur Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 s5l*4'� Item No. 11 MEMORANDUM TO: STERLING WOLFE, CHAIRMAN PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FROM: JOHN KONWISER RE: PROGRESS REPORT, AD -HOC SIGN COMMITTEE DATE: June 18, 1986 The Ad -Hoc Sign committee of the PBR Commission met for the second time on June 16th at the PBR offices, and immediately adjourned to the sign shop at the City Maintenance Yard. Mr. George Millikin explained what he understood the signs for all city parks would be, based on our first meeting at Mr. Whitley's office, combined with the abilities of his staff at the sign shop. In addition to Mr. Millikin, the meeting was attended by Commissioners Diana Springer, A. Z. Taft, John Konwiser and PBR Director Ron'Whitley. • All those in attendance agreed a sign for each of the city parks could be installed within a twenty four month period. This would be at the rate of approximately one per month. There would not be any priority of installation other than perhaps alphabetically, or whatever was most efficient for Mr. Millikin. There would be two basic sign sizes, nine feet long and six feet long. The signs would be shaped •similar to the one currently being constructed for the Corona del Mar main beach. The widened center portion would contain the city seal painted in blue and white. The post would be two 4 X 6 posts on each side of the sign at each end (a total of 4 posts per sign), shaped on top and routed several inches down from the top. The area of the sign outside of the post would be left as clear redwood. The area of the sign between the posts would be sandblasted with raised letters painted in blue and gold acrylic paint, similar to the Lido Sands sign on Lido Penninsula. The background would be painted dark brown. Examples of the design and coloration will be available at the next PBR Commission meeting. The cost of the nine foot sign will be $846.00 this includes $175.00 for the clear redwood, $40.00 for masking material, , $60.00 for sandblasting, $5.00 miscellaneous costs, and $25.00 allocated for installation, for a total of $306.00 for basic materials. Labor at the standard rate of $18.00 per hour is estimated at $520.00 for the total cost of $846.00. It is the committee's recommendation the commission approve the above program to start immediately. . cc: Ron Whitley 0' c Item No. 13 RECREATION DIVISION JUNE, 1986 PROGRESS REPORT Special Interest Activities The 5th Annual Corona del Mar Scenic 5K attracted 1,900 participants to the streets of old Corona del Mar on Saturday, June 6. The overwhelming registra- tion created logistical problems not anticipated;, however, the coordination of the Department.and the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce resulted in a safe race and sponsorship of fifteen local businesses, some of which provided event day services. Preparations have already begun for next year's race. At the top of the "Need.to'Improve" list are registration, course marking and water. The success of this year's event wi'l'l prepare the co- sponsors for continued heavy registration. Registration in Special Interest activities., including dance,.yoga, fitness and karate classes, is continuing through the first week of classes. Updated figures will be provided at the meeting. Youth Activities Youth sports, including girls softball and the aquatics Swim Team, are off and running this summer. Girls softball league play began June 23. Registration • for the Swim Team continues to grow..�On June 11 a competitive meet was held with a team from Cerritos, with Newport coming away as the winner. The Community Youth Center began extended summer weekday hours on June 23 and will continue through September 5. The Mariners Park July 4th event will be among next month's highlights. The traditional bike parade will be joined by the Newport Trolley as activities begin at 9;00 A.M. on Friday, July 4th. Sports and Aquatics Adult softball play is continuing although play is suspended June 30 - July 4 in observance of the national holiday. Sail -ing classes began the week of June 23, the first of ten week long sessions giving instruction on Sabots, Lido 14's, Hobie Cats and Sailboards at four different sailing bases. Seniors The Oasis travel program lifted off from the Center on June 3 for Vancouver, British Columbia and Expo '86. The destinations include numerous sites in British Columbia and Washington State. In connection with the senior housing project to the east, grading has begun by the Bren Company to the land,north of Oasis for a future park dedication. Additional center activities included blood pressure testing, a shared housing mixer and Outreach volunteer training. � 2 Mark Deven Item No. 14 . PARK AND STREET TREE DIVISION JUNE, 1986 PROGRESS REPORT Our Park Crews performed the following tasks in addition to normal maintenance during the month of June: Relandscaped at the Theatre Arts Center. Removed broken play equipment at Las Arenas. Poured concrete sidewalk at Irvine Terrace Park. Picked up and returned barricades, tables, chairs, etc. for Corona del Mar 5K Run. Moved six bleachers from CYC, Eastbluff and Lincoln; took to Buffalo Hills Park and returned. Installed drains, mower strips, new sod and R.R. tie planters at Mariners Library. • Our Street Tree Division performed the following: • Trimmed 555 trees. Planted 27 trees. Removed 12 trees. Root pruned 29 trees. Completed 15 work requests. Areas being trimmed this month are Shorecliff, The�Groves- Westcliff, and Balboa Peninsula - Planting. M i iii FRAN f r1 in�F{ �J . Lr _k J ..i PROJECT: GPA 85 -1(B) CORONA DEL MAR aPROJECT SITES NEWPORT CENTER & PERIPHERAL SITES EIR GPA 85 -1(B) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Sanchez talarico associates r%m no scale EXHIBIT 1 -4 71 i' �;-°, r',rc,?� „'nom''✓ -r„' "�i � N�LC$ ' BIG CANiQN /.Z 4 /f'.`”" '�: ry ,grsGYG' " „z „z ' •• ,° , :,,: -•', ' . ROAD MACAR(klllli- q/y PAZ -R ;?,+ ;BrrOBit 600 ;;. AVOCADO/ MACARTHUF % %' BLOCK <.Cu6 r,ti BLOCK 5007 p v�iihf�c„ is � 3�SIiF,� � J ';FASNION'I$LAND BLOCK p 0 400 NORTH... , m e„ • �.” O BLOCKp BLOCK O <i'• °(;'a,, 01 900 Q9 i` '•.,•`,;:',•,:4” 300 a CF$TA BLOCK W N POF 200 ILLAG BLOCK O SEA NEWPORT BEACH 100 m NEWPORTER ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB s RESORT .S CORPORATE' 14- PLAZA , t CORPORATE v < FRONTAGE ; t PLAZA WEST � .,PCH , ti EAST' COAST HIGHWAY PROJECT: GPA 85 -1(B) CORONA DEL MAR aPROJECT SITES NEWPORT CENTER & PERIPHERAL SITES EIR GPA 85 -1(B) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Sanchez talarico associates r%m no scale EXHIBIT 1 -4 I % +Y 4 { • City Council Meeting June 23',, 1986 (� Agenda Item No. D -2 • 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circu- lation and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, so as to allow construction of an additional 1,275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, 248,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also requested is a revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to deletei the Avocado Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard one -way • couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two -way major arterial roadway, and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B.• Amendment No. 9 to the City of Newport Beach Local Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing and PCH /Jamboree sites. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action Hold hearing; if desired, give direction or request additional infor- mation from staff, and continue to July 14, 1986. Background On February 25,'1985, the City Council concurred with a recommendation of the Planning Commission and initiated General Plan Amendment • 85 -1(B) for Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. On March 20, April 24, and May 22, 1986, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments and the Environ- mental Impact Report. At the conclusion of public testimony, the T0: City Council - 2. • Planning Commission discussed the proposed project, the staff rec- ommendation, the response of The Irvine Company and the public testi- mony, then adopted Resolutions No. 1139 and 1140 recommending approval of the project with modifications and acceptance of the environmental document. Planning Commission Recommendation With the adoption for Resolutions No. 1139 and 1140, the Planning Commission recommended approval of increased development in Newport Center and on three peripheral sites. The Planning Commission also. made land use recommendations on two other sites in the City of Newport Beach which are owned by The Irvine Company. The project recommended for approval is a modification to the development proposed by The Irvine Company. The Planning Commission recommendation is outlined below: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Land Use Element: Adopt and include in the Land Use Element the development limitations for each block in Newport Center as specified on the "Newport Center Development Limits" chart. Amend the Land Use Element and Map to provide for the following increases in development in Newport Center. • 1. Fashion Island: Add 188,000 sq.ft. for general and regional retail commercial uses and 2,500 theater seats. Total allowed development in Fashion Island is 1,429,250 sq.ft. and 2,500 theater seats. 2. Block 600: Add 300,000 sq.ft. for general office development. Total allowed development in Block 600 is 1,100,000 sq.ft. and 325 hotel rooms. 3. Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 50,000 sq.ft. for office or institutional use, or a total of 284,706 sq.ft. of office and 48,000 sq.ft, of institution. An additional 15,000 sq.ft. of institutional may be allowed subject to use of all of the above described 50,000 sq.ft. for institutional uses. Institutional uses include Art Museum, Natural History Museum, and library uses. In this scenario, total development is 234,706 sq.ft. of office and 113,000 sq.ft, of institutional uses. 4. Block 800: Change the land use designation from "Multi - Family Residential" to "Administrative, Profes- sional and Financial Commercial." Add 440,000 square feet for office development in Block 800, or a total of 693,100 sq.ft. in Block 800. " • 5. PCH /Jamboree: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi- Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change T0: City Council - 3. • the land use designation for Villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi- Family Res- idential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. 6. Corporate Plaza West: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial with Alternate Land Use" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 100,000 sq.ft. for office development for a total of 123,400 sq.ft. 7. Newport Village: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi - Family Residential," not to exceed 560 dwelling units. Add 80,000 sq.ft. to Corporate Plaza, or a total of 445,200 sq.ft. 80,000 sq.ft. can be constructed only if for an athletic/health club. S. Avocado /MacArthur: Change the. land use designation' from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Profession- al and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental, Educa- tional and Institutional Facilities." 44,000 sq.ft. of office uses are permitted with a transit facility and 15,000 sq.ft. for a day carp facility. • 9. Big Canyon /MacArthur: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Multi- Family Residential," at a maximum of 80 dwelling units. 10. Bayview Landing: Change the land -use designation on the lower portion of the site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with an alternate of "Low Density Residential" to "Retail and Service Commer- cial." Allow 25,000 sq.ft. for restaurant or visitor serving commercial use; three restaurant facilities may be constructed, one of which may be used as a Teen Center. All access for commercial use shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. Structures shall not be higher than the upper pad level, and -shall be sited and designed so as to provide for views of Upper Newport Bay and Newport Dunes. 11. Newporter North: Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi- Family Residential" at a maximum of 490 dwelling units. Significant cultural resources which' exist on the site shall be preserved in a manner acceptable to the City, with development clustered in other areas. • 12. Westbay: Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" in partial consideration for increased � -/ TO: City Council - 4. • development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites. 13. San Diego Creek North: Add a 2.5 acre Fire Station reservation to the site. The reservation shall be in effect for a period of 5 years. Recreation and Open Space Element: 1. Bayview Landing: Maintain the existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but preclude development from the upper level. 2. Newporter North: Maintain existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but add unmapped environmentally sensitive area designation for preser- vation of significant on -site cultural resources. 3. Westbay: Designate the site for regional park facil- ities with unmapped environmentally sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history facility may be allowed on the site subject to approval of the City. • Circulation Element: 1. Delete Avocado Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard Primary Couplet designation; designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six Lanes, divided) ; designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (4 lanes) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. This circulation element revision is subject to ap- proval of the County of Orange. 2. Recommend to the City Council initiation of an amend- ment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to designate MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73 as a Major- Modified Arterial (8 lanes, divided). Further, recommend to the City Council that final action on this amendment be taken concurrent with the action on GPA 85 -1(B). Affordable Housing: • Based upon the granting of additional commercial develop- ment, increased density for residential development, and governmental financial assistance such as Mortgage Revenue Bonds, the following program is required: T0: City Council - 5. 1. Thirty percent (30%) of the total dwelling units constructed on all sites shall be affordable to low and moderate income families. 2. The affordability mix shall be a follows: 66.7% County Low Income* 33.3% City Very Low Income* (with rents not to exceed HUD Section 8 "Fair Market Rents") *per Housing Element 3. Preference shall be given to Section 8 Certificate holders for the "City Very -Low Income" units. 4. The term of affordability shall be 20 years from the date of initial occupancy. 5. The affordable units may be located on any site, however they shall be phased proportional to the market rate residential units. 6. Additionally, the 29 remain= "pool" affordable units in the Baywood expansion sh�ll be committed for a • period of 20 years, with 80% at County median and 20% at County low income. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for any develop- ment permitted by GPA 85 -1(B) , the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City guaranteeing the provision of the affordable units. This agreement may be included within the development agreement. Land Use Phasing: Phase I - No residential (PCH /Jamboree, Newport Village, Newporter North, Big Canyon) units required for: A. Fashion Island Expansion B. Civic Plaza Expansion Phase IIa - 400 units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction (foundations plus some framing) before building permit issuance for: A. Block 600 • B. Bayview Landing C. Avocado /MacArthur D. Corporate Plaza t t' * TO: City Council - 6. . Phase IIb - 400 additional units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction i before issuance of occupancy permits for: A. Block 600 Phase III - Completion and Certificate of. occupancy for 800 du's before building permits issued for: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West Circulation Phasing: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for any component of GPA 85 -1(B), all dedications from The Irvine Company necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway, Jamboree Rohd, MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue • dedications and completion bonding and before instal- lation of Pelican Hill Road: A. Fashion Island B. Civic'Plaza C. Big Canyon /MacArthur Blvd. D. Newporter North E. PCH /Jamboree F. Newport Village 3. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements (as described below): A. Block 600 B. Avocado /MacArthur Blvd. C. Corporate Plaza 4. Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of Pelican Hill Road- - Block 600 • 5. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: # TO: City Council - 7. i 1, •'N A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West C. Bayview Landing Other Requirements: 1. A landscape program for MacArthur Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA 65 -1(B). The landscaping shall be installed concurrent with MacArthur Boulevard improve- ments. 2. That the full dedications for 6 -lane MacArthur be required. 3. That MacArthur Boulevard be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in the En- vironmental Impact Report. 4. That the two outside through lanes be constructed so that any additional lanes would occur towards the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the aehterline of Crown Drive. • 5. That prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum, be met: a. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial configuration (6- lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road. b. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Arterial configuration (6- lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. C. An average weekday volume -to- capacity ratio of 1.15 on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive. d. A decision has been made regarding the con- struction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning • Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. i `.4 TO: City Council - 8. • 6. All mitigation measures outlined consistent with the approved project in the Final EIR shall be required. 7. The Irvine Company shall aggressively pursue all necessary approvals and construction of San Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road. 8. A Development Agreement and overall Planned Community Development Plan for Newport Center shall be prepared and approved concurrent with or prior to any further discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the development allowed by this General P1an.Amendment. 9. The initial construction of Pelican Hill Road shall be a minimum of four lanes. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NEWPORT CENTER, BAYVIEW LANDING Newport Center dMaps 37, 48, 49)r•i Approximately one -third . of the Newport Center site falls within the Coastal Zone. Most of the area is occupied by the Irvine Coast Country Club, shown as "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" on the Land Use Plan. The Marriott Hotel site is designated for "Administrative,, Professional and Financial Commercial" uses to reflect the hotel use on the site. Permitted office uses on the Corporate Plaza West and Chamber of Commerce sites are shown by the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" designation and residential use is shown on the Sea Island site by the "Medium- Density Residen- tial designation. The PCH /Jamboree and PCH Frontage Site is designated for "High- Density Residential" allowing 284 du's. Bayview Landing (Maps 37, 38). This site, adjacent to the Newport Dunes site, is designated for "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" on the upper portion of the site for public recreation uses, with a view park and a bike path. The lower portion of the site is designated for "Retail and Service Commercial" use to allow visitor - serving commercial and restaurant use. The structures may be constructed on the slope area, but no portion of any struc- ture may be higher than the upper level of the site. Structures shall be sited and designed to provide for views- of Upper Newport Bay and the Newport Dunes. • :! !. TO: City Council - 9. • UPPER NEWPORT BAY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES Newporter North (Mhps 38, 60). This site, located on Jamboree Road northerly of the Newporter Inn, is designated for "High- Density Residential" with a maximum of 490 du's. The structures shall be clustered to accommodate archae- ological sites and marsh sites. A public bikeway /walkway is proposed for this site. Any development of this site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. Westbay (Maps 29, 30). The Westbay site is a large vacant parcel adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve at Irvine Avenue. This site is designated for "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" uses, to permit a regional park. Also permitted is a natural history museum with possible joint use as an interpretive center for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. A public bikeway /walkway is shown for the Westbay site, but careful consideration shall be given at the time it is developed to the environment lly sensitive nature of the site in locating Ithe accesIway! Any development which • occurs shall be located in order to preserve sensitive habitat areas located on the site. Views from Irvine Avenue shall be maximized. Any development of this site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the envirohmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. Environmental Significance Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and Council Policy K -3, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project. Based upon information contained in the environmental document, the project will result in significant impacts in the areas of land use, aesthetics, transportation and circulation, air quality, energy, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. A copy of the Environmental Impact Report was previously distributed to the City Council, and it is requested that the document be brought to the public hearing. The EIR has been in public review since April 14, 1986. The mandatory 45 -day review period closed on May 29, 1986. All comments received to date, with the City's responses, are contained in Attachment No. 1 to the Draft EIR ('attached). Comments have been received from the • following agencies, organizations and persons: 3 T0: City Council - 10. • Native American Heritage Commission California Coastal Commission Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger for Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) California Regional Water Quality Control Board The Irvine Company SPON Newport Heights Community Association Richard A. Nichols County of Orange California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Transportation Newport Beach Quality of Life Advisory Committee Discussion The buildout of Newport Center has been an issue of on -going concern to the City of Newport Beach since 1977, with the adoption of Resolu- tion 9009. Resolution 9009 was the first action taken on the part of the City to limit development in Newport Center on a comprehensive basis. In 1978, the City adopted General Plan Amendment 78 -2, which reduced the allocations provided for in Resolution 9009 by 549,600 sq.ft. of office,. 51,000 sq.ft. of commercial, and 12;000 sq.ft. of institutional. GPA 79 -1 further reduced development limits by 763,744 sq.ft. of office and 650 theater seats. GPA 79 -1 added 166 residen- tial dwelling units to Newport CentLr:i • General Plan Amendment 80 -3 was the first comprehensive proposal made by The Irvine Company for Newport Center. As approved, GPA 80 -3 would have increased office development by 713,750 sq.ft. and hotel develop- ment by 465 hotel rooms. Commercial development would have been reduced by 38,750 sq.ft. Residential development remained approxi- mately the same, but was allocated in a different manner: 589 units plus 225,000 sq.ft. GPA 80 -3 was rescinded by the City Council at the request of The Irvine Company in 1982. Since 1982, there have been a number of general plan amendments for individual sites. GPA 81 -3 increased allowed hotel development on the Marriott Hotel site by 234 rooms to a total of 611 hotel rooms. GPA 81 -2 increased allowed office development in Block 400 (Rhodes) by 80,000 sq.ft. to 380,000 sq.ft. GPA 82 -2(A) added 325 hotel rooms to Block 600 allowing construction of the Four Seasons Hotel. These three amendments were all processed in response to development pro- posals from the private sector. As part of the Housing Element implementation program, the City processed General Plan Amendment 83 -1(E), which added 428 residential units to Newport Center. This amendment established a program of incentives to development of affordable housing units. Two subsequent amendments made small changes in Newport Center devel- opment limits. GPA 83 -2(C) (Villa Point) reduced residential develop- ment by 24 units and GPA 85 -3 increased allowed office development in Block 700- Pacific Mutual, by 9,500 sq.ft. I , TO: City Council - 11. Ow It is evident from this chronology that, since the approval of GPA 80 -3 was rescinded, "components" of a Newport Center buildout program tend to be processed on an individual site development basis. This is not the most desirable Way to address this project from the City's viewpoint, since it does not allow for land use patterns, land use intensity, and development effects to be evaluated on a comprehensive basis. Comprehensive planning allows for analysis and project re- quirements and mitigation measures commensurate with the cumulative effects engendered from the project approved. With this fact in mind, the City Council and City staff have worked with The Irvine Company to -bring a buildout plan for Newport Center back before the City. Analysis The project is extremely complex, involving eleven development site proposals, two non - development oriented land use proposals, and a major component of the circulation system. The Commission recommenda- tion also included provisions for the phasing of residential develop- ment with commercial development, the provision of affordable housing in the residential developments, the phasing of circulation system improvements with the development, and some miscellaneous require- ments. In order to minimize repetition of the Planning Commission reports, staff will focus analysis of the Planning Commission rec- ommendation on those areas which differ from the original project requested by The Irvine Company. Please refer to the Planning Commis- sion reports for analysis of those site proposals on which the Plan- ning Commission recommended approval of the original Irvine Company request. In each of the following sections, staff will also indicate The Irvine Company's position of the project changes. �6 The staff reports prepared for the three Planning Commission meetings with the accompanying minutes are contained in Attachment No. 1 to the draft EIR and are attached to this report for the information and review of the City Council. These reports describe and analyze the original request of The Irvine Company, the staff recommendation, the applicant's response and the second staff recommendation. This report will present a complete description of the Planning Commission recommendation with some additional staff analysis, comments and recommendations. In the interval between the Planning Commission action and this writing, The Irvine Company has made additional responses to the recomiended profectt i These are also analyzed by staff with supplemental recommendations. A statistical profile of the various projects considered by the Planning Commission is provided on Table 1. In considering the proposed project, the Planning Commission considered,the environmental effects of the project; the public benefits which could result from the projects land use compatibility; the goals and objectives of the City's Land Use, Recreation and Open Space, Circulation, and Housing Elements, and the provisions of the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. The project is extremely complex, involving eleven development site proposals, two non - development oriented land use proposals, and a major component of the circulation system. The Commission recommenda- tion also included provisions for the phasing of residential develop- ment with commercial development, the provision of affordable housing in the residential developments, the phasing of circulation system improvements with the development, and some miscellaneous require- ments. In order to minimize repetition of the Planning Commission reports, staff will focus analysis of the Planning Commission rec- ommendation on those areas which differ from the original project requested by The Irvine Company. Please refer to the Planning Commis- sion reports for analysis of those site proposals on which the Plan- ning Commission recommended approval of the original Irvine Company request. In each of the following sections, staff will also indicate The Irvine Company's position of the project changes. �6 TO: City Council - 12. TABLE 1 - Newport Center Project Comparisions I Location I TIC Request I Staff Rec.l [TIC Responsel Staff Rec.2 I P.C.Action I (Fashion Island I 128,000 (C)I 168,000 (C)I 188,.000 (C)I 188,000 ,(C)l 188,000 (C)I I 0 (T)I I---------------------- ------------- 1,350 (T)I 2,500 (T)I 2,500 (T)I 2,500 (T)I I I (Block 600 1 300,000 ('0)I ------------ i 300,000 (0)i ------------ I 300,000 (0)I ------------ I 300,000 ( -0)I ------------ 300,000 I (0)I I---------------------- I ------------- I ------------ I ------------ I ------------ i ------------ I (Civic Plaza Expansion I 50,000 (0)I 50,000 (0)I 50,000 (0)I 50,000 (0)I 50,000 (0)I I I I I or I or I or I I I 65,000 (I)I 65,000 (I)I 65,000 (I)l I (1,350)(T)I (1,350)(T)I (1,350)(T)I (1,350)(T)I (1,350)(T)l ---------------=------ I------------- I------------ I--------- --- I'---- --- ----- I- ------- -- --I (Block 800 I 440,000 (0)I 300,000 (0)I 440,000 (0)I 300,000 (0)I 440,000 (0)I I I (245)(R)I (245)(R)I (245)(R)I (245)(R)I (245)(R)I I---------------------- I------------- 1------------ I-------- ---- I---- ------ -- I- -- --- -- - ---I IPCH /Jamboree 1 130 (R)I 130 (R)I 130 (R)I 130 (R)I 130 (R)I I---------------------- I------------- I ------------ I-------- --- -I- ----------- I- ------- - - - -I (Corporate Plaza West I 100,000 (0)I 100,000 (0)I 100,000 (0)I 100,000 (0)I 100,000 (0)I I---------------------- I------------- i------------ I Newport Village I 345,000 (0)i I---------- 0. (0)I --I- 0 (0)I -----------I------ 0 (0)I -- 0 - - --I (0;)I I I 5q,250 (C)I (750f)(C)I (750')(C)I (750)( -C)I (750)(C')I I (360)(R)I 200 (R)I 200 (R)I 200 (R)I 200 (R)i •I I---------------------- I------------- I------------ I-------- -- -- I---- -- ------ I-------- - - - -i (Avocado /MacArthur 1 44,000 (0)I 44,000 (0)I 44,000 (0)I 44,000 (0)I 44,000 (0)I I I 0 (C)I 0 (C)I 10,000 (C)I 10,000 (C)I 15,000 (•C)I I---------------------- I ------------- I ------------ i --- --------- I ------------ I ------------ I (Big Canyon /MacArthur I 80 (R)I 80 (R)I 80 (R)I 80 (R)I 80 (a)l I---------------------- I------------- I------------ Landing-- 60, 000-( C) I-------- 20,000 (C)I ----I--------- 35,.000 (C)I --- I- 25,000 (C)I ----- - - 25,000 - - - -I (C)I I- ---- -w - ---- I-- I------------ I-------- ---- I------- -----I------ ----- -I INewporter North I 278 (R)I 278 (R)I 278 (R)I 278 (R)I 278 (R)I I---------------------- (Corporate Plaza I------------- I------------ I 0 (C)I I-------- 0 (C)I ---- I--- 80,000 (C)I ------- --I--- 80,000 (C)I ---- - 80,000 - - - -I (C')I I I 0 (0)I 0 (0)I 4,800 (0)I 4,800 (0)I 0 (0)i I---------------------- I------------- I ------------ I--------- --- I-- ------- -- - I -- ------ - - --I IFloating I (5)(R)I (150)(R)I (150)(R)I (150) -(R)I (150)(R)I I---------------------- I------------- I--------- --- I------------ I -- ----- - - -I -- ----- - - - - -I I Westbay I 0 (R)I (40)(R)I 0 (R)I (40)(R)I (40)(R)I 1===== ___ °______ °_____� TOTALS 1 1,279,000 (0)I 794,000 (0')I 938,800 (0)I 798,800 ( -0)I 934,000 (0)i I 247,250 (C)I 187,250 (C)I 312,250 (C)I 302,250 (C)I 307,250 (C)l I I (1,350)(T)I 0 (T)I 1,150 (T)I 1,150 (T)I 1,150 (T)l I I (122)(R)I 253 (R)I 293 (R)I 253 (R)I 253 (R)I I I I I or I or - I or I' I i I I 888,800 (0)I 748,800 (0)I 884,000 (0)I I I 0 (I)I 0 (I)I 65,000 (I)I 65,000 (I)I 65,000 (I)I _--------- -- --- ° ------ ----- ---- -------- °- -- °--- - -- --- -----_- ° - ---- ---------- ------- -- TO: City Council - 13. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the development as originally requested for the following sites: Block 600: 300,000 sq.ft. of office Block 800: 440,000 sq.ft. of office PCH /Jamboree: 130 dwelling units, residential Corporate Plaza West: 100,000 sq.ft. of office Big Canyon /MacArthur: 80 dwelling units Newporter North: 278 dwelling units, residential ( +212 du's in existing G.P.) The Planning Commission recommendation for the following sites differs Civic Plaza Expansion. The original Irvine Company request for the Civic Plaza Expansion site would have allowed 50,000 sq.ft. for office use and art museum expansion. This development would have been in addition to the 14,000 sq.ft. of institutional use allocated in the existing General Plan for library and art museum expansion. It was originally estimated that 36,000 sq.ft. of the requested 50,000 sq.ft. would be used for expansion of the Newport Harbor Art Museum. Over the past six months, the plans of the art museum have become more definitive, and it is now anticipated that the entire request will be used by the art museum and for expansion of the Newport Beach City Library. In fact, the expansion hoped for requires more than the original development request of The Irvine Company. Therefore, The Irvine Company proposed that if the entire Civic Plaza Expansion is used by these two institutional uses, that an additional 65,000 sq.ft. be allowed in this area (15,000 sq.ft. more than the original re- quest) . Staff recommended and the Planning commission approved this request, and has allowed for this increase as an alternate in the recommendation to the City Council. The Irvine Company has indicated sM' agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. from the original project request: Fashion Island. The original Irvine Company request for this site was to allow additional retail and restaurant commercial development in Fashion Island of 128,000 sq.ft. The staff recommended that this area be given an additional land use allocation of 40,000 sq.ft. In response to this proposal, The Irvine Company suggested that the increase be set at 60,000 sq.ft., or a total of 188,000 sq.ft. The Irvine Company, in making this request, indicated that the additional development was not needed for the "Fashion Island Renaissance" program, but would allow for expansions of the anchor tenants in the shopping mall. Since The Irvine Company indicated a willingness to commit the additional 60,000 sgAt.1ifor major tenants' use, staff recommended and the Planning Commission approved the requested change. it was the position of the staff and the Planning Commission that the improvements to Fashion Island constitute a significant community benefit, since the shopping area is primarily used by local residents and employees. Additionally, a successful retail shopping center results in significant revenues to the City. The Irvine Company is in agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Civic Plaza Expansion. The original Irvine Company request for the Civic Plaza Expansion site would have allowed 50,000 sq.ft. for office use and art museum expansion. This development would have been in addition to the 14,000 sq.ft. of institutional use allocated in the existing General Plan for library and art museum expansion. It was originally estimated that 36,000 sq.ft. of the requested 50,000 sq.ft. would be used for expansion of the Newport Harbor Art Museum. Over the past six months, the plans of the art museum have become more definitive, and it is now anticipated that the entire request will be used by the art museum and for expansion of the Newport Beach City Library. In fact, the expansion hoped for requires more than the original development request of The Irvine Company. Therefore, The Irvine Company proposed that if the entire Civic Plaza Expansion is used by these two institutional uses, that an additional 65,000 sq.ft. be allowed in this area (15,000 sq.ft. more than the original re- quest) . Staff recommended and the Planning commission approved this request, and has allowed for this increase as an alternate in the recommendation to the City Council. The Irvine Company has indicated sM' agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. ! a TO: City Council - 14. • Newport Village. The original request of The Irvine Company would have allowed an additional 345,000 sq.ft. of office and 59,250 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant development on the Newport Village site. If approved, the request would have eliminated 360 residential dwelling units currently designated for the site in the existing General Plan. The development concept would have combined this site with the exist- ing Corporate Plaza Planned Community, and the development would have been in addition to the 750 sq.ft. of retail use and 101,174 sq.ft. of office use allocated to the Newport Village and Corporate Plaza sites in the existing General Plan. The analysis of the proposed project prepared for the Planning, Commission by staff focused heavily on the commercial /residential balance. of the proposed project, and the goals and policies contained in the City's Housing Element. At the conclu- sion of the analysis, the staff recommended the Newport Village site to be maintained as a residential site, with an expansion of residen- tially designated acreage to 33 acres from the previously designated 18 acres. This would eliminate the retail designation from 15 acres in Newport Village. The residential development would be limited to a maximum of 560 dwelling units, or an estimated density of 25 dwelling units per buildable acre. The response of The Irvine Company to this recommendation was one of qualified acceptance, but further requested that the Corporate Plaza area be considered for an increase of 84,800 sq.ft., of which 80,000 sq.ft. would be used for an athletic/health club. If approved, this request would reestablish the square footage limitation in the General Plan priovided for in the Corporate Plaza • Planned Community District. In response to the request, staff further recommended to the Planning Commission approval - of this request, in that the site plan included in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Text was designed to accommodate the requested development, and because an athletic club would serve as a community amenity while deflecting some of the anticipated traffic of the overall development away from the peak hour. The Planning Commission concurred with the request to establish the athletic club, but did not allow the addi- tional 4,.800 sq:ft. of office development in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community requested by the Irvine Company. The Irvine Company has indicated in their most recent communication that they are in agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Avocado /MacArthur. The Irvine Company requested approval of 44,000 sq.ft. of office development which, would be in addition to the Orange County Transit District facility already planned for the site. staff had recommended to the Planning Commission approval of this request, indicating that the proposed project was in an area where higher intensity projects were already in existence. In response to requests made of The Irvine Company during their public relations program, a further request was made to allow a 10,000 sq.ft. day care center in addition to the development originally proposed. Staff studied this request ands recommended approval of the proposal to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission further discussed the proposal and concluded that the day care center may need to expand beyond that • requested at sometime in the future, and recommended that the develop- ment of Avocado /MacArthur be set at 44,000 sq.ft. of office develop- ment, 15,000 sq.ft. for a day care facility and the OCTD transit 0 I A T0: City Council - 15. • facility. The Irvine Company has indicated their concurrence with the Planning Commission recommendation. r Bayview Landing. The original request of The Irvine Company for the Bayview Landing site was for 60,000 sq.ft, of retail commercial accommodating development of approximately six restaurant facilities. Based upon information contained in the Environmental Impact Report in the areas of aesthetics, land use, geological constraints, site access and traffic circulation, staff recommended to the Planning Commission a significant reduction of the development proposal to a maximum of 20,000 sq.ft. As part of the staff proposal, development would be precluded from the upper level of the site (at the corner of Jamboree Road at East Coast Highway) , but would be allowed on the lower level of the site (adjacent to Back Bay Drive). The upper site level would be for view park and bicycle and pedestrian trails and staging areas as currently provided for in the General Plan. The Irvine Company concurred with some of the concerns of staff regarding site access, but still indicated that the site could accommodate more development than the staff recommendation while providing for the public uses proposed. A development of 35,000 sq.ft. was requested by The Irvine Company. Staff did further research of the typical size of restaurant facilities, and made a further recommendation which would allow 25,000 sq.ft. for three restaurant facilities, one of which could be for the proposed teen center. Development, would still be precluded from the upper site level, but would be allowed on the slope area (subject to Coastal Commission approval). At the conclusion of public testimony, the Planning Commission discussed the project and adopted the second staff recommendation. The Irvine Company has indicated in their most recent communication disagreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The Irvine Company maintains their second request of 35,000 6q.ft. to allow a total of four restaurant facil- ities, including two on the upper level of the site. it is also indicated that the structures will be sited and designed to provide views of Upper Newport Bay and that a view park with public parking facilities will be provided at the developer's expense. It is the position of staff that vehicular access to the upper level of the site may not be advisable, in that the location of driveways would be very close to the intersection of Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway and may require construction of large retaining struc- tures. In any event, access to the upper portion of the site can be via right -turns in- and -out only, which makes the access situation limited at best. Most important, however, is the provision of the significant public amenity of views to Upper Newport Bay and the Newport Dunes area both from and across the site. When considered in the context of the overall Newport Center plant the preservation of this open space is a reasonable request. Staff therefore recommends that the City Council sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission in regards to the Bayview Landing site. • Westbay. The Westbay site was not part of The Irvine Company request for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The site has, since the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79 -1, been tied to Newport Center for planning purposes: The allowed development of Westbay was limited + L TO: City Council - 16. to four dwelling units per buildable acre in that action, with 75% of the units transferred to Newport Center. This site provided the predominant portion of the "floating "' residential units in the Center. One of the goals of staff and the Planning Commission in the consideration of the build -out plan for Newport Center was the resolution of the amount and location of residential development in the area. The plan recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission does not contain any "floating," "transfer" or "matching" units, as called out in the existing General Plan. As such, the development of the Westbay site is part of the consideration of the Newport Center plan, because the deletion of the transfer units is an automatic reduction in development rights attributable to Westbay. As previously indicated in the discussion of Bayview Landing, it is appropriate to consider community open space goals when addressing a project of the magnitude of the one under consideration. It should be noted that the issue of dedication has not been raised by the City, in that the recommendation of the Planning Commission is a redesignatiori to the "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" land use category, but does not require dedication of any land at this time. It is the position of staff that the redesignation of the Westbay site in partial consideration for the increased development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites is appropriate and recommends that the City Cduncil'sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission. San Diego Creek North. the considefration of the San Diego Creek North • site was not included in the development requested by The Irvine Company. The Environmental Impact Report indicated that the project would have a significant effect on the provision of some public services, including the provision of fire protection and paramedic services. The increased development in Newport Center was projected to increase the demand for Fire Department services to the extent that an adverse effect could be anticipated in the level of service in the service area of the Newport Center Station. The City currently has a fire station reservation designated in the North Ford Planned Community. The Fire Department has indicated that there is a preferred location for an additional fire station, on the San Diego Creek North site. The Planning Commission has, therefore, recommended that a five -year fire station reservation be shown on that site. This will allow the City flexibility in determining the most desirable location for this future facility. Once the final location is determined, the second fire station reservation will be deleted. The Irvine Company is in agreement with this recommendation. Analysis of Planning Commission Land Use Recommendations The action of the Planning Commission, if sustained by the City Council, would result in a project of a similar scale and nature to that proposed by The Irvine Company. For the 'benefit of the City Council, supplemental analysis of the project in the areas of land use . compatibility, land use intensity and traffic and circulation is provided. L T0: City Council - 17. • Land Use Compatibility. Newport Center and the peripheral sites lie in a developed urban environment. Both within and surrounding the project areas, the land uses are mixed and include virtually all of the land uses included ;in the recommendation. The Planning Com- mission's proposal is generally in keeping with the original concept plan for Newport Center, with the exception that a higher portion of residential land uses are to be accommodated in the area. The re- quirement that one of the major commercial and office development sites proposed by The Irvine Company be residential (Newport Village) substantially addressed staff concerns over the mix of commercial and residential development in the Newport Center build -out plan. Land Use Intensity. In terms of intensity of development, the recom- mended project is in keeping with intensity limits in the City and prior actions of the Planning Commission and City Council. When calculated for commercial sites only, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted by the existing General Plan its 0.41 FAR, and as recommended by the Planning Commission is 0.52 FAR. When calculated for commer- cial and residential sites combined, the Floor Area Ratio permitted by the existing General Plan is 0.41 FAR, and as proposed by the Planning Commission is 0.47 FAR. When the land area occupied by the recreation uses are included, the Floor Area Ratios reduce to 0.30 FAR existing and 0.34 proposed. These compare to the two other major commercial Planned Communities: Newport Place = 0.39 FAR permitted; Koll Center Newport = 0.525 FAR permitted. fThel older commercial areas allow • significantly higher intensity ranges: Campus Drive at 0.5; Mariner's Mile and Cannery village at 1.0; and other older commercial areas at 2.0 to 3.0 FAR. For the purposes of projecting ultimate buildout of the older commercial areas, the City generally uses intensity ratios of 0.8 and 1.25 FAR. Traffic and Circulation. For the information of the City Council, staff has prepared Table 2 illustrating the Average Daily Trip gen- eration characteristics of the various "projects" considered by the Planning Commission. As indicated by the table, the Planning Commis- sion recommendation will result in a reduction of an estimated 995 daily trips from the original project proposed by The Irvine Company. This trip reduction is, however, considered to be a conservative estimate, in that no calculation has been made to estimate the double counting of, trips for the clay, care center and the athletic club. The nature of these uses 1n a Newport ,Center location can be expected to generate significantly less external trips that would be expected as "stand- alone" uses. The revised project can also be expected to effect intersections in the immediate vicinity of the Newport Village site in a somewhat different manner than that portrayed in the EIR. This is due to the • 1ASsumes 15 sq.