Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/01/1988 (2)ADJOURNED SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSIONERS PLACE: City Council Chambers MINUTES y p p TIME: 7:30 p.m. 'ZmG9 N��^y9 v�ov� DATE: September 1, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX PRESENT * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. * * * 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 There were no minutes to approve. * * * Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Pos ing of he James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August Ag_ei Ld a 26, 1988, in front of City Hall. A. General Plan Amendment 87 -1(A) AND (E)(Continued Item No. I Public Hearing) GPA 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 Circulation Element include modifications to the City's Rec E1 & O.S. ent & adopted Master Plan of Arterial Highways as well as a Hsel Elem. 1 COMMISSIONERS y�G� \113 yC 9 September 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 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 Public Hearing) to 1:30 p. m 9 -8 -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 members of the audience not present at the Special Meeting held earlier at 2:00 p.m., Chairman Pers6n stated that tonight's meeting would begin with hearing public testimony related to the Circulation Element, specific sites proposed for zoning or land use changes, followed by testimony on any other issues relating to the General Plan review. Chairman Pers6n indicated that tonight's meeting would be adjourned to the September 8, 1988 Special Planning Commission meeting to begin at 1:30 p.m., when, follow- ing public testimony and discussion with staff, final action would be taken on the proposals to the Land Use and Circulation Elements. Chairman Pers6n asked Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, to make a presentation regarding proposed changes to the City's circulation system based on the results of the Traffic Study completed in conjunction with the General Plan Review. Mr. Webb verified Chairman Pers6n's explanation that the numbers generated by the Traffic Study are projections to the year 2010 and the assump- tion that every buildable parcel of land in the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach has been built to its maximum. Mr. Webb briefly explained that the new traffic model created for the City is based on very detailed data 2 COMMISSIONERS ymG��Y �NOy9cc �o� CITY OF NEWPORT September 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX regarding land uses within the City and the close surrounding cities of Costa Mesa and Irvine, and the Downcoast area. The model allows testing of various alternatives based on the projections for the year 2010. He stated that as he explained the proposed changes, they would be indicated on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways exhibit illustrating the proposals. Irvine Avenue from University Drive to Bristol and Campus from Bristol to MacArthur Blvd. This road is shown on the current Master Plan as a primary arterial 4 lanes divided. The projections show an increase from 43,000 to 49,000 which is a volume greater than what a 4 lane road should carry. The County Master Plan has already changed the road to a primary modified, which is 6 lanes within 100 feet of right -of -way, therefore the City's proposal is in conformity with the County Plan. Mr. Webb stated that the Traffic Study indicates that the intersection of Campus, Irvine and Bristol will be a trouble spot requiring additional study for a workable solution. To allow for the projected growth in the Santa Ana Heights area and to keep traffic moving on Irvine, Mr. Webb stated that it is recommended that Mesa Drive turning into the Birch Street alignment be a secondary arterial. The alignment of this street through Santa Ana Heights is the subject of a current traffic study and will be scheduled for public hearings early in 1989. Jamboree Road, Ford Road to MacArthur Blvd. Originally recommended as an 8 lane arterial, following the recent discussions before the Planning Commission regarding a 6 lane augmented roadway vs. an 8 lane arterial, a 6 lane augmented is recommended for this section of Jamboree Road. Coast Highway. from West of Dover thru Jamboree Road. Recommended as an 8 lane arterial, Mr. Webb summarized the Traffic Study counts for this section and the projections for 2010 which clearly indicate 8 lanes. He explained that the current volume to capacity ratio is at a level of 6 lanes. He explained that the second phase of improvements due to begin in late Fall will provide a much larger intersection at Jamboree, 8 lanes with a triple left -turn lane on Coast Highway; and 7 lanes are to be provided between Jamboree and Bayside. Addressing the Jamboree intersection grade separation proposal,. Mr. Webb stated that the projected .88 ICU level warrants retaining this option in the Plan should 3 - COMMISSIONERS September 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX that level be reached. He stated that the existing elevation of the intersection would remain approximately the same, and the