Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/11/1988COMMISSIONERS • Gay goy CC 9yo SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * All of the Commissioners were present. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, City Attorney Robert P. Lenard, Advance Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Principal Planner Chris Gustin, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the Agenda James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August 5, 1988, in front of City Hall. A. ''General Plan Amendment 87 -1(A) and (E) Item No.l These amendments involve major revisions to the Land Use GPA 87 -1 and Circulation Elements of the Newport Beach General (A) & (E) Plan. The proposed revisions to the Land Use Element involve establishment of various densities and LCP 13 intensities of development citywide. The revisions to the Circulation Element include modifications to the Rec. & Open City's adopted Master Plan of Arterial Highways as well Space as a reevaluation of the necessary roadway improvements Element & and funding sources available to the City of Newport Housing Beach, Element AND -1- COMMISSIONERS • ymG��9�N0y�`` 9� August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 13 Adjourned to Amendments to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to 8 -18 -88 conform its provisions with respect to permitted land uses to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. AND C Minor revisions to the Recreation and Open Space Element and Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan in order to ensure consistency with the Land Use Element. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Chairman Pershn summarized the hearing schedule for the General Plan program during the upcoming Special Planning Commission Meetings. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the General Plan Update Program began with data collection to develop a Traffic Model in order to assess the traffic impact of varying development scenarios within the City. He commented that citizen participation began with the Mayor's Community Outreach program meetings which were held between January and April of 1988. He said that the programs provided input into the planning process by identifying issues and concerns that are apparent throughout the community, culminating in the proposals contained in the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. Mr. Lenard explained that the meetings were attended by Homeowner's Associations, various community and business organizations, and members of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Mr. Lenard referred to the numerous technical documents and studies that have been made available to the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the public. He commented that the Growth Projections report includes each of the commercial and residential areas of the City, shows projected growth under different development scenarios between now and 2010, which is the time period for which the draft General Plan has been developed. He said that the Traffic Validation Report discusses the Traffic Model and the ability to forecast traffic; by • means of comparing the measured traffic on the streets to the output of the traffic model to validate that the model was operating successfully, for future planning -2- COMMISSIONERS 0 August 11, 1998 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX purposes. Mr. Lenard stated that the Traffic Report, draft Land Use and Circulation Elements are available and the Environmental Impact Report will be completed soon. Mr. Lenard commented that staff has prepared the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and the proposed Land Use Map exhibits. Mr. Lenard stated that the Land Use and Circulation Elements provide reasonable and equitable standards for future development within the City and provide an adequate transportation system which can accommodate both existing and future traffic generated by those uses. He said that staff attempted to balance the sometimes competing interests of property owners, residents, and commercial business people in the community. Mr. Lenard commented that the primary focus was to balance the land use and circulation systems so as to provide a desirable "quality of life ". Mr. Lenard referred to the Land Use Element, and the recommendation by staff to change the residential density classification system. He stated that the existing density system for four residential categories: low density, medium density, multi - family, and two - family residential which provided low, medium, and multi - family density ranges - less then four units per acre, four to ten units per acre, and above ten units per acre. Mr. Lenard explained that the system has been replaced with a Land Use Map designation system that uses product -type as a means of depicting future land uses on the map, consisting of four categories: single - family detached which includes typical single family subdivision with conventional setbacks constructed on a single sub - divided lot with one dwelling unit allowed per lot; the single - family designation attached indicates attached housing including .both townhomes where there is a zero lot line and condominium structures with an over and under living arrangement; the two - family designation allows duplexes or projects with two dwelling units on a single lot, either single ownership or condominium ownership. In reference to density, Mr. Lenard commented that the Plan establishes for single family areas, a minimum lot area standard for future subdivisions, so instead of an area designated for four or ten dwelling units per acre, the draft • General Plan states that if there are future subdivisions to be allowed in an area, that they be allowed a lot area minimum of 7,000 square feet, 5,000 -3- COMMISSIONERS y�99�o�9 Z August 11, 1988 y y`` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX square feet, or 5,000 square feet (for example). The minimum land area standards for actual dwelling unit counts are established in the Land Use Element for parcels designated for two - family, single family attached, and multi - family residential, so that in those areas of the City there will be a standard that will state the number of square feet of land area required for each dwelling unit to control the density on the multi- family lots. Mr. Lenard stated that the Subdivision standards in each area of the City and the density standards of multiple family designated areas are based on a definition of buildable lot area. Buildable lot area excludes slope areas greater than two to one. Therefore, if the area standard for subdivision is 7,000 square feet, each lot would have to be 7,000 square feet of area not including slope areas greater than two to one. Similarly if there is a hillside multi - family designated parcel that allowed one dwelling unit for each 1,200 square feet of • land area, the 1,200 square feet of land area would have to be applied to the portion of the lot that is not two to one slope. The subdivision standard that is contained in the Land Use Element for most of the current single - family areas of the City states that no further subdivision will be allowed which creates additional dwelling units. Therefore, subdivisions would be limited to lot line adjustments. In reference to townhome and condominium developments, the draft General Plan fixes the number of dwelling units typically at existing densities. Therefore, many of the areas that are designated single family attached will have a fixed number of dwelling units established for each of the lots inasmuch as the chances of redevelopment of those parcels, because of the split ownership, is very unlikely. In the two - family areas, Mr,. Lenard stated that the City has established a density standard for dwelling units, and staff has suggested a 1,200 square foot standard of land area per dwelling unit. He said that currently the R -2 standard uses 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit. In the multi - family areas the density standards in the draft General Plan vary depending on the existing development, and the surrounding development patterns. The range of • densities in the multi - family areas is from one unit per 1,200 square feet up to one unit per 3,000 square feet, with 3,000 square feet being the lower density standard. Mr. Lenard explained that because of the 1,200 square -4- COMMISSIONERS . NINO � August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX foot standards, any area which is currently subdivided into lots that are less than 3,600 square