•ft. per theater seat, 1000 sq.,ft. per hotel room. Existing General Plan residential calculated at 1200 sq.ft. per d.u.; proposed at 1000 sq.'ft.•per d.u. 0 • • TO: City Council - 18. fact that a residential use in this area has different directionality characteristics and a lower traffic generation rate than the office and retail use originally proposed by The Irvine Company. Additional information was developed for the Planning Commission in order to provide them with information on the impact of the land use changes recommended by staff. A report prepared by the City's consulting traffic engineer, Basmaciyan- Darnell, Inc., indicated that minor increases to the expected ICU values at MacArthur and San Miguel and at MacArthur and Coast Highway could be expected as a result of the change. All other intersections would be expected to remain unchanged or be reduced as a result of the recommendation. TABLE 2 - Newport Center Average Daily Trips I I Orig. I Staff I TIC #1 I Staff 1 Png. Com I Location I Project I Rec #1 I Responsel' Rec #2 [Action Tic #2 1 1 Response] 1 6,792 ] I - 3,900 ] I 2,080 ] ] 5,720 ] l 845 l ] 1,3001 ] 3,6401 1 1,322 ] ] 520 ] ] 3,185 1 ] 2,625 l 1 2,104 ] ] 34,033 ] (Fashion Island l LI-------- 4,992 ] 7,092 1 =- 6,792 ] 6,792 1 6,792 1 --------------------- 1 IBlock 600------ I 3,900 1 - - - - -[--------I--------I------- .3,900 1 3,900 1 3,900 1 3,900 - - - - -- 1 --- -- - - -- i 1 Civic Plaza Expansion I --------I 1,334 1 ------- -I' 1,334 1 ----- - --I 2,080 1 --- - - -- -I 2,080 1 - - - -- -- 2,080 1 ---- ----- ----- ------ - -I - --- - -- -I --- - - - --f --- -----I --- ,--- - -I - - - - - -- IBlock 800 i 5,720 1 3,900 1 5,720 1 3,900 1 5,720 I----------------------I--------I--------I--------I--------I------- I PCH /Jamboree 1 845 1 845 1 845 1 845 1 845 1----------------------I--------I--------I--------I--------I------- [Corporate Plaza West l 1,300 1 1,300 1 1,300 1 1,300 i 1,300 1----------------------I--------I--------I--------I--------I------- 1 Newport Village 1 7,410 l 3,640 l 3,640 I 3,640 1' 3,640 1----------------------I--------I--------I--------I--------I------- ]Avocado /MacArthur 1 572 l 572 1, 947 l 947 1 1,322 1=---------------------I--------I--------I--------I--------I------- (Big Canyon /MacArthur 1 520 1 520 1 520 1 520 ] 520 1 ---------------------- I-------- INewporter North 1 I 3,185 1 -------- I-------- 3,185 1 I 3,185 1 -------- I------- 31185 1 3,185 1 ---------------------- I-------- lBayview Landing 1 I 4,500 l -------- I 1,500 1 -------- I 21625 l -------- I 1,875 l --- =--- 1,875 1----------------------I--------I--------I--------I--------I------- 1 Corporate Plaza 1 0 ]' 0'I 2,166 1 2,166 l 2,104 [TOTAL ADT 1 34,278 ] 27,7881 33,720 1 31,150 I 33,283 Tic #2 1 1 Response] 1 6,792 ] I - 3,900 ] I 2,080 ] ] 5,720 ] l 845 l ] 1,3001 ] 3,6401 1 1,322 ] ] 520 ] ] 3,185 1 ] 2,625 l 1 2,104 ] ] 34,033 ] s , TO: City Council - 19. • Affordable Housing The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council an affordable housing program for the residential portion of the project based upon the housing impact of the overall project. Thirty percent of the total new residential units to be in an affordable category plus the final commitment of the remaining "pool" units in the Baywood expan- sion was required. Two thirds of the affordable units were required to be for County Low Income families and one third for City Very Low Income families (at HUD "Fair Market Rents "). The affordability term was specified at twenty years. In their communications to the Planning Commission, The Irvine Company indicated concern with the proposed program, but had no specific response. The most recent communication received from The Irvine Company gives a specific response to the action of the Planning Commission. The concern of The Irvine Company is in three areas: the percentage of affordable units required, the affordability criteria in the event Mortgage Revenue Bond financing is not available, and the term of affordability. These concerns are discussed individually below. Number of Affordable Units. The recommendation of the Planning Commission would result in thirty percent (306) of the total units constructed plus 29 Baywood units to be affordable. The Irvine Company has indicated that this requirement is in excess of the 30% guideline contained in the Housing[ Element. They have requested that the Baywood affordable units should be allowed to be credited to the provision of affordable housing for the Newport Center residential. Staff has no objection to this request so long as the affordability criteria is as specified for the Newport Center General Plan Amend- ment. Affordability Criteria. The Irvine Company has indicated a general agreement with the affordability criteria outlined for those projects which are able to utilize the Mortgage Revenue Bond financing program. The Irvine Company has pointed out, however, that no Mortgage Revenue Bond commitment has been obtained for the Newport Village site, since The Irvine Company was planning commercial development on that site. The Irvine Company has requested an alternate affordability profile for those projects which do not make use of mortgage revenue bonds. This criteria would be as follows: 33.3% County Median Income* 33.3% County Low Income* 33.4% City Very Low Income* (rents at HUD "Fair Market Rent ") *per Housing Element When staff proposed the affordability criteria, the recommendation was based on an assumption that the Mortgage Revenue Bond program would be • available to all projects except the Big Canyon /MacArthur project, which was expected to not include affordable units. Staff concurs with The Irvine Company that the affordability mix should be adjusted for any other project which is unable to make use of the Mortgage L k T0: City Council - 20. Revenue Bond program. The affordability mix suggested has been reviewed and is consistent with the provisions of the City's Housing Element. It is, therefore, recommended that an additional affordabil- ity mix be accommodated in the affordable housing program for non - bond - financed projects (other than Big Canyon /MacArthur) as suggested by The Irvine Company. An additional concern of The Irvine Company was expressed in regards to the number of HUD Fair Market Rent units which may occur in any project. The Irvine Company has requested the ability to provide these units on sites other than those in Newport Center and the peripheral sites. This could result in some affordable units in some of the, older, non - affordable apartment projects, such as Mariners' Square, Bayport, and Baywoo &. Staff supports the concept of spreading the affordable housing throughout the community and would recommend approval of this request. Term of Affordability. The Irvine Company has indicated that a minumum ten year term of affordability with a maximum of twenty years is acceptable, provided favorable financing is available at the time of refinancing 10 to 12 years out. Apartment projects, even Mortgage Revenue Bond projects, are not able to obtain a letter of credit to secure the financing for terms longer than 10 years. Staff maintains the recommendation that 20 years be the term of affordability. In order to accommodate concerns of Toe Irvine Company, the City Council • may wish to consider an additional provision allowing reevaluation of the term of affordability at the time of refinancing. This provision would require affordability provisions to continue so long as reasonable financing for the original loan amount to support the rents required by this General Plan Amendment is available. Additional Housing Program Considerations. The residential projects associated with the project in''the Coastal Zone will be required to obtain Coastal Residential Development Permits. These permits are required pursuant to Section 65590 of the Government Code and Council Policy P -1, and are related to the provision of low and moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone. The processing of a Coastal Residential Development Permit will occur at the time of consideration of any Tentative Tract Map. Associated with this approval is a substantial permit fee, which is applied on a unit basis. Given the number of units proposed in the Coastal Zone, this fee could be substantial (±$193,500). The precise nature of the residential development is not known at this time. Consistent with the provisions of the City's Housing Element, the City may wish to waive these 'fees if the Coastal sites support a high ratio of affordable housing. Staff recommends the City Council include a provision which will allow the City to consider a waiver of all or a portion of Coastal Residential Development Permit Fees at the time of approval of the Tentative Tract Maps. • T0: City Council - 21. • Land Use Phasing The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council a very aggres- sive land use phasing program which essentially required that 800 units be under construction prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the Block 600 project, which is an early phase project. Addition- ally, these units were to have certificates of occupancy prior to the issuance of building permits for the Block 800 and Corporate Plaza West projects. The Irvine Company indicated to the Planning Commis- sion disagreement with the program, but offered no alternate program. The letter submitted by The Irvine Company proposes an alternate land use phasing program, as follows: 1. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the block 600 office project, the developer will file for tentative tract maps and all other necessary zoning and environmental approvals for at least 400 units. 2. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the Block 800 office project, the developer will file for-tentative tract maps, and all other necessary zoning and environmental approvals for an additional 400 units. 3. Special uses such hs the artfmu�pum /library expansion, day care • facility, teen center, and health club should be exempt from any residential phasing requirements. Fashion Island should be exempt from residential phasing requirements. The proposal of The Irvine Company for residential /commercial phasing essentially amounts to no phasing requirements, since the filing of tentative map and related approvals does not constitute any commitment to construct. The proposal is considered unacceptable by staff. Staff is, however, sympathetic to the concern of The Irvine Company regarding requiring a high number of dwelling units to become avail- able within a relatively short period of time. Additionally, it appears that The Irvine Company did not fully understand the phasing proposed by the Planning Commission, since Fashion Island and the art museum /library were not tied to any residential phasing requirements. An alternate phasing program has been prepared by staff which will also allow the teen center and the health club to proceed prior to the ,construction of residential units. The alternate phasing program the City Council may wish to consider is as follows: 1. No residential development shall be required to be under con- struction prior :,to the issuance of building permits for the following sites: A. B. C. D. E. F. M Fashion Island Civic Plaza Expansion Block 600 Bayview Landing Avocado /MacArthur - Corporate Plaza I . T0: City Council - 22. 2. 400 units must have building permits issued and show substantial progress in construction (foundations plus framing) before: A. The,issuance of !a certificate of occupancy for: i. Block 600• B. The issuance of building permits for: i. Block 800 ii. Corporate Plaza West 3. 400 units must have certificates of occupancy issued and 400 additional units must have building permits issued and show substantial progress in construction before the issuance of certificates of occupancy for: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West Circulation Phasing The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council a circulation system phasing program which ties various components of the project to construction of several major arterial roadways. The roads phased with the construction oflthe Newpor{t�ddnter project are Coast Highway, • Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Pelican Hill Road (from Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard), and San Joaquin Hills Road (from Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road). With the exception of the segment of MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor view Drive and the extension of the centerline of •Crown Drive, improvements in the City of Newport Beach will 'complete arterial roadways to the full Master Plan configuration as called out in the City's Circulation Element. In deferring the completion of MacArthur Boulevard in the above described segment, the Planning Commission set forth specific criteria which must be met prior to its completion to full master plan width. This item is discussed by staff in detail in the "Other Requirements" section later in this report. The Irvine Company has indicated in their most recent letter of response, disagreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commis- sion in regards to the phasing of circulation system improvements with various components of the project. They have suggested an alternate phasing program, as follows: 1. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA 85 -1(B), all-dedications from The Irvine Company necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado .Avenue 'dedications and completion bonding .and,before.'installation of Pelican•Hill Road: t I TO: City Council - 23. • A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza Expansion C. Big Canyon /MacA�thur D. Newporter North' E. PCH /Jamboree F. Newport Village G. Bayview Landing (move up from Phase 5) H. Avocado /MacArthur (move up from Phase 3) I. Corporate Plaza (move qp from Phase 3) • • 3. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements (as described below): 4. A. Block 600 B. Block 800 Plaza West (move un from Phase 5 Certificates of Occupancy may not be issued for the following projects until tholcompletionfof:Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements: A. Block 600 V Phase 5 r--- Bns�d &nq- or-- grndtng- permit -s- =£ err- ki°ie-- fo-plKxtiiig- g�t'aj eets- ,may -be A: --- Bleek -896 H:--- Berpernte -P�nee -West e: --- BayvieW- fending The request of The Irvine Company as outlined above and when combined with the Planning Commission's deferral of MacArthur Boulevard im- provements adjacent to Harbor View Hills results in virtually no major arterial improvements completed until the very last phase of the 'Newport Center project., and the removal of the construction of San Joaquin Hills Road between Spyglass Hill Road and Pelican Hill Road from the phasing program altogether. This is inconsistent with the main reason and goal of the City in considering significant develop- ment increases in Newport Center., Staff is, therefore, not in support of the proposed circulation '.system phasing program proposed by The Irvine Company. 'The Planning Commission, in making its recommendation to the City Council, attempted to pace the major, phases of the project with major improvements using the anticipated construction phasing provided by The Irvine Company. The Irvine Company's response does, however, point out an omission in the Circulation phasing program for the completion of MacArthur Boulevard improvements. It also may be .d id I TO: I City Council - 24. • appropriate to allow the day care center on Avocado /MacArthur to proceed in the earliest phase. Since the health club on Corporate Plaza and the teen centg'r proposed as part of the Bayview Landing development are more intense land uses, these may be more appropriate- ly placed in an intermediate phase. Staff has prepared the following proposed revision to the recommended circulation phasing program, adding specific phasing for MacArthur Boulevard improvements and making some clarifications in the proposed language, for the consid- eration of the City Council: 1. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of CPA 85 -1(B), all dedications• necessary for com- pletion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made,. 2. The following projects' may proceed after Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue dedications and completion bonding and before installation of Pelican Hill Road. In the case of MacArthur Boulevard, dedications shall be to the full Master Plan width as amended, and ,completion bonding for six lane. maior arterial standards:' A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza Expansion C. Big Canyon /Mac Ythur I 1 • D. Newporter North E. PCH /Jamboree F. Newport Village G. Day Care Center - Avocado /MacArthur 3. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements from San Miguel Road to San Diego Creek {ee -deecr &bed = bedew }; A. Block 600 B. Avocado /MacArthur C. Corporate Plaza D. Bayview Landing 4. Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of .construction of four lanes- of Pelican Hill. Road: - Block 600 5.. Building or grading permits for the following projects may" be issued upon commencement 'of' construction of four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: • A. Block ,809 B. Corporate Plaza West 24--- Bayv &eH- band #rt$ r- 0 i I TO: City Council - 25. Other Requirements in recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment for Newport Center and the peripheral sites, the Planning Commission applied a number of supplemental requirements which did not fit into any of the other categories. Most of these criteria have met with the acceptance of The Irvine Company, except for the indication that the initial construction of four lanes of Pelican.Hill Road is more than what they wish to commit to. It was the specific recommendation of the Planning Commission that the initial construction of Pelican Hill Road be four lanes. MacArthur Boulevard Aprovement Criteria. In recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission specifically . addressed the timing of the improvement of MacArthur Boulevard to full master plan configuration between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. In making this recommendation, the Planning Commission was responding to the expressed concerns of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Asso- ciation. Many people from this group expressed the opinion that the full master plan improvement was premature until the completion of the remainder of the regional circulation system, most particularly Pelican -Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road to�Pelican Hill Road. It was the position of staff that all information indicated that a full six lane MacArthur Boulevard was a necessary improvement and should be mandated of The Irvine Company as part of any approval for Newport Center. However, the staff prepared al'ternate' language for the consideration of the 'Planning Commission setting forth criteria for the full widening of MacArthur Boulevard. An important consideration of staff was preserving the ability to make necessary intersection improvements along MacArthur Boulevard at Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive, when these improvements, are made, the provision of all neces- sary taper lanes will result in six lanes along MacArthur Boulevard except in the segment between Harbor View .Drive and the prolongation' of the centerline of Crown Drive. At the suggestion of the staff, language was adopted by the Planning Commission specifying that the four lane segment was in that location. At their meeting of Jude 5, 1986•; the Planning Commission discussed the wording adopted in the final Resolution on this matter. At the conclusion of discussion, • staff was directed to clarify the intent of the Planning Commission in this language, as follows,. adopting _�W_8 T0: City Council - 26. • 5. That prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Herber- Vsevr -er£ve Coast Highway anal -a greiengat4en- of- �L•ife- cerrttir�itr- af- -iYrive San Miguel Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum be met: a. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial configura- tion (6- lanes; 'divided),'from Coast Highway to the inter- section of San Joaquin Hills Road. b. Completion of San 'Joaquin Hills Road to Major Arterial configuration (6- lanes, divided), easterly of Spyglass Hill Road and connection to Pelican Hill Road. .0 C. An average weekday volume4to- capacity ratio of 1.15 on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive. d. A decision has been made, regarding the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first. A public hearing shall be conducted'-by the Planning Commission and the City Council to verity satisfaction of all criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. The adoption of'this language does not change,the effect of that which was adopted by the Planning Commission in their Resolution on the General Plan Amendment. it is the opinion of staff, however, that the proposed language, may .tend, to confuse the layman and make it more difficult for the individual to ,understand what improvements are actually- permitted. The language originally adopted is very clear and, will lead to no doubts, as to the segment, of MacArthur Boulevard which will remain a four'lane road in the short -term future. 'In reviewing the action taken by the Planning Commission, staff has a concern with one of the, criteria for the, widening of MacArthur Boule- vard. Criteria "b " requires completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to six lanes easterly of Spyglass, Hill Road prior to the completion of MacArthur 'Boulevard. This .road is not in the City of Newport Beach and may never be completed to the'fu'll master,plan width. In fact, • current traffic volume projections show this road as barely exceeding volumes needed for a four, lane• road.. Staff would therefore recommend 'some qualifying language ,fdr,thkp',ariteria,'dsimilar to that in criteria 'V', as follows: a I T0: City Council - 27. . "b. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Arterial configuration (6- lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass Hill Road,'and connection'to Pelican Hill Road: or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first." Staff would also-suggest that the "'other Requirements ", numbers 2, 3,1 4, and 5, all related to MacArthur',Boulevard improvements, should be' consolidated into a single statement and made internally consistent.' Language recommended. by staff is as follows: 112. MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San , Miguel Drive shall be subject to the following in j conjunction with,the Circulation Phasing requirements: A. Full dedicationy for'6 =lane MacArthur Boulevard is required. B. MacArthur Boulevard sha'l1•be'improved to lower the grade and_move'the road westerly, as described in the •Environmental• Impact Report prepared for General Plan. Amendment C. Two outside through lanes in each- direction on MacArthur Boulevard shall be, constructed so that additional lane's constr%�bked, when required by the . City, will occur towards the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor. View, Drive and the prolongafioa of the',cenherline of Crown Drive. D. That prior to construction of through lanes in t excess of four, for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum shall be met: i. ' Completion 'of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial configuration (6 -lanes, divided), from Coast 'Highway to the intersection of San Joaquin 'Hills Road., i ii. Completion of San.Joaquin Hills Road to Major Arterial configuration (6- lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass,,,Hill Road, and con - nection to Pelican Hill Road; or July 1, 1995, whichever-occurs first. iii: An average ''weekday volume -to- capacity ratio of 1.15 on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicini -- ty ,of Harbor, Vlew•'Drive; iv. A. decision has been made regarding the construction of. the San,Joaquin Hills Trans- portatign "'C6rridor�'or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs" first., _ A ,, T0: City Council - 28. • A public hearing shall be conducted by the Plan- ning Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening." Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator GPA851 /jm Attachments for City Council only: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1139 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1140 3. June 16, 1986 letter from The krv,ine Company • 4. Attachment No. 1 to DEIR, includes: a. Public Review Record b. Comments and Responses C. Planning Commission Staff Reports d. Planning Commission Minutes 14, 0 I RESOLUTION NO. 1139 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED, AND, ' IN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SAID AMENDMENTS, RECOMMEND THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROJECT BE CERTIFIED AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85- 1(B)). WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Land Use, Recreation and Open Space, and Circulation Elements have been prepared; and WHEREAS, said elements of the General Plan set forth objec- tives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider certain amendments to the above referenced elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to address the com- • pletion of Newport Center in a comprehensive manner, enabling the phasing of the project with significant improvements to the local and regional circulation system; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide for a balance, of employment and housing in the consideration of mixed use developments; and ' WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has, in the General Plan Housing Element, established policies to increase the production of housing in the community and to provide affordable housing oppor- tunities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowezL possible cost consistent with Section 65913 of the Government Coder and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to provide a balanced community, with a variety of housing types and designs and housing • opportunities for all economic segments of the community; and W WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to preserve and increase • affordable housing for low and moderate income households; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to eliminate con- straints to housing production and increase allowed density, wherever possible; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide incentives to the building industry to facilitate the provision of housing for low and moderate intone households; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the unique opportunity to provide housing opportunities in conjunction with t commercial development in and around'Newport Center; and WHEREAS, residential development in and around Newport Center will promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital statue, ancestry, national origin or color; and WHEREAS, approval of the project, with all related land use provisions, circulation system improvements and phasing, will provide for a balance between the planned land uses in the City and the • circulation system; and WHEREAS, implementation of the project will provide the City • with a significant annual revenue benefits and WHEREAS, construction of the project will be phased with major circulation system improvements, including the construction of Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, the completion of Jamboree Road and improvements to MacArthur Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environ- mental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Newport Beach Geadral Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that amendments to the General Plan with related provisions and requirements as described herein are recommend- ed for approval to the City Council. y - 3a nand Use Element: Adopt and include in the Land Use Element . the development limitations for each block in Newport Center as specified on the "Newport Center Development Limits" chart, attached hereon as "Exhibit 1." Amend the Land Use Element and Map to provide for the following increases in development in Newport Center. 1. Fashion Island: Add 188,000 sq.ft. for general and regional retail commercial uses and 2,500 theater seats. Total allowed development in Fashion Island is 11429,250 sq.ft. and 21500 theater seats. 2. Block 600: Add 300,000 sq.ft. for general office development. Total allowed development in Block 600 is 1,100,000 sq.ft. and 325 hotel rooms. 3. Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 50,000 sq.ft. for office or institutional use, or a total of 284,706 sq.ft. of office and 48,000 sq.ft. of institution. An additional 15,000 sq.ft. of institutional may be allowed subject to use of all of the above described 50,000 sq.ft. for institutional uses. Institutional uses include Art Museum, Natural History Museum, and library uses. In this scenario, total development is 234,706 sq.ft. of office and 113,000 sq.ft. of institutional uses. 4. Block 800: Change the land use designation from "Multi - Family Residential" to "Administrative, Profes- sional and Financial Commercial." 'Add 440,000 square feet for office development in Block 800, or a total of 693,100 sq.ft. in Block 800. 5. PCII /aamboree: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and, Marine Commercial" to 'Multi - Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change • the land use designation for Villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi- Family Res- idential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. 