separation would be achieved by a tunnel or excavated structure type of facility. He continued that rerouting the heavy left turn move from Coast Highway eastbound to Jamboree northbound and dropping it underneath the through lanes and under the hill on Jamboree would accommodate 1/3 to 1/2 of the intersection traffic. Mr. Webb stated that areas of the existing Master Plan proposals receiving public concern include: Coast Highway thru Mariners' Mile. from Dover Dr. to Newport Blvd. Shown on the Master Plan as a major arterial 6 lanes divided or augmented 6 lane, due to the City Council recommending a 112' right -of -way rather than the normal 120' - 132', with widening occurring on the inland side. The intersection at Riverside Drive would need a double left turn lane and a right -of -way of 118'. Mr. Webb explained that a constraint test was run in the traffic model with the highway remaining at 4 lanes and traffic being diverted when it came to a standstill. This test showed a diversion to Cliff Drive ranging from 6,000 at Dover Drive to about 12,000 in the post office area; and showed substantial increases on Dover Drive from 38,000 to 53,000. Ford Rd. and San Joaquin Hill Rd. Connections to the Transportation Corridor. Mr. Webb stated that the Traffic Study analysis does not show substantial differences with either the addition or deletion of the two proposed connections, but maintaining the connec- tions provides a more balanced traffic circulation. He stated that copies of two traffic projection studies, a City study and a.San Joaquin Transportation Corridor EIR Document study, had been made available before the meeting for public review. The model shows that the major difference if the San Joaquin Hills Road con- nection were deleted is that traffic would get off at Pelican Hills Road and result in a decrease of traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road of 4,000 trips. Referring to a resolution recently adopted by the City Council which contains the City's response to the County EIR, Mr. Webb stated that the City Council had recommended the deletion of the San Joaquin Hills Road connection; supported the Ford Road connection provided that Ford Road were realigned northerly towards MacArthur Blvd. He emphasized that maintaining the connections provides 4 - COMMISSIONERS September 1, 1988 • G�y9�oZ9CC 7.30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX for a more even traffic distribution and causes less impact on any one area. Responding to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Webb explained that the 1987 ICU count of 1. for the intersection of Superior Ave. and Coast Highway was calculated without the widening project being included:" Commissioner Merrill stated his concern with the ICU count projection for the intersec- tion of San Miguel Rd. and San Joaquin Hills Rd. showing an increase from .35 to .89. The public hearing continued on General Plan Amendment 87 -1 (A) and (E). Ms. Terry Daves, Seaview Community, appeared before the Planning Commission to voice her concern with the deletion of the San Joaquin Hills Road connection to the corridor recommended by the City Council, which she feels would put all of the traffic burden on the Ford Road connection and San Miguel Road. She opined that . the deletion would not be fair to the residents border- ing San Miguel Road and would greatly increase traffic on neighboring roadways. Mr. Charles Pope, 1800 Port Seabourne Way, appeared before the Planning Commission to request that the San Joaquin Hills Road connection to the corridor remain in the proposed circulation plan. Chairman Pers6n asked Mr. Don Webb to explain the provisions of the existing circulation Master Plan, the proposed circulation Master Plan, and the recent actions taken by the City Council, Mr. Webb stepped to the exhibit map and pointed out the existing circulation plan illustrated with black lines and which shows by dotted lines the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor, a secondary arterial on Sand Canyon Rd., Pelican Hills Rd., and shows San Joaquin Hills Rd. as connecting to the corridor. The Traffic Study recommends that the connection 'remain in the plan and that Ford Road be connected to the corridor and extended to Bonita Canyon. The City Council passed a resolution at its last meeting which summarized the comments of the City to the County of Orange on the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor EIR document. Included in the resolution was a recommenda- tion not to have San Joaquin Hills Road connected to the corridor easterly of Pelican Hills Road, and a recommen- dation that if Ford Road was connected to the corridor, that Ford Road be realigned in a northerly direction. Mr. Webb explained that the City Council resolution is 5 - COMMISSIONERS September 1, 1988 7 30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX considered by the County in its deliberations regarding the Transportation Corridor and also in the final action taken by the County Board of Supervisors. In response to a question from Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Webb explained that the