feet per lot, have been changed to two - family from multi - family in the draft General Plan. Mr. Lenard commented that this affects approximately 32 blocks of the Balboa Peninsula in the proposed change. The areas that have subdivided lots that are less than 2,400 square feet, using the 1,200 square foot standard, have been changed to single - family which would affect approximately 62 blocks on the Balboa Peninsula. In reference to commercial proposals, Mr. Lenard stated that to establish commercial floor area ratios, the concept of including parking structures that are above grade, or any above grade covered parking in the floor area ratio was an attempt to address building bulk in the commercial areas of the City. He stated that the floor area ratio for an area was established in the General Plan, and that any building and any parking structure would be counted against the floor area ratio; . however, subterranean parking would not be included. Mr. Lenard commented that the standard has been applied in the General Plan citywide with the exception of the airport area, north of Bristol Street, including Newport Place, Koll Center, the Campus Drive strip, and Newport Center where there are different height limits. In reference to older commercial areas of the City, Mr. Lenard stated that staff is suggesting that 0.5 floor area ratio be established, including Mariner's Mile, Newport Boulevard, Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and the Central Balboa area. He said that Corona del Mar and Central Balboa have traditional C -1 zoning, and floor area ratios of two times the buildable area; Mariner's Mile has 0.5 floor area ratio with the ability to go to 1.0 floor area ratio; and Cannery Village /McFadden Square Area has a 1.0 floor area ratio for commercial development. He stated that one concept that has been extended into some commercial areas is the mixed use residential in addition to the commercial floor area ratio. In reference to the areas in the draft General Plan, where Mixed Use Residential is allowed, Mr. Lenard stated that those projects would be allowed combined commercial and • residential intensity of a 1.25 FAR. Mr. Lenard stated that in the neighborhood shopping centers of Newport Hills, Harbor View, Eastbluff, Westcliff Plaza, Superior/West Coast Highway, and Bayside Shopping -5- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT August 11, 1988 BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Center, that staff has suggested a floor area ratio of 0.3 FAR which reflects existing development in the shopping centers citywide. In the Newport Place Planned Community, and Koll Center Planned Community, staff has established General Plan limits that correspond with the existing zoning limits, so in those areas there is an uneven distribution of floor area ratios; however, the overall intensities of .52 FAR for Koll Center and .47 FAR for Newport Place, are similar to the older areas where 0.5 FAR has been recommended. Newport Center's floor area ratio's vary block by block, but the overall floor area ratio is around .44 FAR under the proposed plan. One change that staff has recommended within Newport Center is the Newport Village site, where staff has suggested that the use be changed from "residential" as allowed under the existing General Plan to "garden office" use and also accommodating 100,000 square foot request of the Newport Harbor Art Museum plus the four acre park that has already been designated in the existing General Plan. He stated that an additional . change is the vacant sites across from Irvine Terrace, where staff has suggested that the area be developed with residential at about 10 units per acre. The Jamboree Road /East Coast Highway site, the Villa Point Apartment site, and Corporate Plaza West sites are shown for residential in the proposed plan. Mr. Lenard referred to the Circulation Element, and he stated that it relates to all of the elements to complete the Master Plan of Streets and Highways between now and buildout of the transportation system. He stated that areas where staff has proposed changes to the General Plan have been designated in the Circulation Element exhibit, including a section of Jamboree Road, from Ford Road up to Bristol Corridor, that is proposed to be changed to an eight lane facility from the existing six lanes; West Coast Highway across the Upper Bay Bridge, between Dover Drive and Jamboree Road would be increased to eight lanes, Irvine Avenue in the vicinity of the Airport between University Drive and Bristol Street would be changed to six lanes; and Campus Drive north from Bristol Street to MacArthur Boulevard would be changed to six lanes. He explained that the changes would conform with the County of Orange's Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the current airport planning. In reference to Mesa Drive /Birch Street, he stated that said streets would provide ingress and egress to the large amount of future office development -6- COMMISSIONERS August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I J i l l I I INDEX 0 C that is allowed in the Santa Ana Heights area, and to provide a secondary means of proceeding north across Bristol Street. Mr. Lenard stated that the intersection of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road will require special attention in the future, and staff has suggested that there may be a need for a grade separated, east bound left turn, under East Coast Highway. In reference to the Traffic Study .Report, he stated that staff conducted special studies that looked at alternatives for West Coast Highway in Mariner's Mile, specifically to keep the highway constrained to the existing configuration of five lanes, and not making intersection improvements that have been suggested which is a double left turn lane off of West Coast Highway up Riverside Avenue. He said that the studies indicated a diversion of traffic up to Cliff Drive and through the residential portions of Newport Heights, and for that reason and the general need for the overall transportation system, staff has suggested that the links in the system remain in the Master Plan at six lanes through the Mariner's Mile area. He stated that there are two links to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor that have been under discussion including the possibility of deleting the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road between Pelican Hill Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and also to eliminate the interchange at Ford Road with the Corridor so Ford Road would be a street that would cross but provide no access on or off the Corridor. The Traffic Study analyzes all combinations of eliminating one or both of the links from the System, and concluded that the amount of traffic that would be added to the roadways that would potentially impact residential areas was minimal, and the deletion of the two facilities would add a significant amount of traffic to MacArthur Boulevard and would cause problems at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue; therefore, the negative impacts of deleting them seemed more severe than those of making the connections. Staff has recommended that the foregoing links to the transportation system remain in the City's draft General Plan. Mr. Lenard stated that staff has rewritten the implementation section of the Circulation Element of the Master Plan. He stated that the traffic report illustrates that the improvements made to the transportation system with the land uses permitted by the subject proposal, that the System does work in 2010; -7- COMMISSIONERS • -0y A 0 CC 9y0 August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX however, in the interim, the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance serves as a monitoring device to make certain that the development and circulation system and the infrastructure construction occur at a timely fashion. Staff is suggesting that the Fair Share Fee Program be expanded to include not only roadway linkage improvements, but the cost of all of the intersection improvements that staff has forecast to be needed in 2010. Mr. Lenard stated that the proposed intersection improvements are a 1988 look at 2010, and that the actual ultimate configurations of the intersections will be studied in more detail when staff is looking at development proposals and plans for the construction of those facilities. The purpose of the forecast is primarily to see if it can ultimately be fixed, and to estimate the cost to build those improvements so that staff. can develop a funding mechanism to pay for said