Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/01/1988COMMISSIONERS F F yFGx ADJOURNED SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 2:00 p.m. DATE: September 1, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLr CALL INDEX PRESENT * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. (Commissioner Pomeroy arrived at 2:25 p.m.) * * * EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney Robert P. Lenard, Advance Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Principal Planner Chris Gustin, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Joanne MacQuarrie, Secretary * * * Minutes of August 18. 1988: Minutes of * Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve the August 18, 8_18_88 Ayes * * * * * 1988, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Absent Public Comments: Public No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Comments Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Agenda Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August 26, 1988, in front of City Hall. * * A. General Plan Amendment 87 -1(A) AND (E)(Continued Item No. 1 Public Hearine) PA 87 -1 These amendments involve major revisions to the Land Use (A) & (E) and Circulation Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed revisions to the Land Use Element LCP No. 13 involve establishment of various densities and inten- sities of development citywide. The revisions to the ec.& O.S. Circulation Element include modifications to the City's Element & se. Elem. - 1 - COMMISSIONERS September 1, 1988 9 9 oZ � Za 2:00 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX adopted Master Plan of Arterial Highways as well as a reevaluation of the necessary roadway improvements and funding sources available to the City of Newport Beach. AND B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 13 (Continued Adjourned to 7:30pm Public Hearing) 9 -1 -88 Amendments to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to - 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. (Continued Public Hearing), • INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach For the benefit of those persons in the audience not able to attend both the afternoon and evening meetings, Chairman Pers6n outlined the anticipated schedule for the continued public hearings and his intention to adjourn the evening meeting to a Special Meeting on September 8, 1988, at 1:30 p.m. Advance Planning Manager Robert Lenard summarized the various staff reports and documents that had been distributed to the Planning Commission since the last meeting. Mr. Lenard informed the Commission that since the last Planning Commission meeting, the California Coastal Commission had been contacted, and the mixed use proposal presented in the draft Plan for the Cannery Village /McFadden Square areas had been received favora- bly by Coastal staff. Mr. Lenard then discussed the alternative floor area ratio proposal which sets a base traffic limit for each commercial site in the City of approximately .5 FAR as the primary standard and a secondary building bulk standard of 1.25 which would include any above grade covered parking in the calculation. Mr. Lenard ex- plained that staff had applied this concept, which had been tailored for the Balboa Peninsula, to various areas of the City, analyzing lot size, mixed use residential, view impacts, and aesthetics. The staff's review 2 COMMISSIONERS 00 rin m September 1, 1988 9yo 2:00 p . m . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX resulted in the following recommended modifications to the alternative FAR proposal: 1) Balboa Peninsula. To provide real incentive for the mixed use concept, the absolute building bulk standard for exclusive commercial use should be 1.0; the mixed use (commercial downstairs, residential upstairs) should remain at the proposed 1.25 including above grade covered parking. 2) Other commercial areas.. Allow a .5 base FAR, with the maximum floor area limit at .75. The building envelope standard would be fixed at .75 including above grade covered parking. In answering a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Lenard affirmed the basic standard of .5 FAR could be increased or decreased depending upon the land use traffic generation. The building bulk standard of .75 would allow uses built at or below .5 to have some above grade structurized parking; uses built to .75 would have parking at grade or below grade. Because of the complexity of the above, Mr. Lenard stated that a clarifying exhibit would be developed and distributed at the next Special Planning Commission meeting. • Various floor area ratios of buildings in the City, respective lot sizes, parking modes, and building bulk were illustrated in a slide presentation narrated by Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner. Discussion ensued between the Commission and staff regarding subterranean parking and its inclusion in FAR calculation. Chairman Pers6n opined the necessity to take into consideration the construction of the top of the