comments contained in the Council resolution do not modify the City's 'Master Plan, and any proposed changes to the existing Master Plan would need to be done during the General Plan hearing process. Mr. Rick Hamilton, President of Harbor View Homeowners Association and a member of the Ad Hoc Coalition of Homeowner Associations, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced support of the proposals to the circulation system and emphasized his main interest was to keep San Miguel Road from becoming a major thorough- fare from East Irvine or the Corridor to Newport Center. In terms of mitigation, Mr. Hamilton stated his prefer- ence would be to keep San Miguel Road the neighborhood road it is currently, but if that were not possible, then he definitely supported the Ford Road and San • Joaquin Hills Road corridor connections as being the most equitable for the surrounding community. Mr. David Todd, 1947 Port Townsend, president of the Newport Hills Community Association, expressed support for the circulation plan with the connections to the Transportation Corridor, stating his belief that it would offer a more balanced traffic distribution for the projected increase in traffic volumes. Dr. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to address proposed changes to the Circulation Element. He requested that the "Paper Street" extension of Avon Street to Santa Ana Avenue be deleted from the Master Plan, and expressed his opposi- tion to the widening of Coast Highway through Mariners' Mile as well as an augmented intersection at the corner of Riverside Drive and Coast Highway, which he felt would only encourage additional traffic to divert to Cliff Drive and through the Newport Heights area. Mr. William Cecka, Vice President, Spyglass Hills Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced his opposition to the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to the Transportation Cor- • ridor. Mr. Cecka summarized the past position of the Spyglass Hills Community Association with respect to their opposing the Ford Road interchange with the Corridor and the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road. He 6 - COMMISSIONERS fry .oesQt� o,.o�, • y�G�$ o�Ny9CC 90 September 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX indicated that this position was shared as well by the associations of Spyglass Ridge, Jasmine Park, Jasmine Creek, Harbor Ridge South, the Terraces, and Broadmoor Associations. Regarding the latter connection, he stated that a compromise had been reached with the City Council which he said was evidenced by Resolution 85 -11, whereby San Joaquin Hills Road would be extended to Pelican Hills Road rather than past Spyglass Hill Road, with Pelican Hills Road providing access to the Cor- ridor. Continuing, Mr. Cecka referred to the recent action by the City Council in the form of Resolution 88- 89 containing the City's responses to the County's San Joaquin Transportation Corridor EIR and specifically to response No. 5 which he read to the Commission. Mr. Cecka commented on the apparent change of position of some of the community associations who now support a Ford Road interchange Corridor connection provided Ford Road is northerly realigned and provided that San Joaquin Hills Road is also connected to the Corridor so as to share the burden of the projected increased • traffic volumes. In replying to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy and Commissioner Debay, Mr. Cecka emphasized that the Spyglass Hills Community Association realizes that there will be increased traffic on San Joaquin Hill Road with or without the connection; that they do question the disparity in the total traffic volume projections of the County and the City studies, but feel any increase of 3,000 to 4,000 ADT's to be significant. Mr. Mitchell Brown, 1979 Port Cardigan, a member of the Ad Hoc Coalition of Homeowner Associations, addressed the Planning Commission to support staff's recommenda- tions for the Circulation Element and also to apprise the commission of specific concerns. Mr. Brown ques- tioned the accuracy of the Traffic Study projection of 4,000 increased ADT's on San Joaquin Hills Road with the deletion of the San Joaquin Hills Road Corridor connec- tion. In this scenario, 51,000, an increase of 12,000 to 15,000 ADT's, are projected to exit the corridor at Pelican Hills Road and backtrack to pick up and travel San Joaquin Hills Road south. Mr. Brown commented that this traffic flow would result in a higher increased volume for San Joaquin Hills Road. Mr. Brown continued that the Master Plan designates San Joaquin Hills Road as a 6 lane major arterial with a level C design capacity of approximately 45,000 ADT. In comparison, both Ford Road between San Miguel and the Corridor and 7 COMMISSIONERS • G�cyff September 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Pelican Hill Road are primaries with a level C design capacity of about 30,000 ADT. Without the San Joaquin Hills Road connection, the traffic volume increases projected for these roadways would have significant adverse impacts on these roadways. Mr. Brown felt that the realignment of Ford Road would require the coopera- tion of the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, and noted that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor budget included funds for the realignment. He stated that the specific nature of the realignment was of particular concern to the homeowner associations and outlined some general design sugges- tions including a buffer of some type which would allow children to bicycle to MacArthur Blvd. without travell- ing on Ford Road. Mr. Brown voiced a concern for making San Miguel Road as undesirable as possible for high- speed commuter traffic. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and • reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Rev. David Anderson, Rector of St. James Church, 3209 Via Lido, appeared before the Planning Commission. Rev. Anderson stated the church's concern and disapproval with the proposed change in zoning for the church location which he stated would result in a considerable loss of property value. He explained that the church had been successful in having a deed restriction removed which had limited the use of the property, and the subsequent re- appraisal value increased by approximately $800,000. He continued that due to the growth of the church and compounded by the need for additional parking space, the church was currently involved in two studies: one to explore ways to increase the accommodations of the present facilities and one to look for an alternate site. Ms. Jean Kiger, Chairman, Library Board of Trustees, appeared before the Planning Commission to apprise the Commission of the ongoing efforts of the Board to secure a site for a 54,000 sq.ft. resource center. She explained the processes that led to the selection of six possible sites, and the project architect's selection of a 4 acre parcel at Newport Village as being the most desirable and cost effective. Ms. Kiger stated that acquisition cost would determine the ultimate site selected and asked for the Commission's awareness. Chairman Pers6n queried Ms. Kiger as to whether or not the property owner was aware of the Board's intent to - 8 - COMMISSIONERS September 1, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7.30 p.m. MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX purchase, and she indicated contact was presently being made by the City. Mr. Vaughn Hagman, 2125 Yacht Radiant, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced his concern with the increased traffic volumes projected for San Miguel Road and particularly the tripling of existing volumes if the San Joaquin Hills Road connection to the Corridor were deleted from the proposal. He explained that as San Miguel Road was the only means of ingress and egress for the residents of Seaview, increased traffic would adversely impact the residents and particularly the children who attend school on San Miguel Road. Mr. Jerry King, 979 Sandcastle Drive, president of the Harbor View Hills South Homeowners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated the associa- tion was in support of the Circulation Plan as it is • proposed and was not included in the group of associa- tions referred to by Mr. Cecka. Mr. King emphasized that the Harbor View Hills South Association had attended County public hearings on the Transportation Corridor, Pelican Hill Road, and the Downcoast Area, and had given testimony before the County and the City in support of the Corridor and that the proposed connec- tions to the Corridor would provide the most equitable distribution of increased traffic flow. Marian Rayl, 426 San Bernardino Ave., appeared before the Planning Commission to request that the land use proposal for the area northerly of Cliff Drive, "No subdivision which will result in additional dwelling units is permitted" be extended to the bluff side as well. She voiced her concern that without this designa- tion, 16 dwelling units could feasibly be constructed on the short block of Cliff Drive between San Bernardino Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue where there are now 5. Mrs. Rayl also asked for clarification regarding the proposed .5 to .75 FAR for Mariners' Mile, and if a low traffic generating use such as a motel ceased doing business, could it be replaced by a high traffic generating use. Chairman Pers6n explained that any change of land use would be subject to discretionary review by the Planning Commission. • With regards to the Mariners' Mile area, Planning Director Hewicker indicated that it seemed an ap- propriate time to answer a question posed by Commis- sioner Winburn during the afternoon public hearing. The 9 COMMISSIONERS 0 yea yN �'y, 9y� CITY OF NEWPORT September 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX question was whether or not existing developments which already exceed .5 FAR due to receiving Use Permits which permitted additional square footage restricted for incentive type uses, still would be required to provide the incentive type uses in the space above .5. Mr. Hewicker explained that the answer to the question was "yes," as at the same time a Use Permit was granted in such