improvements, which would be a combination of a Fair • Share Program and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Chairman Pers6n stated that the State Law requires that the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Circulation Element be updated periodically, and that they be correlated. Mr. Lenard stated that 2010 is used throughout the SCAG region as a forecast for buildout in Orange County so as to predict and forecast to that year so as to allow a compatibility of date. Chairman Pers6n concluded that the 2010 projection is used as a build - out date upon which to assume every allowable square foot of land in Orange County is built on, every link of roadway system is in place, the maximum population, and the maximum growth in the County of Orange, according to current General Plans. Mr. Lenard explained that the State Law requires that the City's General Plan, Land Use Element, and Circulation Element be correlated , in that the circulation system that is in the City's Master Plan needs to be designed to accommodate both the existing and future development as allowed by the Land Use Element. He said that in developing the proposals, a compelling criteria that staff has used is to be certain that the circulation system and land use system are correlated. During the outreach programs there was discussion of communities adopting their own standards • of circulation system performance. The criteria in this case, is one that essentially corresponds with the existing Traffic Phasing Ordinance criteria in terms of -8- COMMISSIONERS �. �G�y��NOy�CC 9yQ9� August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX desirable level of service. He explained that the circulation system accommodates the land use system using the same criteria that the community has used during the past few years for acceptability. In response to questions posed by Chairman Person concerning the inclusion of University Drive in the Circulation Element of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, Mr. Lenard explained that University Drive has not been deleted from the Master Plan inasmuch as the Master Plan must be consistent with the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways for funding purposes, that there is no intent to construct the roadway, and that the County is in the process of preparing an Environmental Document that will ultimately remove the roadway from the County Master Plan, after which the City will also remove the roadway from the City's Master Plan. Mr. Lenard pointed out that all traffic studies • prepared for the General Plan review assume the deletion of University Drive. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the residential growth projection and commercial development at buildout, and he asked how many people are in the City during a business day occupying the commercial space? Mr. Lenard replied that staff will provide the standards per type of business use that are contained in the Housing Element at a future Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the summer week -end traffic and he asked if the visitor traffic has been calculated into a report. Mr. Lenard replied that the City's traffic forecasting in terms of a traffic model and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is based on winter, week -day traffic which is when there is the most impact on a City -wide basis and when more intersections fail. Chairman Person and Commissioner Pomeroy discussed the amount of beach parking that is available to the visitors, and the constraints that the lack of parking has on the tourist traffic. In response to questions by Commissioner Debay regarding the funding of work on Coast Highway, Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that most of the projects done on Coast Highway have been City funded, or funded partially • by the City and the Federal Government. He said that the first project that the City will receive any State Funds from is the widening of Coast Highway from -9- COMMISSIONERS O� , C� yBG� �o�yc 90 August 11, 1988 ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX MacArthur. Boulevard to the Santa Ana River. Mr. Webb confirmed that the proposed Coast Highway improvements from Dover Drive to Jamboree Road includes the widening of the Upper Bay Bridge and a bike trail. Commissioner Di Sano addressed the bulk of "village type" atmospheres. He referred specifically to the Balboa Peninsula and Balboa Island, and he asked if there is a planning method that could be used to allow for charter boat and marine use "off premise" parking. Mr. Lenard commented that the older commercial areas have significant parking problems, and that staff has attempted to address the issues in the development of the Specific Area Plans. In reference to Balboa Island and Balboa Peninsula, he explained that there is a shortage of parking because of the abundance of beach visitors and existing businesses that are nonconforming inasmuch as they were constructed prior to the time that the City had parking requirements, and that the influx . of the charter boat business has been an additional demand on the parking supply. Mr. Lenard commented that the City has conducted studies relating to the possibility of off -site parking and support service to Balboa Peninsula to accommodate either beach users or employees of the businesses in the older beach areas, and that the results of the studies have generally been that the type of approach only did work to the extent that the parking was limited on the Peninsula or vehicle traffic was prohibited from circulating on the Peninsula. In reference to the method of designating the number of residential dwelling units per acre, Chairman Pers6n referred to the old Land Use Map and he pointed out that Lido Isle is designated as four units per acre, and he asked what is Lido Isle currently developed at? Mr. Lenard replied that it is developed at between 10 to 12 dwelling units per acre. Chairman Pers6n referred to the proposed Land Use, and that Lido Isle will remain at single family detached homes with no additional subdivisions allowed. Mr. Lenard explained that there is still a substantial amount of residential growth projected on Lido Isle, inasmuch as the existing ownership patterns on Lido Isle do not bear a one to one relationship to the subdivided lots. He said that the • majority of the units have been developed on one lot and a portion of another lot, or a portion of two lots. Chairman Pers6n stated that the existing subdivisions -10- COMMISSIONERS August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX would dictate the allowable density in the City, with the exception of a new subdivision where there are minimum lot sizes established by the General Plan. Mr. Lenard commented that in most areas of the City no subdivision would be allowed which would result in an increase in the number of dwelling units. In response to a scenario described by Chairman Pers6n, James Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that if a property owner had three lots side by side, one structure was built over the lots, the structure could be removed, and then the property could be developed to whatever the General Plan and the zoning regulations would allow on each one of the previous existing lots. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pers6n regarding the Outreach Program on the Balboa Peninsula, Mr. Lenard replied that the future growth has been discussed with property owners in Central Balboa, Cannery Village /McFadden Square area, where there has been concern regarding the 0.5 FAR, and staff has received suggestions that the standards that were adopted in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area would be more appropriate for the entire Balboa Peninsula area that would include Central Balboa, Cannery Village /McFadden Square, the area around City Hall, and Lido Village, at a floor area ratio of 1.0. For comparative purposes, under the proposed General Plan, there is about an additional 450,000 square feet of development allowed under the proposed Plan at the 0.5 FAR in those areas, and in comparison the allowable growth of 1.0 FAR. would be approximately 2 million square feet. Chairman Pers6n concluded that at 1.0 FAR an additional "Fashion Island" could be developed on the Peninsula. Mr. Lenard commented that to develop the floor area ratios with the community, staff is moving cautiously to change the development standards so soon after the changes have been made by the Planning Commission and the City Council; however, the traffic on Newport Boulevard in the City Hall area is forecasting about 50,000 trips per day to over 70,000 under the 0.5 FAR scenario. Staff has not conducted a traffic run that would contemplate the 2 to 2.5 million square feet at a 1.0 FAR density. Mr. Lenard explained that areas on Balboa Peninsula would allow a mixed use of residential • in addition to commercial uses. -11- COMMISSIONERS August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In reference to the multi - family R -2 residential on the Balboa Peninsula, Chairman Pers6n asked how many lots are involved that are less than 2,400 square feet. Mr. Lenard replied that there are about 800 lots less than 2,400 square feet on the Balboa Peninsula, and there are about 200 lots that are less than 2,000 square feet, so that under the existing R -2 zoning applied to those lots, the property owners would only be allowed to construct single family dwellings, and 50 percent of the remaining 600 lots are 2,375 square feet. Chairman Pers6n asked if the Coastal Commission had a criteria of 2,400 square feet for duplex development? Mr. Lenard affirmatively agreed; however, there have been instances that the Coastal Commission, against the recommendation of the Coastal staff, has approved duplexes in the City on some of the smaller lots. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the foregoing data and he asked how many of the 600 lots currently have duplex units? Mr. Lenard stated that staff only has data on R- 3 and R -4 areas; however, he commented that if duplexes are existing then the units are nonconforming in respect to the existing zoning and probably nonconforming in respect to parking. The criteria used by staff to make the recommendation was to observe the underlying subdivision and what could be done in the future. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n regarding the R -4 Multi - family Residential District, specifically the Balboa Peninsula, Mr. Lenard explained that the City's two Multi- family Zoning Districts consists of R -4 and R -3 Districts. The R -4 District is the more permissive of the two standards in that it allows one unit per 800 square feet of land area compared to one unit per 1,200 square feet of land area which is in the R -3 District. The other difference between the two Districts is that the R -4 District allows commercial uses such as hotels and motels. Staff would suggest as a follow -up to the General Plan Update to eliminate the R -4 District in favor of a single R -3 District which would consist of a residential district that does not allow commercial uses. In the remaining areas of the City, staff is suggesting that areas be moved to the R -3 District, and then staff would establish a parenthetical density designation which is • already enabled in the existing Zoning Code so there would be an R -3 (1,200 square feet) for areas designated. Mr. Lenard referred to the West Newport -12- COMMISSIONERS • ymG -\0* August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX triangle area where all of the areas designated R -3 are R -3 (2,178 square feet) which means that a property owner needs 2,178 square feet of land per dwelling unit, which corresponds to 20 dwelling units per acre. He suggested that other Multi- family areas of the City where there are small condominium projects, staff has suggested a standard which corresponds to the existing development, with no growth forecasted. In multi - family apartment areas, standards have been suggested which are close to densities of that particular complex or that are in the area, between 1,200 square feet and 2,178 square feet. Commissioner Di Sano asked if the draft General Plan is approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council as staff has proposed, would the Circulation Element and the Land Use Element allow for development of commercial or would the .9 intersections be so restricted that the project could not be developed? Mr. Lenard replied that • there would be periods in time when in certain areas developers would be unable to go forward with specific development proposals; however, he said that ultimately with the completion of the Master Plan the gridlock in the system would be minimized upon completion of various roadway systems. In reference to the R -2 District Multi - family designation on Balboa Peninsula, Mr. Lenard explained that the R -4 District standards are the most permissive Multi - family zoning, permits some commercial uses, that staff has suggested that said District be eliminated and all of the multi - family areas be shown as R -3, the R -3 Zone would have a 1,200 square feet of land area per dwelling unit, so for the property owners who would be affected by the change from R -4 to R -3, they would merely be changing from a 800 square foot standard to 1,200 square foot standard. The R -2 District currently allows one dwelling unit per each 1,000 square feet of land area, that the standard be changed to one unit per 1,200 square feet, so that the density factor would be the same in both the future two - family R -2 and Multi- family R -3 designations. The difference between the two zones is two General Plan Designations: that in the two family areas, zoned R -2, a property owner would need 1,200 square feet of land area for duplexes, but would be limited to two dwelling units; whereas, in the R -3 area, a lot that is greater than 3,600 square feet, a property owner would be permitted to build three units -13- COMMISSIONERS q q � G u0+ 9�o�yff O August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX under the Multi- family designation. The proposed General Plan designations are based on the typical lot sizes. Staff is suggesting that areas where the existing subdivision allows more than two units remain designated for Multi- family. The lots that are less then 3,600 square feet and greater then 2,400 square feet should remain as two- family designation, and less then 2,400 square feet, staff is suggesting a change to single - family. Mr. Hewicker explained that the height limitation in the R -2 Zone would be 24/28 Height Limitation, and the R -3 Zone has a higher height limit dividing between the front and the rear of the lot. Chairman Pers6n concluded that property owners currently building single family dwellings who own R -3 zoned property who are building three stories, are building under the R -3 Height Limitation rather than under the normal single family dwelling height limit, so the change would bring the normal single family dwelling in conformance throughout the City. Mr. Hewicker explained that a property owner can construct a single family dwelling on a R -2 or R -3 lot, but on a R -3 lot the property owner could build to a higher height limit. In reference to Multi - family designation from R -4 to R -3 (1,200 square feet), Commissioner Winburn asked if there is a plan for that on the Balboa Peninsula? Mr. Lenard replied that there is no proposal in terms of a zone change at this time, but for the parcels that are being changed from multi - family residential under the General Plan, the Multi- family designation does not allow for some of the commercial uses that are permitted by the R- 4 District so that in the process of implementing the General Plan and suggesting follow -up changes to the Zoning Code, staff would suggest that the combination of the R -3 and R -4 District, to take said properties that are zoned R -4 that will be shown in the General Plan as Multi- family and changing them to R -3 which would not include the commercial uses. Commissioner Di Sano referred to the 2,375 square feet as stated by staff, and he asked if there is redress on the part of a property owner? Robert Burnham, City Attorney, replied that there is not if action is being • taken under the General Plan; however, if there would be more specific action at a later date that would deprive the property owner of all substantial use of the -14- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT August 11, 1988 BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX property the individual property owner may have the right to sue the City. Mr. Burnham commented that there could be a possible reduction in market value but not to the extent that there would be no economic worth to the property. Commissioner Pomeroy asked if a property owner had a concern that the draft General Plan would have a negative impact to his property, how much time would he have to submit a resubdivision, or would he be able to do that before the General Plan took affect? Mr. Burnham replied to the negative, and he explained that if an application for a subdivision would be submitted now that the City could apply subsequent