roof as part of the calculation as it increased the bulk above grade, and if some sort of credit were to be allowed for subterranean parking in terms of FAR, the structure might have to be set deeper to offset the couple of feet between the roof of the garage and the floor of the first story. In response to Planning Director Hewicker's request for a comparison of the the construction costs of a structure with a basement and two floors above versus two floors above a partial subterranean structure, Commissioner Pomeroy ,explained that a full basement requires the structure be con- structed as a three story building. A subterranean parking garage with two floors above would be regarded as a two story building and the code requirements, i.e. floor access and the types of fire separations required would make the structure less costly to build. Because . of the cost difference, Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the percentage of the parking structure above ground be included in the FAR calculation. Chairman 3 - COMMISSIONERS \0�September 1, 1988 2:00 p.m. X CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Pers6n voiced his disagreement with Commissioner Di Sano's suggestion that in an area such as the peninsula, where below grade construction would involve dewatering, that some form of credit be extended even though a portion of the resulting structure would be above ground. Referring to the Newport Jaguar project's roof -top covered parking as an example, Commissioner Debay expressed her concern that the requirement significantly increased the bulk of a structure. Planning Director Hewicker explained that under the proposed Plan, any above grade covered parking would be included in the FAR calculation. Mr. Lenard expanded further that the FAR of a project such as Newport Jaguar, with a two -story elevation, i.e., a clear area with a 18 ft. to 20 ft., ceiling would be treated as a two -story building and FAR would be counted twice where it went from zero at grade elevation to the 18 ft, or 20 ft. height. Mr. Lenard indicated that the precise regulations would be es- tablished at the zoning level rather than at the General • Plan level. In response to Chairman Pers6n's request for an overview of the Circulation Element, Don Webb, City Engineer prefaced by explaining that the City Council recently conducted public hearings relative to the City's response to comments on the County's San Joaquin Trans- portation Corridor EIR. Mr. Webb continued that the data presented in the study prepared for the City Council's review were based on the projections contained in the County's traffic model which differ in some instances, especially in the west end of Newport Beach, from the projections contained in the General Plan Review Traffic Study. Mr. Webb stated that the County's traffic model is based on socioeconomic data, jobs and residences, whereas the City's model is based on land use. The tests conducted in the west end area in both models were similar, i.e., various arterial links were deleted to identify diversion routes for each possible scenario. The results from these tests differed showed smaller arterial volume changes than those of the County's, showing a daily increase of from 3,000 to 4,000 cars, although the City's traffic projections for this area are higher than those of the County's. • Mr. Webb asked Terry Austin, Traffic Consultant to explain the differences between the County and City traffic models. Mr. Austin stated that fundamentally, 4 - COMMISSIONERS 4�q September 1, 1 988 2:00 p . m. X 1 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX the County model is designed for the entire County and focuses on corridor and freeway volumes, whereas the City's model, refining some of the County data, predicts traffic in the City down to the surface street level. The City traffic model boundaries includes portions of the bordering County,' City of Costa Mesa and City of Irvine areas. The analysis includes County projections of traffic coming into and through the City, therefore specific City boundary point figures will be identical to those of the source County model. The City projec- tions have significant advantage being based on a very detailed land use data base whereas the County uses demographic information 3 to 4 years old. Floor area ratios based on land use will differ significantly from those based on employment projections based on County- wide totals somehow allocated to each city. Mr. Austin summarized that the two models were designed to do different things, and different data bases were used to project future trips generation; City model figures were used for arterial traffic volumes and County model • figures for the regional corridors. In answering a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Lenard stated that the figures used in the traffic model, forecasting to 2010, were based on maximum buildout permitted under the Land Use Element, and that the Land Use and Circulation Elements' correlation is based on maximum buildout. In