6. Corporate Plaza West: Change the land use designation from "Retail and'Service Commercial with Alternate Land Ilse" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 100,000 sq.ft. for office development for a total of 123,400 sq.ft. 7. Newport Village: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi- Family Residential," not to exceed 560 dwelling units. Add 80,000 sq.ft. to Corporate Plaza, or a total of 445,200 sq.ft. 80,000 sq.ft. can be constructed only if for an athletic/health club. 8. Avocado /MacArthur: Change the land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Profession- al and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental, Educa- tional and Institutional Facilities." 44,000 sq.ft. of office uses are permitted with a transit facility and 15,000 sq.ft. for a day care facility. 9. Big Canyon /MacArthur: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Multi- Family Residential," at a maximum of 80 dwelling units. 10. Bayview Landing: Change the land use designation on the lower portion of the site from "Recreational and Environmental open Space" with an alternate of "Low • Density Residential" to "Retail and Service - 3 J' Recreation and Open Space Element: 1, Bayview Landings Maintain the existing "Recreational and Environmental open Space" designation, but preclude development from the upper level. 2. Newporter North: Maintain existing "Recreational and Environmental open Space" designation, but add unmapped • environmentally sensitive area designation for preser- vation of significant on -site cultural resources. 3. Westbays Designate the site for regional park facil- ities with unmapped environmentally sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history facility may be allowed on the site subject to approval of the City. 1 LJ circulation Elements 1. Delete Avocado Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard Primary Couplet designation, designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six lanes, divided); designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (4 lanes) between Coast Highway, and San Miguel Drive. This circulation element revision is subject to ap- proval of the County of orange. 2. Recommend to the City Council initiation of an =end - ment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to designate MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73 an a Major- Modified Arterial (8 lanes, divided). Further, recommend to the City Council that final action on this amendment be taken concurrent with the action on GPA 85 -1(B). - 4 Commercial." Allow 25,000 eq.ft. for restaurant or visitor serving commercial use; three restaurant facilities may be constructed, one of which may be used • as a Teen Center. All access for commercial use shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. Structures shall not be higher than the upper pad level, and shall be sited and designed so as to provide for views of Upper Newport Bay and Newport Dunes. 11. Newporter North: Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi - Family Residential" at a maximum of 490 dwelling unite. Significant cultural resources which exist on the site shall be preserved in a manner acceptable to the City, with development clustered in other areas. 12. Westbay: Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental open space" in partial consideration for increased development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites. 13. San Diego Creek North: Add a 2.5 acre Fire Station reservation to the site. The reservation shall be in effect for a period,of 5 years. Recreation and Open Space Element: 1, Bayview Landings Maintain the existing "Recreational and Environmental open Space" designation, but preclude development from the upper level. 2. Newporter North: Maintain existing "Recreational and Environmental open Space" designation, but add unmapped • environmentally sensitive area designation for preser- vation of significant on -site cultural resources. 3. Westbays Designate the site for regional park facil- ities with unmapped environmentally sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history facility may be allowed on the site subject to approval of the City. 1 LJ circulation Elements 1. Delete Avocado Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard Primary Couplet designation, designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six lanes, divided); designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (4 lanes) between Coast Highway, and San Miguel Drive. This circulation element revision is subject to ap- proval of the County of orange. 2. Recommend to the City Council initiation of an =end - ment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to designate MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73 an a Major- Modified Arterial (8 lanes, divided). Further, recommend to the City Council that final action on this amendment be taken concurrent with the action on GPA 85 -1(B). - 4 13 Affordable Housing: Based upon the granting of additional commercial develop- ment, increased density for residential development, and governmental financial assistance such as Mortgage Revenue Bonds, the following program is required: 1. Thirty percent (30 %) of the total dwelling units constructed on all Sites shall be affordable to low.and moderate income families. 2. The affordability mix shall be a follows: 66.7% County Low Income* 33.3% City Very •LOW Income" (with rents not to exceed HUD section 0 "Fair Market Rents ") *per Housing Element 3. Preference shall be given to section 8 Certificate holders for the "City Very -Low Income" units. 4. The term of affordability shall be 20 years from the date of initial occupancy. S. The affordable units may be located on any site, however they shall be phased proportional to the market rate residential units. 6. Additionally, the 29 remaining "pool" affordable units in the Baywood expansion shall be committed for a period of 20 years, with 004 at County median and 20% at County low income. • 7, prior to issuance of building permits for any develop- ment permitted by GPA 85 -1(B), the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City guaranteeing the provision, of the affordable units. This agreement may be included within the development agreement. Land use Phasing: Phase I - No residential (PCH /Jamboree, Newport Village, Newporter North, Big Canyon) units required fors A. Fashion Island Expansion B. Civic Plaaa Expansion Phase Ila - 400 units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction (foundations plus some framing) before building permit issuance for: A. Block 600 B. Bayview Landing, C. Avocado /MacArthur D. Corporate Plaza Phase IIb - 400 additional units moat have building permits issued and eubsta:tial progress in construction before issuance of occupancy permits for: A. Block 600 • _5_ 3 Phase III - Completion and Certificate of Occupancy for 800 du's before building Permits issued for: • A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West Circulation Phasing: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for any component of GPA 85 -1 (H), all dedications from The Irvine Company necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue dedications and completion bonding and before instal- lation of Pelican Hill Road: A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza C. Big Canyon /MacArthur Blvd. D. Newporter North E. PCH /Jamboree F. Newport Village 3. Building or grading permits for the, following projects may be issued upon commencemwt of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArtb%* Boulevard improvements (as described below): A. Block 600 B. Avocado/MacArthur Blvd. C. Corporate Plaza • 4. Certificate of occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of Pelican Hill Road: - Block 600 S. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of four lanes of Ban Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West C. Bayview Landing Other Requirements: 1. A landscape program for MacArthur Boulevard shall be reviewed and hpproved by the City Council prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA 85 -1(B). The landscaping shall be installed' concurrent with MacArthur Boulevard, improve- ments. 2. That the full dedications for 6 -1ane MacArthur be required. 3. That MacArthur Boulevard be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in the En- vironmental Impact Report. 4. That the two outside through lanes be constructed so that any additional lanes would occur towards the • centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive. -6 3� S BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recom- mends acceptance and certification of the Environmental Impact Report. ADOPTED this day of , 1986, by the following vote, to wit: 1 - 7 - 3�' 5. That prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown • Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum, be met: a. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial configuration (6- lama, divided), from Coast Highway to the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road. b. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Arterial configuration (6- lane,- divided) easterly of Spyglass 'load, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. C. An average weekday volume -to- capacity ratio Of 1.15 on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive. d. A decision has been made regarding the con- struction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. 6, All mitigation measures outlined consistent with the approved project in the Final EIR shall be required. 7. The Irvine CoMany shall aggressively pursue all necessary approvals and construction of San Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road. S. A Development Agreement and overall Planned Community • Development Plan for Newport Center shall be prepared and approved concurrent with or prior to any further discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the development • allowed by this General Plan Amendment. 9. The initial construction of Pelican Hill Road shall be a minimum of four lanes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recom- mends acceptance and certification of the Environmental Impact Report. ADOPTED this day of , 1986, by the following vote, to wit: 1 - 7 - 3�' c • • 7 ) ) ) ) ) ) 9 a= r. avc= a= aa.= ses a= a+sII..v...a.IIaa= +a= r. :II.c.vz= (Location I Allowable I xIIIIC= axcr_x_ = LIICxzLIIac= xsacal := a.mrra.vsE>asl 181oo)c 0- 1,01porate Plaza 1 -i--------------- 445,200 (0)1 I I------------------------------- (Block -_ 100 - Gateway Plaza ( 165,000 -(0)i 234,706 (0)I 193ock 200__ ___________________I___________ - Design Plaza 1 I --------------- 150,000 (0)I I I------------------------------ IBlock 300 1 80,000 (0)1 1 1 2,400 (T)1 I ------------------------------ 101ock I 400 - Medical Plaza 'I I --------------- 380,000 -------------- (0)1 I I------------------------------ mock --° -•' SOO 323,550 _____ (0)1- -1 IBloek 600 1 111001000 (0)1 Miscellaneous I 1 __I_,_- __326 -(H) -1 -•- I ------------------------------ IB1 k I 700 - Pacific Mutual 1 --------------- 290,800 (0)I oe____ ___ ________ __ ___ __ __ __I ------- ------- 4 _ Mock 800 I 693,100 (0)1 1 I 8,000 (C)I - 181ocka 700/800-Civic Plaza i 284,706 (0)I 1 I 48,000 Ml I 234,706 (0)I 1 I 113,000 (I)1 I.._ -------- --------------- IBlock 900 - Marriott Hotel I 611 (H)1 1 Granville Aparteantal 67 (R)l 1 _. _. 1 10,000,(0)( ____I -------------------- _` -"`-I_ (Avocado /MacArthur I __________ 44,000 (0)I I .__. I 15,000 (C)1• I ------------------------------ I--------------- (Newport Village I — ------- I------- 560 (R)I — ------- 1. (Corporate Plaza West 1 I- 123,400 (0)I ___..__- ___ -___I I------------------------------ ivilla Point 1 I---------- 264 (R)a . ---- I I------------------------------ IFaahion Island I 1,429,250 (C)1 1 _ .. ••- I 2,500 (T) I ISea Island I --`-------""'-- I 132 (R)1 ---"`--------- Miscellaneous I 1 58,100 (I)1 I Institutional I Golf -18 holes I Automotive-5 acres I I Tennis -24 courts I I 1 >__ C aEL99axCOEa9IIL9LCIL9EaEEC99a9ECaLl (TOTALS I 4,089,756 (0)I I I 1,4S2,2SO (C)1 1 I 4,900 (T)1 936 (H)1 I 1,043 (6)1 I 106,100 Ml - e9:xII >LE =e Laa 9azasExxEZL >ExxvLL >xELaeY EZ> =x >9iE �1 RESOLUTION NO. 1140 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN AND MAPS NO. 29, 30, 37, 38, 48, and 60 AND RELATED TEXT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to prepare a local coastal program; and WHEREAS, as a part of the development and implementation of theCOastal Act, the City-established a Local Coastal Program Advisory Committee, which held 29 public meetings to develop the goals, oblec- tives, and policies of the City's Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach considered the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan at three public hearings prior to recommending the approval and adoption to the City Council; and WHEREAS, two public hearings were .held by the California • Coastal Commission in conjunction with the certification of the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan) and WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan seta forth the objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development in the coastal zone in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has initiated General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider this amendment to the Local Coastal Pro- gram, Land Use Planj and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in considering this amendment to the Local Coastal Program, has determined that this amendment is consistent with all of the stated goals and policies of the California Coastal Act, the City of Newport Beach General Plan, and the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ABSOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that the Local Coastal Program, Land Use • 3f Plan and Maps No. 29, 30, 37, 38, 48, and 60, be recommended for • approval to the City Council as set forth in Exhibit "A ". ADOPTED this day of 1986, by the following vote, to wit, BY CHAIRMAN BY SECRETARY • RES02 /jm Attachment: Exhibit "A" 1 L J AYES NOES ABSENT 2 3� • EXHIBIT "A" NEWPORT CENTER, BAYVIEW LANDING Newport Center (Maps 37, 46, 49). Approximately one -third of the Newport Centex site falls within the Coastal Zone. Most of the area is occupied by the Irvine Coast Country Club, shown as "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" on the Land 'Use Plan. The Marriott Hotel site is designated for "Administrative, Professional and Finan- cial Commercial„ uses to reflect the hotel use on the site. Permitted office uses on the Corporate Plaza West and Chamber of Commerce sites are shown by the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commer- cial" designation and residential use is shown on the Sea Island site by the 'Medium - Density Residential designation. The PCH /Jamboree and pcH Frontage Site is designated for "Hkb"Deneity Residential" allow- ing 264 du's. bayview Lending (Maps 37, 38). This site, adjacent to the Newport Dunes site, ie designated Pox "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" on the upper portion of the site for' public recreation uses, with a view park and a bike path. The lower portion of the site is designated for "RetaiL and Service Commercial" use to allow visi- tor- serving commercial and restaurant use. The structures may be constructed on the slope area, but no portion of any structure may be higher than the upper level of the site. Structures shall be sited and designed to provide for views of UppaV Newport Bay and the Newport Dunes. UPPER NEWPORT BAY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES • Newporter Notth (Maps 38, 60). This site, located on Jamboree Road northerly of the Newporter Inn, is designated for "High- Density Residential" with a maxim= of 490 du's. The structures shall be clustered to accommodate archaeological sites and marsh sites. A public bikeway /walkway is proposed for this site. Any development of this site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. westba (Maps 29, 