revisions to the General Plan to that particular subdivision because the amendment is in the process, and the City could retroactively apply provisions to the General Plan as amended. • Commissioner Debay referred to the 25 x 95 size lots, and she asked if the Planning Commission moved the 2,400 square feet down to 2,375 square feet, what would be the next large number size lot? Mr. Lenard replied that the next distribution of lot size is 2,100 square feet to 2,200 square feet; however, the lots are shallow. Chairman Person asked if it is the opinion of staff that the proposed changes in the floor area ratios, specifically the Balboa Peninsula south of West Coast Highway with the exclusion of Mariner's Mile and Corona del Mar, would permit the elimination of nonconforming parking over a period of time and also encourage redevelopment of older parcels? Mr. Lenard replied that in reference to the nonconforming parking, that the General Plan review and the density or intensity limits contemplated do not address all of the issues that need to be tended to in the older areas of the City. He said that the changes address growth, commercial growth, and traffic in the area; however, the issue of redevelopment in said areas and what to do to encourage redevelopment is more complicated because of the nonconforming parking. He said that the floor area ratios established, whether they remain the same or they changed to the 0.5 FAR as suggested by staff, the properties already developed with higher floor area • ratios will continue to be unlikely candidates for redevelopment because of the parking nonconformity and the high cost of developing at the high floor area ratio -15- COMMISSIONERS CALL MINUTES August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX due to the need for structured parking. Mr. Lenard commented that staff has attempted to address concerns through the Specific Area Plans to provide additional parking in some areas, and to provide infrastructure in terms of streets and sidewalk improvements so as to boost and encourage redevelopment. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:47 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Chairman Pers6n stated that at the Special Planning Commission Meeting on August 18, 1988, the Planning Commission will address the Multi - family residential sites throughout the City, and the reduction of Floor Area Ratios in the older sections of the City, namely Old Corona del Mar, Mariner's Mile, Cannery Village /McFadden Square, and Central Balboa. Motion was Motion * made and voted on to approve the August 18, 1988, 16 Ayes Special Planning Commission Agenda, as stated. MOTION CARRIED. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. -16- Mr. Bill Schonlau, 408 East Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schonlau, addressed the projected increase in traffic on Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard from 50,000 to 70,000 trips per day, and he asked when the additional 20,000 trips would occur during the week? Mr. Lenard explained that the traffic projection of an increase of 20,000 trips on Newport Boulevard is a total daily volume in both directions on a winter weekday. He explained that the 70,000 trips at the intersections can function adequately because said trips are spread evenly throughout the day. Mr. Schonlau asked . if there is any information available that would indicate the number of structures, or percentage of structures, that are developed over 0.5 FAR in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square /Central Balboa areas, if there is a way to determine the percentage of said structures that are over 0.5 FAR, and what age are the structures. Mr. Lenard explained that 55 percent of the commercial lots in the areas are less than 0.5 FAR, about 25 percent of • the lots are between 0.5 FAR and 1.0 FAR, and another 20' percent of the lots are above 1.0 FAR. Mr. Lenard further explained that the majority of the lots that are clearly over 1.0 FAR are at least 20 years old, with -16- COMMISSIONERS �- • 9y �ZCC C. August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX nonconforming parking, and a large portion of the lots between 0.5 FAR and 1.0 FAR are also nonconforming. The buildings that are greater than 0.5 FAR that meet current standards are new projects that have structured parking. Mr. Bill Wren, representing the Balboa Peninsula Point Association, appeared before the Planning Commission, Mr. Wren addressed the Traffic Study, and he stated that the Peninsula does not fit into the regional mold as far as an analysis is concerned inasmuch as the peak hour average daily trips, and intersection capacities are projected to land use factors that are based upon different types of land use. He stated that the Peninsula residents consider themselves unique; that the Peninsula is a four mile cul -de -sac; Balboa Boulevard is a single street that serves the beaches; that design characteristics of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard are not adequate to handle the 27,000 daily • trips, notwithstanding the 35,000 daily trips that are anticipated in the future with the land use classifications as depicted; that in 2010 there will be more automobiles on Balboa Peninsula then there is projected for East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar however the speed limit and the parking will remain as they currently exist; and that the roadway does not meet the criteria of a Primary Highway. Mr. Wren emphasized that the beach traffic was not considered in the.Traffic Study; that during the summer months there is an average of 60,000 automobiles per day; that emergency vehicles cannot serve the Peninsula; and that a separate study is needed to determine the ultimate land uses, not the land uses to determine what the traffic will be, and then how the traffic problem can be solved. Chairman Pers6n commented that the draft General Plan addresses the reduction of allowable floor area ratio that includes an allowable buildable area in the commercial area, and a reduction in the residential areas. Mr. Wren stated that the Board of Directors of the Peninsula Point Association feels that the criteria being used is inadequate for the Peninsula. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the difference in the relationship of the residential land use, traffic, and • tourists, and how there could be a change in the influx in traffic if there would be no further development. Mr. Wren commented that the Association has estimated -17- COMMISSIONERS 10 • 9yo�yf� o August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX that the traffic would be increased an additional 8,000 trips per day based on land use. In response to Commissioner Pomeroy's statement regarding the Association's concerns regarding the increase in land use, Mr. Wren commented that the level of service should be established to see how much the square footage or density of use can be increased on the Peninsula. Mr. Hewicker referred to the Peninsula's existing land uses and asked if the City should consider a way that the residents would accept the land uses and find another way of getting the people on the Peninsula, or given the existing uses, to establish a program whereby existing uses are converted to open space? Mr. Wren responded that the residents want to be able to find a way that they can judge what traffic is going to include, to be able to take the traffic as a criteria within the existing framework that currently exists, and • then judge how much more use can be on the property. Commissioner Di Sano asked about the possibility of a bridge over the channel inasmuch as it has been previously discussed, even if it is an environmental issue; however, the traffic may be able to move steadily. Mr. Wren responded that to create a thoroughfare through a residential neighborhood would not be good planning. Commissioner Di Sano asked if a gated community concept would work at the foot of the Arches Bridge? Mr. Wren replied negatively. Commissioner Di Sano asked if no additional growth should be permitted on the Peninsula? Mr. Wren responded that the study may come to that conclusion. Chairman Pers6n stated that there will always be pressures on the residents of the Peninsula regardless of residential, commercial, industrial, .etc, because of the beach and harbor. He explained that the Planning Commission is attempting to address the existing criteria that is on the Peninsula in terms of floor area ratios, to critically study same in terms of the Circulation Element, and to try to determine what might work at buildout. Commissioner