addressing some of the traffic study issues, Mr. Webb referred to the exhibit illustrating the proposed circulation system recommendations and informed the Planning Commission that the City Council had recently adopted a resolution recommending to the County that the proposed extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor be deleted; however, in so doing, he explained that the Master Plan was not changed. He continued that the traffic study provides projections without the San Joaquin Hills Road connec- tion, without the Ford Road connection, and without either connection. The City's daily trip projection with the San Joaquin Hills Road connection is 25,000; without the connection a reduction in daily trips to about 21,000 is projected. The County study projects 18,000 daily trips with the connection and a reduction of 3,000 daily trips without. Therefore, though the • daily total trip projections differ, the total trip reduction, without the connection, is virtually the same: 4,000 vs. 3,000. Without the connection, the 5 - COMMISSIONERS Z qr` ;t` N9�m September 1, 1988 Gpyy oy �( off` 2:00 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROM CALL INDEX study shows that San Miguel Drive would have an increase of 2,000 daily trips; the County plan shows an increase of 6,000. MacArthur Boulevard shows an increase of 2,000; and Ford Road an increase of 4,000. Mr. Webb stated that the position of the Public Works Department is that the system would work better, would be more in balance with the provision of the two connections to the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Austin stated that without the San Joaquin Hills Road connection, the time difference for persons traveling around Pelican Hills Road rather than down San Joaquin Hills Road would be about one minute. At the request of Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Webb pointed out the Downcoast areas where future planned development is projected to generate some 29,000 ADT's and he emphasized that it is the projected buildout of land uses which account for much of the traffic volume increases shown in the • Traffic Study. The public hearing was continued on the Circulation Element, specific sites, and general aspects of the General Plan review. Jean Watt, 4 Harbor Island, representing SPON, appeared before the Planning Commission to address specific sites pertaining to either Environmental Open Space or wetlands, and she distributed a letter containing their recommendations to the Commission. Specifying the yet undeveloped. Irvine Company parcels of the Castaways, Newporter North, Bayview Landing, and Newport Village, Mrs. Watt stated that SPON strongly urged that these sites include an optional Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation in the General Plan to encourage that this land use be maximized. Mrs. Watt requested that this same land use designation be applied to the Santa Ana River Wetlands, Avon Street Wetlands, Cliff Drive Park, and Caltrans West which are not Irvine Company properties. The A.T. Leo site at Buck Gully at Pacific Coast Highway, and a portion of Begonia Park, two sites under private ownership were included in the recommendation, and that the wetland areas at the Jamboree /MacArthur site and Superior /PCH be maintained, • restored or mitigated. Mrs. Watt stated that SPON supported the recommended mixed land use of commercial and residential as a method 6 - COMMISSIONERS yy 9 9 `� � September 1, 1988 9i 9y 9s 2:00 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROT CALL INDEX to reduce traffic, and a FAR incentive program, but would like to see a base ratio of .42 going up to .75 maximum. Referring to the slide presentation which showed a variety of architectural styles and their resulting visual impacts, Mrs. Watt commented that numbers do not always justify. The size of proposed road changes contained in the draft Circulation Element, specifically 8 lanes of Coast Highway and a grade separation at Jamboree, were major concerns as was the base of using 60 ADT's in the FAR alternative proposal. At the request of Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Austin reviewed the alternative FAR proposal explaining that the primary criteria is the 3 peak hour trips per 1,000 sq.ft., and it was the peak hour trips that were used to size the circulation system. The 60 ADT test is a secondary test used to identify those land uses which may have a very low peak hour rate, but may have a very high rate during the day. In essence, the two -way test is a method to more accurately identify development limits. • Responding to Chairman Pers6n's inquiry if SPON's specific site suggestions mentioned earlier and con- tained in the letter distributed to the Commission, were the result of discussions between SPON and The Irvine Company, Mrs. Watt said that they had been included in the discussions, but no decisions were reached, and she had no knowledge of any sort of associated density transfer agreements. Mrs. Watt stated SPON's