cases, a covenant was recorded against the property in which both the current owner and any future owner were noticed of the restriction. A discussion followed between Commissioner Pomeroy and Planning Director Hewicker regarding the effect of a change of use with respect to the existing FAR on the subject development. It was determined that if the contemplated replacement use would generate higher traffic, part of the building could be left vacant in order to retain the existing FAR. Ms. Kerry Slayback, 426 Riverside Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and questioned the differing land use proposals for the northerly and southerly sides of Cliff Drive. Advance Planning Manager Lenard explained that the proposed policy of no subdivision permitted which will result in additional dwelling units for the northerly inland area differs from the bayside area where there are lot sizes varying from 5,000 sq.ft. to 35,000 sq.ft., plus slope areas greater than 2:1. He continued that staff had considered the existing underlying subdivision patterns between Old Newport Blvd. and Dover Drive in arriving at the proposed policy to permit new subdivision on existing bayside parcels only if each lot created is a minimum standard of 7,000 sq.ft. of buildable lot size, excluding slopes greater than 2:1. Ms. Slayback stated her opposition feeling that this policy of allowing lot splits would create more traffic in the Newport Heights area. She continued that bluffs were unique to the character of the area and should be left as such; not to be carved up and develop- ed. Mr. Russ Fluter, 510 30th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the 1.25 building bulk limit proposed with regards to residential - commercial mixed use development. He opined that the mixed use is attractive to the owner or shopkeeper who wishes to live upstairs and have retail or office use downstairs. Mr. Fluter opined that the proposed limitation would not result in a better looking building, but in the con- 10 - COMMISSIONERS 'i \J\,r\ro CITY OF NEWPORT September 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX trary. He indicated that a smaller residential unit would be constructed upstairs, and to avoid having the parking included in the FAR, some would be left un- covered, forcing the building to the front, with the open space on the alley side of the development. Mr. Fluter continued that this type of project would be less desirable for a resident owner and would create box -type development built lot line to lot line. In reply to Commissioner Pomeroy's question, Mr. Fluter said that increasing the limit to 1.5 would allow for a more attractive product by allowing more definition from the street side of the building. Ms. Margaret Mota, Newport Heights, appeared before the Planning Commission to express her opposition to the proposal for the bayside of Cliff Drive which, under certain conditions, would permit lot splits. Ms. Mota stated that while she recognized the right of a property • owner to develop his or her property, she opposed the acquisition of property with the idea of developing it with a land use different from what existed when purchased. In the ensuing discussion, Chairman Pers6n pointed out that under a hypothetical scenario of given a 20,000 sq.ft. lot and excluding the required setbacks, a 32,000 sq.ft. building could conceivably be con - structed, which might result in one very bulky and obtrusive 'neighborhood eyesore,' posing more of a problem than what is perceived might happen with the approval of the proposed subdivision policy. Mr. Taylor Grant, 1985 Port Edward Circle appeared before the Planning Commission to address what he believed to be the totally different characteristics between San Miguel Road and San Joaquin Hill Road. He enumerated the differences ranging from the number of curb cuts, number of signals, the elevation of the bordering homes in relationship to the street eleva- tions, and the design capacity of the roadways. Mr. Grant stated that it should be clear to anyone driving these two streets to conclude which of the two is most suitable to handle projected traffic increases. Mr. Leonard Stimpson, owner of 122 29th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. As an owner of an R -2 2,375 sq.ft. lot currently built with two units, he • questioned how the proposal to require 2,400 sq.ft. for 2 units would effect his property should he, for any reason, wish to rebuild. Mr. Stimpson stated that he recognized some of the congestion problems the Commis- - 11 - COMMISSIONERS y,cy! September 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX sion was dealing with and suggested that one garage be required for each bedroom. A discussion followed between Mr. Stimpson, Planning Director Hewicker and Chairman Pers6n, as to the definition of "bedroom" and the enforcement problems such a policy would present. Ms. Linda Miley, 2763 Hillview Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated that as her resi- dence was in close proximity to Ford Road, she would be greatly impacted by its connection to the Transportation Corridor. She expressed support