30). The Westbay site is a large vacant parcel adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve at Irvine Avenue. This site is designated for "Recreational and Environmental open Space" uses, to permit a regional.park. Also permitted is a natural history museum with possible joint use as an interpretive center for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. A public bikeway /walkway is shown for the Westbay site, but careful consideration shall be given at the time it is developed to the environmentally sensitive nature of the site in locating the accessway. Any development which,oceura shall be located in order to preserve sensitive habitat areas located on the site. views from Irvine Avenue shall be maximized. Any development of this site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. GPA851 • 40 A . �� r• THE IRVINE COMPANY • �� RECEIVED June 16, 1986 pupert;Z 01 JUN161985 ► Honorable City Council ot'Y °F NFk City of Newport Beach 0 tF�, 3300 Newport Boulevard , Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: Newport Center General Plan Amendment 85 -1b Mayor Maurer and Council Members: We are pleased to be able to present to you our plans for completing Newport Center. In the past year since the plan was originally submitted to the City, we have discussed our planning concept with many individuals, neighborhood associations, business groups and civic organizations. As a result of this dialogue, our proposal has evolved. In addition to our original goal of providing a balance of business, retail and residential opportunities in 'Newport Center, the plan also includes a variety of special uses and amenities which people in the community have said they would like to see here: such as day care, a health club, possible expansion of the art museum and library, possible • new community facilities such as a teen center and community meeting facility, plus additional dining and entertainment opportunities We generally believe the plan as recommended by the Planning Commission for approval achieves an appropriate balance between land use and transportation needs, and is responsive to the needs of the local business and residential community. Before discussing our specific responses to the Planning Commission's recommendations, it may be useful to summarize our overall planning objectives. Planning Obiectives Newport Center is now twenty years old and we believe it is critical at this stage to reassess and reconfirm future directions for Newport Center as a business, retail, residential, cultural and recreational focal point in the Newport Beach community. Our planning objectives for Newport Center include the following: o Make Newpert Center more of a community focal point by providing a greater variety of goods, services, activities and residential opportunities in an exciting architectural setting. • o Resolve long -term planning, transportation, and housing issues for Newport Center and peripheral sites. 550 Newport Center Drive, P0. Box I, Newport Beach, California 92658 -8904 • (714) 720 -2000 41 -2- • o Complete the undeveloped parcels in and around Newport Center and upgrade existing uses so as to insure the long -term vitality and economic viability of the Center. o Provide for a continuing strong balance of mutually- supportive land uses and activities including residential•, office, retail, recreational, and cultural. o Improve transportation, by completing the City's arterial system in the Newport Center area, by contributing to regional transportation solutions through the construction of Pelican Hill Road, and by implementing transportation system management techniques. Response to Planning Commission Recommendations Of the 13 parcels under consideration, we agree with the Planning Commission recommendation on all but 2 -- Bayview Landing and Westbay. A number of significant modifications to our original proposal were recommended by the Planning Commission including a conversion of the Newport Village site from office and retail to multi - family residential, additional theatre seats in Fashion Island, and a significant reduction of proposed restaurant use on the Bayview Landing site. Our company is in substantial agreement with the Planning C'ommission's recommendations on land use, with only a few exceptions as noted below. With respect to requirements for affordable housing and phasing of development recommended by the Planning Commission, specific comments are Ob discussed below, and are summarized in an attachment. Newport Village Residential In recognition of the City's housing goals, we support the Planning Commission's recommendation to designate the Newport Village site for multi - family residential use with up to 560 dwelling units. This modification to our original request will reduce the overall amount of office space proposed by 345,000 sq. ft. or approximately 30 %. While we will do our best to meet the City's desire for residential use on this site, we want you to be aware that the ability of the site to accommodate 560 dwellings has not been confirmed. A more precise number cannot be determined until site planning and engineering studies are completed to define the project. Bayview Landing Restaurants The Bayview Landing site, near Jamboree and Coast Highway, is a 20 acre parcel which features significant vies: opportunities from the upper level of the property. Because of its location in proximity to the Upper Bay, the Newport Lines Aquatic Park and the Newporter Resort, we believe this site is highly desirable for restaurant use. Our original proposal was for 60,000 sq. ft. with up to 6 separate restaurant operations, including 3 sites on the upper pad. We subsequently refined our planning, and • requested Planning Commission consideration of 35,000 sq. ft. for 4 restaurant sites, including 2 restaurants on the upper level in combination with a 1 -2 acre public view park. The Planning Commission voted to recommend 25,000 sq. ft. total with no restaurant uses to be located on the upper level. A � -3- We believe the City's goal for view preservation, public access, and a new • view park can be accommodated in conjunction with our development,plans. Restaurant uses on the upper level of the site will'be located and designed so as to preserve the existing views of the bay. And we will construct a view park at our expanse. Permitting restaurant use on the upper level will permit a greater number of people to take advantage of the views being preserved. We request City consideration for a total of 35,000 sq. ft. which would permit 2 restaurants on the upper level and 2 restaurants on the lower level, including the proposed teen center. Affordable Housing Requirements The Planning Commission recommended that 30% of all dwelling units constructed be affordable to lower income households. We agree with the 30% criterion as being consistent with the guidelines in your Housing Element (Pages 156 -157). It was further recommended that the mix of affordable units be restricted to 66.7% "County Low Income" and 33.3% "City Very Low income" set at HUD "fair market" rents. We agree with this formula as it pertains to projects financed with government assisted Mortgage Revenue Bonds. Villa Point and Newporter North have bond financing commitments available. For projects which may need to be constructed through non - governmental assisted, conventional financing we believe a different formula for the mix of low and moderate income units is appropriate due to the significantly higher cost of conventional financing. Newport Village and Big Canyon /MacArthur would likely be financed through conventional means. The overall requirement would still be for 30% of all units constructed to be affordable. A suggested affordability mix for conventional financing is presented in the attachment, page 5. With respect to the term of affordability the Housing Element calls for a minimum of 10 years. All of our company's previous affordable housing obligations have been approved by the City at 10 years. The Planning Commission recommended a term of affordability of 20 years, irrespective of the type of financing available. We can accept a longer term of affordability -- up to 20 years -- provided that some provision can be built into the future development agreement which gives our company some relief from this requirement in the event that favorable financing is not available at the time of refinancing, usually 10 to 12 years from initial. construction. Some form of arbitration could apply in the event that interest rates or economic conditions have changed such that extending the term of affordability beyond the initial 10 to 12 year period would impose unreasonable economic hardship. It shelild be pointed out that the normal term of affordability required'by the County for a Mortgage Revenue Bond project is 1(' years. With respect to the '68 -unit Baywood Expansion project, which we voluntarily restricted to low and moderate income households since the • project opened 2 years ago, the Planning Commission recommended that the existing 29 uncommitted affordable units be restricted for 20 years, with 4) -4- our company not receiving affordable housing credit toward our requirement • in Newport Center. We believe that these Baywood affordable units should be credited toward our 30% requirement for residential projects under the General Plan Amendment. We are committed to working with the City to provide affordable housing consistent with the requirements of the Housing Element. These requirements need to be reasonable and feasible in the spirit of cooperation and public/ private partnership suggested in the Housing Element. In determining affordable housing requirements the City should also recognize the extraordinarily high development costs associated with a project like Newport Center in terms of off -site transportation improvements, park and open space requirements, and governmental fees. Phasing of Residential Development The Planning Commission recommended a very restrictive set of phasing conditions which require extensive residential construction prior to issuance of building permits for various office and commercial projects, other than Fashion Island . As a general comment we question the need for such restrictions in that it is our intent and desire to construct the residential units, including the affordable units, in an expeditious manner. Also, the development agreement can be structured to assure completion of the residential sites prior to completion of the office and commercial sites. • If the City Council feels that some form of residential phasing is needed', we would like to suggest an alternative to the Planning Commission proposal. We are agreeable to completing all necessary site planning and engineering studies, and filing applications for tentative tract maps for at least 400 units prior to•the issuance of occupancy permits for the Block 600 office development. And we will complete site planning and engineering studies and file applications for tentative tract maps for an additional 400 units prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the Block Boo office development. This phasing would allow us to complete the extensive site planning and governmental processing (including two projects needing Coastal Commission permits) in a more reasonable time frame in relation to the office projects. The office projects are generally outside the coastal zone and require less time for site planning and permit processing because basic infrastructure is already in place to serve them. Phasing of Transportation Improvements While we agree with the intent of the Planning Commission recommendation to achieve the earliest possible implementation of the major road improvements provided by the Newport Center plan, such a phasing plan must be realistic and permit a reasonable level of development to proceed in conjunction with such major infrastructure costs. We recognize the construction of Pelican Hill Road and the ultimate extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road will provide,significant traffic • relief to Coast Highway through Corona del Mar and to MacArthur Boulevard, and intend we to proceed as expeditiously as possible. q4 -5- With respect to the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill • Road, it was recommended that building permits not be issued for Block 800, Corporate Plaza West and Bayview Landing until start of construction of the San Joaquin Hills Road extension to Pelican Hill Road. Our company i-s committed to constructing this improvement at the earliest feasible time, subject to all necessary governmental approvals. 'However, we do not believe there is any traffic engineering basis for directly tying this improvement to any specific project in Newport Center. The development agreement can be worded to guarantee construction of this long term regional improvement prior to completion of Newport Center. More specific commments on transportation phasing are attached. Dedication of Westbay Site The Planning Commission's recommendation for dedication of the Westbay site does not seem justified as part of the Newport Center GPA. Issues regarding the ultimate use of the Westbay parcel should be resolved through future discussion with the City and County over the feasibility of establishing an Upper Bay Regional Park. The Newport Center plan incorporates significant public park, open space and landscaping amenities. Newport Center as a business center is unique in that it features an 18 -hole golf course as a permanent open space feature. There has been and will always be a major commitment to roadway landscaping and up- graded landscaped edge treatment throughout Newport • Center and on the peripheral sites. A major neighborhood park to serve both commercial and residential uses will be improved at the Newport Village site, plus there will be extensive view parks, public trails, and preservation of habitat areas and natural bluffs on the Bayview Landing and Newporter North sites. There is also an opportunity for creation of major landscaped parkway on the MacArthur Blvd. freeway reservation sites between San Joaquin Hills Road and Ford Road. Conclusion A summary of our comments regarding the Planning Commission's recommendations is attached. We greatly appreciate the substantial effort and thoughtful analysis devoted to this significant planning project by the Planning Commission, your staff, the City's environmental consultants, and the community. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, f Monica Florian Vice President Policy Management and Entitlement MF:lk Attachment I 11 En 00 a a W H z W U a 0 A4 • z z z Fi Q M z i U U W z H a H 0 o ro r4 to r4-) -'l r-I rr4 Na ropd `° ° "-10 44 c000t Id H rq 0 A'; W W 0 W -r4 , 0 O -r l W to 0 (1) 4) d.1N 0U W AU qN to 4) rl0H -ri O Ob' Nb a • ON W r-1 4 a1 0 W -rl N 'J( 0-P 0 O f•1 043 O O U W •rl i4,4 4 W W $4 N 'd "4 • N r4 W W W W >~A ON 4 rl 4 WO p N N 0 0 0 ,4 rt ri -.4 t` r4 rl rJ t~ O N O a N .V 0 CD to bt 0 N O N • X (d (d O H� ro •rl 0 U b to N N 14 +) N }� 00 q t~ M O .t� o .V Otd 'ro0 $4 -w Ora wco00 orl0 (d a)0 Hm 'mil 0 wro-Hv Olpri0l NMW � :O 0-rNl Ocn ri.1 o 34 go -rl 9 0 O 04-)430 N W 4J H N td '0 O -rl W 0 0 41 b -P 0 14 -r-i r4 O rl •rl p H 0 $4 v 4,4 t3l W go O 0 0 o r-I 4-)4-) W r4 ro N O NVV 4 • N O w» O CO N N Oro 10 Oro 10 I1 4 -ri w O H 00 . 41 4 q (u $4 -r l '.4 0 -r4 10 0 0 9'10 3 to to • ro .4 0 0.4 *rl r♦ 4 b 14 to N 4 W' o r4 •rl 0 4 0 : 0 0 43 tr) 4.1 ri O 4-) 0 0.'1 U +l 0 r-1 O r4 I(1 w ro 1!1 W to +4 1d 4 0 ?d ON '0 Id+10 +1x00 ro c U V w a o sa o r-I C4 b13 en ro w w D o •rl q ra; • o .rl •rl W 0 %•r4 0 N O r� M • O V - N 44 td C H r-I ro 14 w +1 00 U ro ro H ro 0 W43 -•4 0 W r4 (a ca 4 •r4 •ri y 0 >~ W 1.1 q O ri 4 •• N W 0 �V N O O'1 ar- l0)31{,43U ri 0q(1d Oed (d O0O w0 f: N•0W AW $4 -r�l 43 43 a N ro I a • . r4 ,-1 N O N -ri S! O +3 L 0 0 agmAky� ro0043 004 Nb0 O z N ri 410 0 10 0 N U 44 0 �¢� a' OH" O �V W q • O 4V id {! r. - 0 O td 1 R W � 0 m 4) 4s'1 rd m �e r� O O µ' 4 H W t0d a U A� 0 r-I k" ro 0 CO ri ro W O ro In 0 rC WH A N r-I 0 0 +� a1 0 -ri -ri z ld V 0 0 Ar O -r4 A, H -n 0 N N N U ro b r4 -A 4 r'+ 43 J H 0 41'tn 41 O b 4J• td A W ro 0 4 -r4 -rl 0 to O O r. -r-I O 4 N $4 O N •• go N O r-I 7 T! N tO, O to, E) D 13ro0a14 -A H E-1 - O0 (dV0. MW r-I bO•ri 0040<•". 