sugges- tions were a reflection of the interest of the community in the sites, and to include the dual land use designa- tion in the General Plan would be a method of underscor- ing the importance of the sites to the community. Chairman Pers6n commented that it would not be the prerogative of the Commission to designate any privately owned property having value as Open Space. In reply to Chairman Pers6n's question as to SPON's reaction to the proposed 8 -lane section of Coast Highway from Dover to Jamboree, Mrs. Watt commented that 8- lanes combined with several signaled intersections seemed counter productive, and the proposed grade separation at Jamboree gave the appearance of a freeway configuration. Referencing the MacArthur Boulevard phasing program, Mrs. Watt indicated a similar phasing • plan for Coast Highway might be considered. In answering questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mrs. Watt indicated that it was SPON's position in 7 COMMISSIONERS 00 September 1, 1988 2:00 p . m . \\CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX regards to the specific sites they were recommending for Environmental Open Space, that the permitted development removed would be transferred to other sites. She also said another possibility would be clustered development leaving as much open space as possible. Mrs. Watt said that for 15 years SPON had opposed an extension of University Drive across the Bay and that she didn't feel it was an alternative at this time to the 8 -lanes on Coast Highway. Mrs. Watt answered Chairman Person's query regarding SPON's position at the City Council hearings on the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor by stating that SPON opposed the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to the Corridor and also the Ford Road connection as it is proposed. Speaking at the Board of Supervisors for SPON, Mrs. Watt said SPON recommended that the Corridor itself be scaled down to 6 -lanes modified. Mrs. Watt continued that 21% of the projected traffic for the Corridor would be coming from out of the County, and that SPON would like to see some emphasis on transportation system management and having the road serve the area, with limited access and on a smaller • scale to prevent it from becoming an open door to north San Diego County. Mr. Terry Austin, Traffic Consultant, in answering a question posed by Chairman Pers6n as to whether a balance between the Land Use and Circulation Elements could be maintained without the two connections and without the Corridor, explained that external travel patterns would have to divert to other areas and traffic volumes would escalate in those areas, i.e., Corona del Mar and Jamboree and MacArthur. He likened the result to a balloon that when squeezed in one spot, balloons in yet another, and the traffic volumes coming into the City and passing through the City would increase on the existing roadways. At the request of Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Webb clarified that currently the bridge over the bay is striped for 7 traffic lanes and 2 bike lanes. If the bike lanes were removed, it could be restriped for 8 lanes. Discussion followed between Commissioner Di Sano and Mrs. Watt whereby Mrs. Watt commented that SPON would recommend that the aforementioned phasing verbiage be included in regards to any highway changes and cited that the sizes of the roads and their location greatly • influenced the character of the City. Commissioner Di Sano opined that he didn't feel that accommodating 8 lanes on the bridge structure would lead to further - 8 - COMMISSIONERS O� y s � BEACH September 1, 1988 2:00 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BE MINUTES ROLr CALL INDEX widening on either side of the structure, and it would be his choice rather than the widening of MacArthur Boulevard which has bluffs on both its east and west while it travels north and south. Mr. Fred Irwin, 201 Intrepid, representing the Newport Crest Homeowners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission to state the Association's concerns regarding the CalTrans West and Banning Ranch sites which border the Association's boundaries. Mr. Irwin stated that the Association wishes to be an active participant in the initial planning and development of the two sites and asked that that their request be included in the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Mrs. Geneva Matlock 11 Landfall Court, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed her concern with the lack of open space and park area in the West Newport area. Mrs. Matlock suggested that City oil revenue funds might be utilized to purchase the CalTrans West site, and requested that the site be designated for Open Space in the General Plan, Mr. David Neish of Urban Assist Incorporated and representing The Irvine Company appeared before the Planning Commission. In referring to discussions between SPON and The Irvine Company and to previous testimony by Mr. David Dmohowski regarding The Irvine Company