Debay commented that the density and traffic in West Newport could also be compared to the • Balboa Peninsula area. -18- COMMISSIONERS dab NX\_A4 N9�m August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Pers6n stated that the Circulation Element of the General Plan considers the traffic from specific areas of the City, and the affect of that traffic on areas throughout the City. Chairman Pers6n commented that the Planning Commission will soon be hearing the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. Commissioner Di Sano asked if the Circulation Element included public transportation to offset the fact that the traffic cannot be moved, would the Peninsula Point Association be in support of a trolley on the Peninsula, as subsidized transportation. Mr. Wren replied that said Association has supported the trolley in the past, and that there is a strong possibility that the Association would support public transportation and off -site parking. Commissioner Debay asked if the residents noticed that the traffic was moving faster off of the Peninsula because of the widening of Balboa Boulevard? Mr. Wren • replied affirmatively. Commissioner Debay stated that the traffic flow would be further enhanced after West Coast Highway was widened into Huntington Beach. Mr. Tex Von Oppenheim, 507 W. Edgewater, a professional planner and architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Von Oppenheim stated that in addition to the automobile a different mode of transportation should be considered on Balboa Peninsula; that after 2010 there will be lifestyle changes in the population; that it is a paradox to try to solve an excess in the population by not building; and that it is very difficult to predict the future number of visitors to the area in the Traffic Study. Mr. Allen Beek, 1945 Sherington Place, appeared before the Planning Commission and he stated that he would favor a reduction of density on the Balboa Peninsula; that a program could be developed that would move some of the excess square footage of commercial development off of the Peninsula and transfer the excess square footage to the Airport area; and that the commercial zoning in the General Plan could address the average daily trips per acre which would identify the types of uses. Mr. Beek requested a clarification in the staff report that states "the Land Use Map typically shows the -19- COMMISSIONERS Ity.o .o; oro� August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX anticipated product type' and is not a limiting factor for future development (e.g. areas shown for single - family attached could be developed with multi - family uses). ". Mr. Lenard explained that the hierarchy of the uses permitted by the General Plan and the way that it has been applied to the vacant sites for areas of the City that have been developed, staff has colored the Land Use Map to correspond to what the existing product type was using the new methodology. For vacant parcels, staff has attempted to depict on the Map what they anticipate the development type would be, i.e. where the General Plan allows densities in the range of eight or ten units an acre, staff has typically shown those areas for single family attached development believing that ' would be the most likely type of development allowed. The Land Use Element text indicates in the areas that are currently undeveloped that it is not the City's intention to limit whether or not those sites are • developed with apartments or multiple family, single family attached. Mr. Hewicker stated that the General Plan specifies the total number of dwelling units which are permitted on the site. Mr. Beek stated that the multiple designation of R -4 and R -3 Districts be eliminated in its entirety; that the City should adhere to single and duplex development; and that zoning for employee housing should be considered inasmuch as there are more people who work in Newport Beach than live in the City and that the employees should be encouraged to live here by providing multiple family employee housing. Mr. Beek addressed the Traffic Studies, and he indicated that the following alternatives to the traffic study should be considered: that San Joaquin Hills Road could bend south to Pacific Coast Highway instead of intersecting with Pelican Hill Road at the top of the hill; that studies that have been made have stated that San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor would benefit Newport Beach provided that all of the development which the Corridor will pass is going to be constructed and he explained why there should be an alternative studied; in which both the development and the Corridor are deleted to see what the true affect will be on Newport Beach; and that the City policy is still opposed to the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road beyond Pelican Hill • Road to the San Joaquin Hills Corridor and that the City signed on with the Corridor Joint Powers Agency on the condition that the connection be deleted, and he asked if the City's policy had been reversed? Mr. Lenard -20- COMMISSIONERS 4 9 N � • 9y�o y �� ° August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX affirmatively replied that the City Council had adopted such a policy. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Beek confirmed that the only multi - family housing to be considered should be for employee housing. Commissioner Merrill asked if employee housing would include UCI students? Mr. Beek defined employee housing as being where the rent is subsidized if the employees worked next door to the employer and zero percent would be subsidized if the employee works three miles away. Commissioner Merrill suggested that Mr. Beek address his concerns regarding the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to the City Council during the SJHTC EIR public hearings. In reference to employee housing, Commissioner Pomeroy • asked what action would be taken if the employee was fired from his job? Mr. Beek replied that the employee would no longer be subsidized and that he would have to pay full market rent. Mr. Beek and Commissioner Di Sano discussed for the purpose of health, safety, and welfare the run of the Balboa Island /Balboa Peninsula ferry on a 24 hour basis. Mr. Beek explained that to operate the ferry on a 24 hour basis that the Public Utilities Commission would need to approve same, and that the ferry operators ceased 24 hour service because there was not sufficient traffic to justify the operation. Commissioner Debay referred to Mr. Beek's foregoing statement regarding Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road and eliminating the link north at the top of the'hill, and she commented that would take the traffic off of Pacific Coast Highway and down San Joaquin Hills Road. Mr. Beek concurred, and he explained that it would take the traffic only for Newport Center or the traffic north to Huntington Beach, and that traffic to the Airport area and to North County would continue on Pelican Hills Road down Bonita Canyon to MacArthur Boulevard. Mr. Chan Lefevbre, 2112 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared • before the Planning Commission. He stated that he has concerns regarding the change in the character of the bay inasmuch as during the past two years there has been -21- COMMISSIONERS • Py � y CC 9yG August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX an explosion of excursion boats, party boats, numerous types of water "toys ", and he requested that the issue be considered in the General Plan. Mr. Burnham replied that staff is reviewing the Development Policy Document that contains said issues, and that staff will attempt to come up with a policy that will not necessarily limit water uses but would require the operators to provide infrastructure, including parking and services for their customers. Mr. Burnham explained that the requirements would not be considered zoning ordinances, but they would be revisions to the Harbor Permit Policies and to the Commercial Harbor Activities Ordinance. Mr. Burnham commented that there would be public hearings concerning such revisions at the City Council, Mr. Lefevbre addressed the foregoing statements that the Traffic Study only includes winter weekday trips, and he asked if the State Law gives beach cities just the right • to look at winter traffic, and if there would be a study that would include summer trips relating to the changes envisioned by the General Plan? Mr. Burnham replied that the State Law provisions as to what is required in the Land Use and Circulation Elements do not contemplate calculations of seasonal