0 U a r4 rn 0130 r4 rl 0 NUp r4.1 0a roro -H H 0 4.1 43 >~ 10 N t0 840 04 .V ••4 O ro 4 N, - a co 4 yo {J . Vr r-I N W •r4 a1 0 •rl t+ V' J� 'JY•rl 0 W +( LI N V N -r4 o N x rl U a w .V 3 0 1d M -rl !e H w U 4J 0 0 (� k3 4 rl t rl U O ri r4 •ri O +4 O o O to p A N N O Fi ro W W N V P4 04 N tr O D D rorl (d0 000.N r40W MW OHO r4ro4W V 0 0 A 'X r-I W $4 N +4 117 ro O U O O td td in C3 H -rl •rl W W (d O N I 0) r440g0 • ' dr W -H Q (a 'a A N to to 0 to r-I i 0 0 • q1 O U � 2 9: R U E3 is O O 'ri O -ri o 93 1 o b w -ri -r1 w 0 o ra 0 -ri ro P4 3a 'd N 43 w O ri 0 ra ti N 43090 w i¢ grltaro0 (a 3 O H �4,.° ro� -ri H �+ �'> 0r-I 0 O +i 0 U ILI ri 4Jli ob C) (a t 90)� w" 1 -w W o 0 H V ad -A In: 43 W 4Ni P4 N r-II rll Ln ra 4J X'H W aNi to b ya 0 rq p I� 4 N to m �ro -sir � N o rroi ro= roV'd 0x404! ra 0 0r1 7 ij H14 ON M4JtPV A OQ >a3t7'a3 'dN- H0M-ri Og NN p 0 0 N,gqf.w :3 044 0ra q O 43 0 H 0 W 00 ra 'd •rl 0 'd d •ri to U 0 = ro O •ri 0 0 •r1 43 t3l•r1 U 0 r. 'J -ri x •a 'd 3 N Z H N ri >a o U 0 b -ri 0= •rI N 0 A N N 0= r♦ $4 0 0 4 Oro sti r♦ k 'U ra x-1 $4 0 ro ri 0 a 0 ro ri O O ra ro *i 44 N 0 0 A 0 3 'd � »' w 0 -ri 0 w 0 -rl 0 +3 f0 - $3 V f0 $3 r I = g q 0'0 4J >~ NU3 >+ 0UF.1 - 44 rd ro0 -ri 0 -ri w0rtl 43 ro 0 ri 0 0= tT 0 D too 0 U b w ro a 0 0 43 -r-i M'ri.= r♦UIdtpArI Uv00%r dN.HVA 0�N -P =�roO t0d0ri vro O -M k 0 W U W N (j iC 3p -H •r1 0 a U 0 k 0 cq •ri ,13 • fV 0 $4 tT O 0 0 O •rl •-ri = ro •-�-I 0 N r I •r1 •r1 � -ri 'd 43 �7 is 'd = >~ P. N o ri 0 U p O P y� A A U U "A 0 U al -r1 34 W 3 �+ O i~ F+ �0 0 t 0 U O ro= 0 tnz •014'd 43 N -ri o NOOraw ro 0 3 i o a) 04)V0 •r-I AUOW 0 '.3 'd 0 R r-i N O •rl 0 to •rl 0 U U U O i 1 'd U .d ra -.i N a 9-RidW W v9rori -H 4J w ..'149414 ro :303o00 M-) }?Rf Uro p 10 rogtC4ro 0 r7�UgV0 40P4 o ^a N N t0 = 43 0 0 tT 0 G O to s • aJ ro = 0 0 +i 'd U r•1' -ri U H 0 43 .'fir •ri N H a) 0 >I 4j 0 o'd r-I d+r1 -r1 ri r-1,0 C a3 W •r1 43 ra %4.)44 H Rd H w . k 2 'w ro V ro O 0 •ri ",! 0 'ka" 0 H \ 0 '1 N -rl 0 0 H o -ri L'� is O N 0) 43 g 'rt t0 r1 o -H c rt V0 N U U+3 W$4 o A P 0 U ,QO •ri w ,d q aS 0 {3 = a td •rl t7t N'w z 0 ..a R •ri w 01 w w yD o 'Od a0 .04 r. a t(6 2 -'+ 16 aroi ?t O -:i %rol r 0 t+ -ri a0i o •w ri 00 ro 'd O N .{3 ro k m W H a3 U 43 N h li r-I b1 a3 r-1 w4) O C Os°a��Oa ANOa Old �br0/atr �sOt 4) q a= W U�- ='d 8440 z= awwo Atatatn9ON a1w_ p O M in `� o rn q1 n f >I ra w (d (1) '(d 4) ¢4 a) O ri ro3:3 -riww .VaVa ro(d •r4 ma) 4.3 0 4 0 tP- -V $4 3 N rt •ri ri A A fa >~ N 3 ro ar -r m �� ) a�aXa -Htna N O rI W 3.1 0 V0) •ri 0rora >i00 4JH wd3Ww4) (d 0 •-•+w r. dt,ii.) N000 AV U>i .V i.iN t. 19 a) o U r N�,qq� 0 $ro P4 (d -) o (a 43 a) A 0 M 0) OWa,o -AP40 a) ztr0m N M9N 304J0 AV003a WM +� ro 1J N 'd -r1 a1 , C O O¢, 0 Od0 > a) 'd 40.) -OA 3 ro 0M'd � ro ri+)d 0MP.a r♦road) ro x O roNroA Wro> 4) r-I W V 0 p m m 0 P Ak04.1 a) H O+) d.P O N r. r. -V 41 11 O N > A R V Q1 U vi U 0 44 .. 44 "4 (d r-I O N A 9 040 H droNrj �- �roN ro mriN >~D ai •r1 ri bi 09-4 04 0141 UO0 4 ri Id a! ro U riOA 14 m `mi .0 "A i • 4 rr-I ri O 9 0 Fi W -0 03owNaODr'dN9aNbmqO ON V cadO,d 0 q 00) 000c Z 0ORRA0 3i+gz 0.14aNI,(�m 0• of cU6E 3i N ro I N O a) -14 �V a) N N ro a) Id a) -H 0044 O Ts t~ -r1 W .0 0 0 0 0-H N U 04 a) P b a 4) U V V +) N +3 W 0 0> O ri W U -,1 A > N 0 1:4,0 a) R a (d •r1 -H 0� N r-I (a •,I q • +) ii a) -A p W co W N a) :3 •d = to O rq Op, N 4J V 0 w 4J 4J N 0'r-4 -1 N W V£ U3 a) ��p 0 V rr-i • &�+ N U U a) N r. 4V 3 . cd -N 0 a)Ororoa) •4.,1p a)O cd Q)- AroZ71Aro N•r1Nro ON W iJ .0 A/ O C a' O y U 0 W N -H -r V -P 004.3 pM z a •d a W >> NN bO mr r. 4) V rd4N ro A roic O N b O O 2 ~ •ri V 4 i a) O m W U a b) N a N a) b+3roA- i41 InNAA0V-ri9ro•a3 to 0 b+Qb °0p, ((aa NriN O� F'OF'nf Nkr..S(d f�'0)�N+UiO) -rq to m> r-I y�N 0 Co •°r♦r. �3PWWraUro 14a)> Afla)•rp1 -ri O NaWUOm sif A U V O+)roroO•ri0Or10'- 4"'"""OA � V= IXq�roN �yvR7H W.00 x,I a •�0 d r- I-H- P4l gnaaAU+r -10 ••k3>1 R3 +)C(dOa (a0 b� lii)1~a' >w0 70W AHW}� mO•Hrg1C�7 0 UO+mro�3HJINSH I Nroro4 -0 •ri0P'i•H•O= 14)4 $4 NO0,00 yOW g*rl.4'd-Vr1 • N0H Nc00) p,4 4) to O rd o •a) 3 'd 0 H H .[ 0 00� 0 • -V N � ' 3f�roAN0V 0i rI l Z 9 l � .0 0 Q C W •d . : N fd A W X A a U N a) o!}.. m N 09 o >4) of m bo mror+3a. z J �� 0�'4°0° �0 r(doOuHr�.;oa 4'O0O� �� aroHNgro �wN�o�?y� d ~ ri �oa { U0 a�wvi°�i ~ >ti 0�0 WV 0 00 A rjIm OJ0)Q �4V c� p 0m .Hp+)N Op E > N mA NOUb ~roN NA0 W�b U0 O 3-� 1f0 1000a7Ucd ; WrtW z9VONA0J � (d ri N `4 ri O ri r-i a ri 0 •Nr • 0 O ri W J� H 0 O W m U al N W' ��N G". tow 0 a) V > a�a) 'IZ0) FA 04 by m � rt TJ�A a>1 aaa�+ -° •° maroima •'1 O •� d 'a D� rl d s N U 04 M «OIg0W 410 m 041 M a••4 o V M Ir. uto alroWro 1 0 al V b O �I�b95 0 roU 9 > p H Ebro >mv •• #+jH U ro p +3 W $4 A•.IOd O ( �R F. N zaaw0a) 0oto.+�+ $4 •.4 +� 14 pO U •�•I 1 N +� 3 0t 11 rl A 14 a8 N 0 N rl ak V H 0 O W q d 0 O U' al a) y r-1 N O A 0 ?4 to b+HUO4) 0 •ri "4 43 V $4 W 'ri o 111 y0+) a) a � 0 ,iro toed ru t� V C (� O U ri rt 9> ro-0 to � ~ 0 W+I•tiA44 .H «•1 to m O W .0 r. a >4 •.4a,oror4 ci r4 > •• U >r a >r o �4ror-I ro4-) H yg(d 4+ r-I N r�I Aai �ONVN•U0 3 w� w+oi co al H ±4 U a) r di WN "A � NO W O �>1 g w� q +3 O A O $4o U P4 to ed 0 4-) a z •d ^•> rt .-1 O 0 N > N ed to a1 L1 W _Hed q rl ro m U roa :5&a)0r4 m t ila� Pq•1 N O A A O •n« t ro 0 0 to d "1 cd � 0 No+ ctoa •� �, >. N43 •d ro 3 >rororor.0+ �J» >OOx .V O 0 rt •'1 N ' M N ro w P49 10 a ro f3 U:3 .ed >���ro� rA ed o � N O 4-) idH 0 U H U 'i U a) r di WN "A � NO W O �>1 g w� q +3 O A O $4o U P4 to ed 0 4-) a m, m 0 a w r%{ a U • UU3d gg ,p (d W m01 P O o ' w w A 0) vro i 13 o w ag Hamra Hf" to U b CH�1 Ara U 0 0 to A r4 to t Oia g 0m d imt W # RI p 0 'd -M u wb 44 4) Aa):3 H kri .. -Pa mo . }1 U 7r *� U% 1-1 IS Cq 0 A�4)NU mm9: •H9 W •.i O 0) U a) W 0 rtOUA aA H ro U W d O A ? ro $4 r. M'1 3•N �HGr. 1ik b+ m Um ,� 3A 0 ro zb M rX4>FA • �' � I m H BHA 0% _ O N O H 14 -H -4 r4 •I 3 Q s w P" Um pAm3t HA r4 4rJ Vr-I 0b 0A H ro O 4) 4) H 0 row04)m Oro H $H9 O b4) •H � 4) 'A 941 0 0-HHH R3H O w mw 43 ri 0 3w U f� 0 H m•I.tll44 HA a 111 0P 0 H ro 4).d D. 0 ro H U ro (a -A ro k 4) •r1 .NHAO ++ O 0 0m 4) 4)k 0 to 04 z �0•-I o0ro omm 4) u p ��Hp3a C) 4)4-) i00 4J 4) A � 0 -) f3 U it w 44 m 3rod H � � (a UgqUroroo. - mroro •0 µ1 0 Ou 0Hzto � 4) IIdd•H (d V co AH O r. 3 r� 4) U4)U' Oro"✓ 'No 44 00[0 Oros rA HONk. A� 010 1000 O'm04)4) r,0r k 3o 9009 U •� Uilro 4) 0.,.1 b+ p de0ro 91 �1 N00 4) Uorop b 3 0d 0 0 Ix +14) MN 00 Hmm�.. -N0 .V V 0rir4)1 4) MO 4)ov + (d0 0 0 0 ,3 0 •• ro 0 4)b 11 H -I >~ ?�� W O N �A� tlL4)i 0 yro.�34)I�ap R40 •� o �•3W gg (� tTUb m"1 4) -V UU r. N �Z$o04•�• HH0M 0 m•H9N91 14 0 de de N d4)4)m ro0� O .0 tnm 0 0 H $d t- 0 O gz4VbH 00H M 4V -tW P4 Atll O O O 4) id ro0ro m -14UI VV Oro4) w IoM x (D 44 o rmi oa a�i m >'mH•,�i Cd %n"' Oro O m +1 4) A w H !� Vi. 4+ O •H m 0 U Nro rox� ro pp,WmEi 44 m a r 44 44 roa b ooro wro .0 0 a 0 0.009 900 H 10 f-4 >� tp-I row H o 000A ro p PHi fV 4 ro A b W a H nl H'OH MHO � 03o z a a) > UUU Op de 0 M M M M M Cl) M M M S1 O 0 r. 1•I 41 3-4 O C dp • m W °ro� 0H - amp -Hrl ri W Lo Z 9 OaU w02 Nd -O a D� p'0 ° r. � C Q 0 4.) ° 0 0 4t a 4,r r4 N ld IU N$4 0 a N H o O ANON 444 0A•01 +Nl (ro: 1°i r. 44 Wi.7a'i wo �411°i -ri W $4 W N r4 a ro�'�O rl O -ri N O O O a Id (d 0) H04a•I° ON�Ha =i 0 iANO0)ilN F:waW 0)a WUN N }1 •rl 'ri •rl j.'• •n f. - w -H rl N O Q) Il N O 9r N ri • N.y r3 �'V >~ W -ri 3 ri td W WO 0) r•1 -H A -P PM a D4 44 N 4-) ri l0 R1 9 ro W N al N 3 a N o "A q Im �+N Wq•rl I O NNW- -H(0k0 •ririg -H43 12i414 F-iW0 U rU P w •ri > .00 r. r.faa mro H w a U4Jro >~ N 0) -ri +1 0 t 14 a r.. C7' +1 W r. .0 A 4) A -P -rf m 0 44044 r. bl ri O )+ W F3 O •N +1 O N N -ri ri a -ri $4 O W k w -rl a "4 W U W ro �ri W 9r U v 3 0 43 •rl k W i-1 3 rq pr r a i j 312 o 44 �0 W o ro tPN44 N O r C+ ri m 0)W rit rt N$4 E 4Ow W W H NO W 0) aW b WNa WOwR 1aIdm a) Id d WN 044 fa b N NO 4 94 aI oa0710 >144H IT 1 t rt ?r r. 14 "J aP40 rl fd $4 w 00 zm 1 -94.0 0o CD O 0 0544 L'POU NH144 W0 W + f. W 0 N 044 ro m aNv O 411 44 >44•r In +(d W i43. 14 O A PW+� O CO au WA 0) m U r aN0 c a A V z 44 r. W •rl m U ri rtl ri a U td ro O A -ri N tr O O 04 P4 W +1 N'>~ U' 0.9 a N a 1-3 is ° O= ri a N W�4'a R 0 -ri, ro to +1 +1 12 13 0 �A� W ro + +W V o O WWIi A A ra Ih aP 'U O 01 Ul ao'� b >~ >1 W r W CH 14 •r l O 'W W > k 41 ri •ri a 4 rl V ld H a 0 a s W W •ri -ri (9 W 30 -r a V,� N W � H N O O A H 2' t 1 b+ W --A 4J .a[ N N '•C' •.rg1 001 0 .1-1 U W N 1 Q 4I N r�G12j1 S-I 1-4 0 i Cdd )� C+' 03 -P w 4) 4-) Va- 0C"�}W70" to 0 rld+l OW PWN 129 N N�P 0 t'" ld o a 44 O i, "4 --ri •�0 00 a V H 'J W -H .r• N ,W ,qq 0 NM 9 0 N -ri W e W .l•) W 44.9 Oro td ,7 ro W' rq 0 4J • ri W 0- W •'o P4 (d .i O U -rl -rl N 0) A 4i 4J x N p pp, td q U [O � 1d HA pW O U ri -r N O W PH�12 >04 Jfy-) ' C!~ N C O RU 1 aU w H ri m 9 W ax r~ a U li 44 R W •ri -H a 43 r4 4 qq° m 10 a -i W4J N 0) $43 wUo W 944 W4)a �'• .i •rl roWa+3 ro w 1 •ri 0 - rDW.40ri N R 4i aqs Id br RSa r� - H FI EmV a'ldN3ri to m ro r r. S a W a ri .r L i Io S1 • • `J 1 r4 ri ro •rl • 3m N -P 0 O m'�wa A roO m -A .F1'0 H0 ma 4 > V 9-) w ro 4) + w •�rlo N � ta 41 � �4) w +1 ro r♦ 0 0 9 0 00.)914) 3 10" A t�ad0$4 OAS 0 U •rl V 0 N A Wpprtk,, q4) ro H (d t.' W O WU 1�94 b w aj00 0 43 V 43 m0 a)abi 4) 0) Q m °i 0 0) . O a) w 0 . a rm i 43 0 mu 4) m N Im° n d •n•ri 0 m A H a •r 0O 04000 r-I P4 00 � a aa+� A 04 0 r. �b W O006t gA� M Nw 0044 w 41 m `0 a> ra xri�a�ri tp 4) U U $+ +H�old N W 04 0 tp 0410 O N roD•rq m 1>)ON H m 00 0A-}mj QA O•• m'� a w b a Ba ri O C7 fam q00 H A O "4 a 4) ro14 a omw w 0 M t~ ,t•1 m q l�u ro m 0 N 00 0V w M P, 0 0 w 0)r4Hrl °�aroi° UW ard0M 0-OOg o Ow m aa Q4-H +1 r4 to O ?e ri p O 0 03+1 °•a H U10H P $4 to °1 m 0 + 0443 00 O m D•�lq -'•1 t >-H q "0 kw4 R) N 10 El tr a � •rl m U U .tl N 43 tO O rl $4 pro maWbO 'd .44 af�a 14 rtr4 0Mm m \w °'A H NA a) o0A'd$4 .+ q U ra •rl rt ro P4 fa ra r E V aj00 Id m00 0 4.) ;*AA44 wA Amam 4) HOO r-I P4 44 A 04 0 r. �b W wA r♦ •rl •ri m 0 41 •rl m O 0 O U U $+ 40 m A N W o 0 434.) O •rl ro H m b O w N0 0A-}mj QA O•• W ro 'X0 0•-� U 00N0 O C7 fam q00 mA44N O •A m m Oa)O P 10 n4 A w O tt1 3 O ro +10044 •r4 a to O O %0 044 •rl m N U 00 b t7+ 0' k aAl .4 4 UU ro1~H i U riQ) q P —1 .0 ed O �°i � 0�•�' OwN00N pamAU d0rO4H0 Pa V UN 1 •rml 0 44 -H •C W U A I A V •rmi ,� t o R. N H IH.{ IH•1 0 w m ro ro w 0 a a N 3 ro N ro P4 co H U O. aris a � as 9 •rl m ro w 0 0 A ri a U w N m A -rl ri P4 is - ro � � O ri '-I U roU'H 000 0 0 4 N Qw •rl 0 0 00 +°J � � aro 0roO 44 N RS 30400! wwb H 5' • 0 • I 01 O U r1 wm O u -ri N �P4 00 D w °w �r H 0 co m � 91 All 9xA O V b ro 2 ro to to 0 0 ri W V m ci H O >0 w� 01b 40 b H 0 -Hro0 U a O RI . 0 GC H .° Cd k M +) 0 wN 0 9n W b 0044 °+ -° 1 a •m V c a -H r-I 91 V 90 N N 0 N 43 m -'I f: 0 qO b -r1 o rip 00 0) a� yw m3Ob 0 tp to -I -H E) • r4 ZP w .V A .14 0) 0b 9H1 HU9A'to 4 144t;AWW O 4.1V b °aia amgw0 I Oro V. Nd� 1414Oa MId0V eda0�V bV N8:0 b1 °rtm > O.0 am F°ICa0a au4ppoom m U 01 ?p4 *rr H"mm0�0y1 A,'01 0 m m a 4 0 fa 0 4g) $4 W N Id p UM, 14 id 0 44 0 r4 to mgar4V rf 04 NOto q a 0 -�i•4W ro go Q ,Aoa 0a°Hp° tTm U r-i -M M O "1 O A rI A"891 M a� H figg" 0°iimo �a'awv 9 a.H-� M a$ro C Z OrI .4 Q 0)a I a m W 8Hl r4) 0t4 OW R W r4 +m-I obm h V is O O g A 0 0 gq M00A44 0 01000 C14 14 1 aoo -m r1 .i% -7i1 ro a U ro too0N 'o 00 0 0 m U .�{qU ro N ro r-I P4 14 �i U ro 0 0 CO V O H m 0 �b `o $$4 a� •ro N .V k to R9 d N m -i-I 'Q 4' a �4.) r-4 U 0 x RN U 0 0' N 44 W� O Cdw °o U -rl 4400 a UW0 V' 0 0 U O H 0) ro roUO.r.", H- 00$4p� o -H 0 WU�W?.x 144t;AWW O 4.1V b °aia amgw0 I Oro V. Nd� 1414Oa MId0V eda0�V bV N8:0 b1 °rtm > O.0 am F°ICa0a au4ppoom m U 01 ?p4 *rr H"mm0�0y1 A,'01 0 m m a 4 0 fa 0 4g) $4 W N Id p UM, 14 id 0 44 0 r4 to mgar4V rf 04 NOto q a 0 -�i•4W ro go Q ,Aoa 0a°Hp° tTm U r-i -M M O "1 O A rI A"891 M a� H figg" 0°iimo �a'awv 9 a.H-� M a$ro C Z OrI .4 Q 0)a I a m W 8Hl r4) 0t4 OW R W r4 +m-I obm h V is O O g A 0 0 gq M00A44 0 01000 C14 14 1 aoo -m r1 .i% -7i1 ro a U ro too0N 'o 00 0 0 m U .�{qU ro N ro r-I P4 14 �i U ro 0 0 CO V O H m 0 �b `o $$4 a� •ro N .V k to R9 d N m -i-I 'Q 4' a �4.) r-4 U 0 x RN U 0 0' N 44 W� O Cdw °o U -rl 4400 a UW0 V' 0 0 U O H • n LJ 0 G I I 01 1 5� N 0) to 4J R f. NU 00 l R rq N 41 -H {.) -H 1-4 n N R hpd m �r >a aw q H M �af ► �iN cs + 0 o q No o&000 Ordo 0 •4 x'io3wCd •H$aai93art 44 0 0 0444 43 0 h P4 "-1 �NH tQV(D 0 (d $49 4+� O W r-1 a N N A 01 $4 r l li •n ro H 0 m m�N 4) X43 ON N 0 Naro N1i > bq U °r.H� O +rIUjITWC 0 pO }lT 4 6 W O t0 +Ni m N W ro w•rlUmrlN01 14 01 01 01 N •�+ � a�i aw r' o o .cml -A 0 8O o+ a, b+ b+ b+ Qz4- )mNOAatp H0$4 r-I 43 I q 0•i q d}� 31 Rf >4O 30� NUS 0 1 riro -,q H M N N a O O 3 41 �,-. at 0 29 (d b+ .. � Ar. ro �a 0r -fcuu 00 m m V0to •rl 00 Alan N0Ak ON °wHi Uto14 �N r1 l:.l�a to 10411M ar- ro w 0 k A o •rl 01 04 H r. a! N r•1 0O s# bUO01 >Nr♦ ri•ro04 w � 'imgO NS 4J OA0 A AN •w 0 R w 0410 R tTr O ro •-•H0 N A A •i k �O q •l V0 r V N O -r-1 - 10 3 • rl r4 0 �ul w V 0 k09044i o 22 0v� $°i ro w :a U W N 04 N O Id :. •.i A a) p a-r1 0 01 V b H ~ L W O at w ari > 0 Dr 0! w 0 0 k rd>~ °b ro o00w �0 8CO��-H .. Rgf��tn°N° N 14 01 14 q >~ 10 r-4 0 ro A N N +I H 0 W r7 q a r-1 .0 fa +l U r•1 O N a 0° d a N $4 ro � A ro -.i o �+ N A 14 :3) oi"ro a, b0 a) rd o tn•n+1 r poa -rr �Hr.-H 0 'NO >�41bx �" Y $4-H ���aa)iw � P40 H O � H O 43 1) +I ° :3 am 01 4J roU NNgN ro 0 +ib+ ro 01°2 r-1 +i�;Nq1i aw0 3 E� E a� 041 ttoo OA 0 a'a1U �. �2 O ri N A ap 5� { 0 0 • 1 O a. o, fd rl �� 0, 2p • o q 0 10 _rl r1:3 h�+433 01HfdU01 .aomr�z ,a a1Hoa°1 O > 10 U O mW C. 0 N W -H w a14r. ba ag1 x a1 a1 0 O 4J U 09 M V4Jr.09 U CO -H U U v (d V tTA N�aO+ .9H wowN -ri 01N rlbd H 01x1 ro� -roIAO3 o' > o+ o mm0 01 .. w .0 p, N 0'ro pfd r. .i (v $3 0M$40 4J 4. 0 U •ri 0 p d O 0 UWD01ro 4J 0 orl 0 O M A 14 0) ro - ANroi� H01L4qA ak O U 001 H-ri � U b 010 9: > O 441 V N • 0NI 0H1 P4 r. ri �O 01 b --ri Y N 043 H NH3x a14tra o0C"4-H 9:0V M .H ri ro h Q,4Higm C01'W O a' I V a�+ 0 U A 'd 0 0 1 a 01 r, a"l4 � �ro r'X 0 P A to 01 a�a rNl � 01 r♦ V to !� A V '4PP,414 -to W4 cd 90A r. 0 F_H 0 U C D4+ o 0 P4 44 Id H o r04 � .-.r01 V A ".N P4 0 W pw U 7 OW m0A 0 m Drop D.0 H to 0 o$4 a m rl 0 w 0 roV -A 0 $4> U rn "m >1 bah 0h . Ca iU 0 4J 00$444 A C01 TA 44 a °00 p OV O -4OHN O N4 A UH 3 Q' 01 'Q�NO Id U A 0 - A ed oU��3 U a! (d 0 0) V 44 $4 A O W X00+ W Oro 0 9MM4Jt .H H -AH 00Ot0 Vs .H 1~ ai N � 4 Wb wear 4w4J $4 H 43w N O H 0 rd 0 r-I a 04.) N d 00 N R4 O N $4 r O O H to � 4A r�l � b 91 r-I 3 N b 5,5, i 0 I a 1 d a to 0 10 0) N � N AHA O t3l 31 OI ,pQ q M44W4 r4 J gCYON mia04 ORB U R 04 O -rl 'Od b 4J M Do � +�� 4 N b q Z A4 A � iO co rH� A 9 U0)4J01 41Oi.. �Id 01"q 0 01 m14 4) ) 01 O) U --rl -H +3 r-4 m -H �S a a10 $ l9 $i m 0) N 43 i r. P O PH-I• � yUr 93 :3 +1 .H-1 >10 W 0O.�+14 009 �p r4N rHi 2240O9 9 N r - i $4Z0N�H01 +im 00)0 W 004) "q 10 W10 tylro 'd 0 0 A. 00 9 44" Id r4 $4 A.1 ++OHi �� ri m w V a N m H•rl o. W rtH R W CO O b Tl moa wwar.D4ma ° 9ama $4P Ca .Mud V� p,0rlrl 0r-0 Oi PA g m P o x'� -P >aW 040 oo-H U '.q C'. 01 0 Ord � H r m9 00 PADraA -HA "4 d � 0 0� a r, 0 r. "1 4) �+ A H Q Fj 01 '> P ri O ',! 3 � r-I 0lrl>~a �HN }�AH 0)N HHNyA 04ri 0R 0(d HW t PARK AND STREET TREE DIVISION JUNE, 1986 PROGRESS REPORT Item No. 14 Our Park Crews performed the following tasks in addition to normal maintenance during the month of June: Relandscaped at the Theatre Arts Center. Removed broken play equipment at Las Arenas. Poured concrete sidewalk at Irvine Terrace Park. Picked up and'returned barricades, tables, chairs, etc. for Corona del Mar 5K Run. Moved six bleachers from CYC, Eastbluff and Lincoln; took to Buffalo Hills Park and returned. Installed drains, mower strips, new sod and R.R. tie planters at Mariners Library. • Our Street Tree Division performed the following: Trimmed 555 trees. 0 Planted 27 trees. Removed 12 trees. Root pruned 29 trees. Completed 15 work requests. Areas being trimmed this month are Shorecliff, The Groves- Westcl'iff, and Balboa Peninsula - Planting. '30 lwwwam