specific sites, Mr. Neish stated that The Irvine Company would be opposed to any designation of Recrea- tional and Environmental Open Space for the Castaways, Newporter North, Newport Village, and Bayview Landing parcels. Mrs. Gail Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive, President, Newport Heights Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Demmer stated the Association's concern with loss of open space, and referring to staff report text on pages 12 and 13, asked for clarification regarding the proposed change from Recreational and Environmental Open Space. In reply, Chairman Pers6n stated that the proposed change is part of the 'house- keeping' to clean up inconsistencies between land use designations in the Local Coastal Program and the General Plan. Mrs. Demmer asked if it were true that • there were no residential dwelling incentives proposed for the Mariners' Mile area and Chairman Pers6n said there were not. Mrs. Demmer commented that to be 9 COMMISSIONERS qm September 1, 1988 GZ 9 NoZ9C p� 2:00 p . m. ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLr CALL INDEX consistent with the proposed .5 to .75 FAR low traffic generation, consideration should be given regarding restraining building height and bulk. In the discus- sion that followed between Chairman Pers6n and Mr. Lenard regarding restaurant uses, Mr. Lenard verified that under the proposed'Plan, a dinner -house restaurant could achieve about a .3 FAR. Referring to marine related uses of some projects in Mariners' Mile, Commissioner Winburn asked that if the new Plan were adopted, how such projects would be affected; whether such projects would qualify under a trip generation plan or remain vacant until occupied by a marine related use. The Planning Commission recessed at 3:50 p.m, and reconvened at 3:55 p.m. Ms. Barbara Alberici, 128 36th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. As it was determined that the lot at 128 36th Street, owned by her parents, currently zoned R -2, and consisting of less than 2,400 sq.ft., would be affected by the zoning changes proposed for the Peninsula and prohibit the construction of a duplex on a parcel containing less than 2,400 sq. ft., Ms. Alberici voiced her opposition to the changes. Mr. Paul Balalis, 1129 E. Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission to address proposals of the Plan as they pertain specifically to the Balboa Peninsula. He voiced his concern that many of the changes recommended would encourage the larger and discourage the smaller developments. He opined that the former could combine 6 -8 lots and provide subterranean parking, not counted in the FAR, which would result in groups of larger projects, which would, in effect, change the character of the Peninsula. He suggested the preparation of additional studies for establishing FAR standards in order to better ascertain the results from the numbers being proposed by staff and those being recommended from the various testimonies. Referring to the proposed mixed use of residential above commercial and a maximum of 1.25 FAR with covered parking, Mr. Balalis suggested a better product could be produced allowing 1.5, but with second floor setbacks equivalent to .25. Advance Planning Manager Mr. Lenard commented that it was in recognizing some of the same concerns expressed 10 - COMMISSIONERS September 1, 1988 a�cn�'wo�! 9Qi 2:00 p.m, y y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX by Mr. Balalis, that staff had proposed the more flexible FAR standards. For exclusive commercial use a base .5 with 1.0 maximum and for the mixed use of residential over commercial a 1.25 standard. Mr. Lenard stated that staff had looked at some of the plans of Russ Fluter, who has built several mixed use projects on the Peninsula at a little less than 1.5 using the concept that includes covered parking above grade. Mr. Lenard continued that such projects on a 30' x 90' lot provide for approximately 1,000 sq.ft, commercial and 1,625 sq.ft. residential, and that it was Mr. Fluter's opinion that a 1.5 FAR would accommodate a larger residential unit, and that the Commission might want to consider raising the proposed standard to 1.5. In discussion with Mr. Balalis and his recommendation for increasing the density but require second floor set- backs, Mr. Lenard explained to the Commission that what tends to happen in order to avoid covering the required parking is that the second floor residential unit is pushed to the front of the structure and results in a • box -like building. In replying to Commissioner Pomeroy's request for suggestions as to what might be done to improve project architecture by reducing the bulk, of projects, Mr. Lenard stated that it was difficult to design a set of standards under the concept of the General Plan review that deals in a broad sense with the issue of building bulk but does not go into the level of detail as within a Specific Plan. He continued that the attempt would be to adopt standards in the General Plan broad enough to avoid General