traffic. He said that they are looking to the amount of traffic generated by Land Uses within the jurisdiction involved, and that they are not looking at seasonal traffic because of certain amenities. Mr. Burnham commented that there is a Recreation and Open Space Element, and there is a beach area, but those amenities are not considered land use as the term is used in the State Zoning and Planning Act. He said that the City is bound to assess the traffic within the City on the basis of non -summer weekday traffic because that is the one constant throughout the year, and that said traffic is consistent enough to be used as a planning tool. Mr. Lefevbre emphasized that the residents are entitled to look at the trips generated during the summer months. Mr. Lenard explained that there are summer traffic counts, but it is very difficult to project summer traffic, and to differentiate between increases in 2010 that might be attributable to regional growth as opposed to localized growth, and that numbers would be provided relating to existing counts for comparative purposes to what is contained in the traffic report. Mr. Lefevbre referred • to 2010 and he said that the difficulty of obtaining the numbers is not germane. Mr. Burnham suggested that policies could be implemented in the Element to require -22- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT August 11, 1988 BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX the City to obtain the information that the community is asking for, and then to obligate the Planning Commission and the City Council to take the information and to try to develop solutions over the next few years that will address seasonal, high volume summer traffic such as public transportation or parking restrictions. Mr. Burnham concluded that there can be a mechanism that will allow for a solution. Mr. Lefevbre concurred with the suggestion. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened at 10:06 p.m. Mr. Sid Sofer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sofer addressed the compensation of downzoning; parking conditions on Balboa Peninsula; a road on the ocean front that could be considered for emergency vehicles only; that the lifestyle in 2010 could dictate public transportation; • that there are days during the winter months when there is beach weather which brings beach traffic to the region; that there could be a change in work day schedules between now and 2010; that alerts. on the freeways between Newport Beach and Riverside could clearly state that the City of Newport Beach is full to avoid the tourist traffic; and he asked who would subsidize the employee housing. Mrs. Jean Watt, 4 Harbor Island, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of SPON. Mrs. Watt submitted a list of questions, and she said that when said questions have been received from staff, that SPON will respond. Mrs. Watt addressed the winter weekday peak hour traffic Traffic Study and she suggested that proposals could be made by interested parties regarding the beach traffic; that since the three freeways were deleted that SPON has tried to scale down development to fit it into the road system and they do not want the human scale of the City to be out - numbered by lanes and intersections; that FAR'S AND ICU's need to be considered; and that special areas, specifically Newport Height's Cliff Drive park site, Buck Gully /A. T. Leos, Cal -Trans West Parcel adjacent to Newport Crest, Newport Ranch Planned Community, need to be addressed. Mrs. Watt stated that widened arterial roadways should not be put • on the Master Plan unless and until traffic analysis runs have been made that would include cutting commuter traffic because the planning concept is driven by -23- COMMISSIONERS 9y9 ti (` O August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX commuter traffic. She said that it is possible that everyone could be happy and cut costs at the same time if the City did like other cities in the State, that the City would have to do it in conjunction with the neighboring cities, but if the commuter traffic was cut by 10 percent or 20 percent by mandates that the City could put into force, then the transportation system would not have to be turned into something that is more costly, more damaging to community character, etc. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding Mrs. Watt's statement concerning commuter traffic, Mrs. Watt explained that this is a new era and the air quality people are discussing cutting commuter traffic if it cannot be accommodated by the road system. She stated that she referred to the neighboring cities because commuter traffic travels through Corona del Mar and other areas of the City from those cities to go to the airport complex for work, and there has not been an effort to force traffic cuts that have been affective elsewhere and that could be done locally. In response to questions by staff, Mrs. Watt replied that the entire picture of van pooling, housing balance, etc, need to be considered. Mrs. Watt discussed with Chairman Pers6n her opinions regarding commuter traffic, and they concurred that to implement the program would take an extended period of time. Mrs. Watt commented that it would appear that once a roadway is on the Master Plan, there needs to be development so as to pay for the roadway system, and she referred to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Mr. Terry Austin, Austin -Foust Associates, Traffic Consultant for the City, discussed Transportation Management Plan's as implemented in other communities in order to reduce peak hour traffic for major employers. When considering the General Plan, the analysis must show how the City will correlate the land use with the transportation system. Mr. Austin commented that it is not appropriate to assume that there will be a reduction of trips because everyone is going to carpool, unless specific requirements are incorporated into the General Plan that would achieve the reduction. Commissioner Di • Sano commented that the Air Resources Board, or AQMD, have stated that vanpooling can only be mandated for employers who employ 100 persons or more at one site. -24- COMMISSIONERS o. o� • ?�y? -may !C 9y0 August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mrs. Watt replied that SPON's comments regarding commuter traffic have been brought up as a concept that they would like to explore during the General Plan public hearings. She stated that SPON would like to adhere to their previous suggestions and that would be to restrict East Coast Highway and Mariner's Mile to no more than three lanes each way because of the human scale characteristic of the area that SPON has always wanted to retain. She commented that the issue of traffic includes peak hour weekdays which is commuter traffic, and beach traffic. Mrs. Watt stated that to build roads for beach traffic is questionable, and there has to be other methods to manage said traffic. Mr. Burnham concurred with Mr. Austin's statement that the circulation system cannot be downsized based upon what may come out of some sort of transportation system management plan. He commented that said plans need to • be correlated now; however, in future years effective transportation system management may show that some arterials could be reduced in size from the Master Plan, Mr. Burnham commented that staff will discuss the issue and may propose a policy that would include traffic management concepts. Commissioner Pomeroy asked what is the maximum possible peak hour traffic reductions that can be expected by an extremely well executed Traffic Management Program, countywide, that would include vanpooling, flex -time, and other measures? Mr. Austin replied that a reduction of 5 percent could be expected. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pers6n and Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Austin commented on the data concerning commuter trips in Pleasanton, CA. He commented that Pleasanton has stated that they are going to achieve 40 percent reduction. However, he pointed out that most reductions assume an extremely high initial traffic generation rate, and that if trip rates similar to those used in Newport Beach were used, the reduction would be closer to 10 percent. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that after becoming aware of the • Pleasanton experience, he expected that there would be a much more significant reduction. -25- COMMISSIONERS ymG 9N 99 9ym9� August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Dave Dmohowski representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. He commented on the draft General Plan as follows: The Irvine Company supports the process and recommends that the City consider channeling development into the community into the areas that can accommodate it from a traffic capacity point -of -view; that realistic traffic performance standards for the City's transportation system be adopted; that the City implement an equitable funding mechanism for needed road improvements during the coming years; that The Irvine Company has recently reevaluated their properties in the City in consultation with a variety of community interests; specific proposals for The Irvine Company properties were forwarded to the City as part of their comments relating to the EIR Notice of Preparation on June 10, 1988, and based on their revised Land Use proposals, The Irvine Company undeveloped land holdings in the City comprise of five percent of the total future development projected by the City in recent studies; the long -term • Land Use issue on The Irvine Company properties remains of great interest and importance to them; they believe that their proposals are consistent with the general direction that they see the General Plan Update process following; that the proposals are substantially different and substantially less in terms of intensity of use then The Irvine Company has previously proposed in plans and discussed with staff in response to comments from the community in respect to development and traffic issues. Mr. Dmohowski stated that their proposals suggest a Floor Area Ratio of .25 FAR or less compared to a general guideline of .50 FAR that was discussed earlier; that density of residential properties consider environmental concerns, open space needs and affordable housing objectives. He stated that including the land proposed for dedication as part of the Upper Bay Regional Park, the proposals envision more than 200 acres of open space land that would be included with properties. In reference to the Specific Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements, there are a number of differences of opinion that will be addressed at a future public hearing. • Mr..Russ Fluter, 510 - 30th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fluter stated that the property owners whose property is being affected should -26- COMMISSIONERS ymG �pPy 9g August 11, 1988 ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX be notified of the public hearings with specific notice of the proposed change inasmuch as there are property owners who do not know that said public hearings are affecting their property. In reference to Cannery Village, he said that two buildings that he has recently constructed on Newport Boulevard would be too large under the zoning, and inasmuch as the buildings were located on Newport Boulevard, he curtailed the residence buildings for rental purposes to 1,500 square feet. He questioned if a 1,800 square foot residence would have been permitted, and he suggested that the change be reconsidered to allow a luxury residence. At a recent Outreach meeting with staff, he commented that one of the reasons for the downzoning of some of the commercial properties was that the traffic would be bad in front of City Hall, and he asked if that increase is based on the current density of 2.0 FAR or does that apply to 1.0 FAR. Mr. Austin replied that the traffic data is based on the land use inputs which is based on Floor Area Ratio, there would be more traffic with higher intensity • and lower traffic with lower intensity. Mr. Fluter stated that the current intensity in some areas is 2.0 FAR, the current intensity in Cannery Village is 1.0 FAR, and it may be difficult to develop some of the Balboa properties at anything over 1.0 FAR, and he asked if a 1.0 FAR was proposed would there still be traffic congestion on a winter day or on a non - summer day in front of City Hall? Mr. Lenard referred to the Land Use projection that the traffic model runs are based on, the growth in traffic on Newport Boulevard plus or minus 20,000 trips, is based upon 0.5 FAR projection throughout Cannery Village /McFadden Square, and. the Peninsula areas. The 0.5 FAR assumption for future growth has two components: . it has the existing development some of which is at the higher Floor Area Ratio and for the lots that exceed 0.5 FAR, the 0.5 FAR traffic run carries through that development at that higher intensity, it then takes the parcels that are less then 0.5 FAR and brings them up to the .5 FAR standard so the traffic run corresponds to that particular land use scenario. To make a similar comparison between existing and projected land use for the Peninsula area, Mr. Lenard stated that to take the parcels below 1.0 FAR and bring them up to 1.0 FAR, • which is one of the alternatives discussed by some of the business people in the area, the plus or minus 400,000 or 500,000 square foot increase on the land use side in commercial development under 0.5 FAR would be in -27_ COMMISSIONERS \-Pt 9 ! August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX the range of 2,000,000 square feet, which would increase traffic on Newport Boulevard. Mr. Fluter stated that based on that square footage there would be traffic congestion in front of City Hall during the winter months, and Mr. Austin concurred. Mr. Austin referred to the traffic report, and he stated that the much higher intensity has not been tested, so he did not know how much of an increase there would be. Mr. Fluter referred to the increased density, and he asked what kind of uses were being considered on the commercial spaces? Mr. Lenard replied that there are different mixes for different areas depending upon the area, so that in each area there would be mixed uses of office, retail, some residential, and restaurants. Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he stated that he had concerns that the traffic studies do not address the beach summer traffic; that the intersections and the blend lanes have to be looked at realistically; that there are roadways . that are being proposed that are not necessary; he questioned the need to widen West Coast Highway through West Newport to six lanes; that the median on East Coast Highway has impeded the traffic; he questioned if the bypass for Corona del Mar had been considered; that he cannot locate any reference to the East Coast Highway /A. T. Leo /Emerald Associates property, or the Seaview Apartments; that he questioned the R -3 District on the bluff on Carnation Avenue; that the community does not want the traffic plan as proposed including the connection at Ford Road, San Joaquin Hills Corridor, and why not study a Corona del Mar bypass and no extension of San Joaquin Hills Road; that as a member of the Air Pollution Control Association Board in Orange County, they have studied carpooling and have found carpooling to be inefficient and that flex time has become widely accepted. In response to questions posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Nichols described the Air Quality Control Association Board. In reference to Canyon Crest or the Corona del Mar bypass, Mr. Lenard stated that the subject was discussed at the Outreach meetings and traffic runs had been considered to illustrate what might happen with that link, and the way that the traffic model has been constructed, it does not show the link and staff does not have any projections. Mr. Lenard stated that the Planning Commission could give direction to staff pertaining to that link. Chairman Pers6n stated that he did not feel that it would be -28- COMMISSIONERS O 0 • 9y ��y f� 9 August 11, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX appropriate considering City Council's previous decisions regarding the link. Motion * Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to 2:00 p.m. on August 18, 1988, based upon earlier discussion concerning the Special Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. In response to a statement made by Commissioner Debay regarding the bulk of the buildings in Corona del Mar in reference to the Subject of Development Standard Study, Mr. Lenard commented that after the completion of the General Plan Update, that City Council may establish an Ad Hoc Committee so as to make recommendations regarding the foregoing to the Planning Commission and City Council. All Ayes Motion was voted on to adjourn the public hearing to • 2:00 p.m. on August 18, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: At 10:50 p.m, the Planning Commission Adjournment adjourned the Special Planning Commission Meeting to 2:00 p.m. on August 18, 1988. JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -29-