Plan Amendments when necessary amendments are made to the respective Specific Plans, or when amending Specific Plans and design issues arise, to make minor amendments addressing those issues to the General Plan at the same time. Ms. Dorothy Hutcheson, 4011 Seashore Drive, member of the Friends of the Santa Ana River, addressed the Planning Commission regarding her concern for the preservation of the wetlands area extending between the Fairview Channel at Adams Street, along 19th Street to the beach. She said that the County, the City of Costa Mesa, and the California State Coastal Conservancy have plans for the Fairview and Talbert Park, part of which will be within Newport Beach. Ms. Hutcheson requested that this area in the City be retained for park and wetlands area. - 11 - COMMISSIONERS September 1, 1988 2:00 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROM CALL INDEX Mr. Douglas Boyd, 2101 East Balboa Boulevard, a member of St. James Church, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed the Church's concern with the prospect of losing the commercial zoning for its site at 3209 Via Lido. Mr. Boyd explained that due to the expansion of its service area and the need to plan for future growth, the Church was in the process of analyz- ing its alternatives. One of alternatives to meet the expansion requirements would be to sell the present Church site and use the proceeds from the sale to relocate the Church on a site off the Peninsula. Therefore, the loss of value of the present site would pose a considerable economic blow for the Church. Responding to Mr. Boyd's comments, Chairman Pers6n stated he would hate to see the the Church move from its present location and also referred to past talks he had had with officials of the Church, in which he had explained to them the option of a General Plan Amendment in the event the property were sold. Mr. Lenard explained for the Commission that the St. James Church site was one of many such institutional sites citywide, located in higher zoning areas, commercial and residen- tial, that in an effort to have zoning reflect the existing land use was being designated for Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities in both the General Plan and the LCP and rezoned to G- E -I -F. Mr. Clarence T. Yoshikane, 117 and 121 17th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that as an owner of three 25' x 95' lots zoned R -2, he was in opposition to the proposed rezoning of his property to R -1 and the requirement of a maximum lot size of 2,400 sq.ft, for the construction of a duplex. In answer to Commissioner's Pomeroy query as to how much of a financial loss he felt the rezoning would cause him to suffer, Mr. Yoshikane stated that he hadn't yet calcu- lated an exact figure. At this time, Commissioner Merrill, referencing a recent presentation of the Corridor Agency and the EMA on the Corridor in which the term, 16 lane augmented' highway was described as comparable to an 8 lane highway, asked Mr. Terry Austin, City Traffic Consultant, for his interpretation. Mr. Austin explained that a 6 -lane augmented section is a relatively new road design and one being used frequently throughout the County and allows increased capacity with additional lanes while minimizing the necessary amount of right -of -way. As an example, an augmented primary would fit 6 lanes into what would be the right -of -way for a primary. Mr. 12 - COMMISSIONERS September 1, 1 988 2:00 p.m. o ^ o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROCT CALL INDEX Austin referred to a previous Planning Commission discussion in which he said that a section of Jamboree Road would be a candidate for an augmented major, allowing 8 lanes through intersections. He continued that he would not make that recommendation for Coast Highway between Dover Arid Jamboree, although an augment- ed primary might be possible for Dover, north of Coast Highway. Mr. Austin said the advantages of an augmented section are gaining additional lanes into reduced right - of -way and permitting some design discretion; the disadvantage is that the same design discretion results in a General Plan having less specificity with regards to the kind of right -of -way needed. In responding to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding an augmented section resulting in less pavement, Mr. Austin stated that usually the result is less or absence of a median, and /or reduced roadside landscaping. Replying to Chairman Pers6n's question as to whether or not the City's circulation system would perform better or worse, with or without the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to the Corridor, Mr. Austin stated that the system would work in either case, with some traffic shifting from one area to another, but in his opinion the system would be more balanced with the connection. :t ,r Adi ournment. At 4:30 p.m. Chairman Pers6n adjourned the Special Planning Commission meeting until 7:30 p.m.. Adjournment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 13 -