for the northerly realignment of Ford Road. Dr. Jan Vandersloot reappeared before the Planning Commission to express his opposition to the aforemen- tioned proposed subdivision policy regarding the bayside lots on Cliff Drive. Dr. Vandersloot stated that the Cliff Drive bluff area should be treated the same as Cliff Haven which is on the same bluff system. He opined that the same proposed policy of "no subdivision. which will result in additional dwelling units is allowed" be accorded the bluffside of Cliff Drive. He stated that the provision of excluding slope area greater than 2:1 in the buildable lot calculation was meaningless as most of the Cliff Drive bluff area was less than that ratio. In reply to Dr. Vandersloot's comments that the proposed FAR ratios based on land use for the Mariners' Mile area would encourage high traffic generating uses, Advance Planning Manager Lenard explained the dual standard for controlling trip genera- tion. He stated that the primary test would be the increase of 3 PM peak hour trips per 1,000 sq.ft., and the 60 ADT per 1,000 sq.ft. test would be a secondary method of control. He continued that the predominant land uses in the Mariners' Mile area as being retail, commercial, office and restaurant uses, with retail and office use limited to .5 FAR and restaurant uses approximately .3 FAR. Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that an item the Planning Commission may wish to consider is the capacity design for San Joaquin Hills Road, easterly of Spyglass Road. Mr. Webb explained that the Master Plan desig- nation for this road section is 6 lanes divided; the General Plan Traffic Study projections indicate a 4 lane section would be adequate; and the recent City Council Resolution 88 -99 provides that the section "will not exceed 6 lanes." 12 - COMMISSIONERS Z�G'y nooy �o CITY OF NEWPORT September 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Bill Cecka reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated he wished to offer an apology to the members of the Harbor View South Homeowners Association for having included them, in error, as being among the homeowner associations he was authorized to represent at the public hearing. Mr. Jerry King reappeared before the Planning Commission representing the Newport Harbor Art Museum. Mr. King stated that inasmuch as the proposed General Plan Amendment addresses institutional uses on the future sites of the library and the art museum, he was request- ing that the Planning Commission consider the rezoning of the existing sites that would be vacated when the relocation of the respective institutions occurred. Mr. King continued that the marketing of the existing site was an integral part of financing the museum's new building program, and rezoning of the property now would . eliminate the future need of applying for a General Plan Amendment. In answering a question from Commissioner Merrill as to the rezoning requested, Mr. King stated commercial office at .5 FAR or whatever was allowable. Responding to Chairman Pers6n's inquiry, Advance Planning Manager Lenard explained that at the time of preparing the draft Plan the specifics regarding the relocation of the library and the art museum were not known and the issue of rezoning the existing sites was not addressed. Mr. Lenard referred to a letter received from Mr. Kevin Cosey, Director of the Newport Harbor Art Museum, informing the City of the expansion plans and expected occupancy of the new facility sometime in 1992. The issue of rezoning the current museum site was also mentioned but not detailed as to specific allocation requested. Mr. Lenard said that the Planning Commission could make some type of allocation in the General Plan Amendment currently being discussed, or entertain an amendment at the time of the physical relocation of the museum. Ms. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, indicated that a question had arisen regarding the legality of the Planning Commission analyzing issues of the Trans- portation Corridor that might be inconsistent with the action taken by City Council Resolution 88 -99. Ms. Korade continued that the City Council action did not • affect the Land Use or the Circulation Elements of the General Plan, and that the Planning Commission, at the conclusion of the public hearings, could make its decisions based on the testimonies presented. 13 - COMMISSIONERS ymG ywOy9i � 9:c <\\0 September 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL U INDEX Responding to questions from Commissioner Pomeroy regarding certain R -2 areas being rezoned to R -1, Advance Planning Manager Lenard explained that in preparing the proposal staff looked at the underlying subdivision of the area which shows individual lots of 2,375 sq.ft. There are some persons owning 'oversized' lots or 1 1/2 parcels, which under the proposed R -1 zoning would not be permitted to construct a duplex although their parcel contains the required square footage. Mr. Lenard continued that there have been cases whereby two adjacent property owners combine their two 'oversized' parcels to form three individual sites. Under the proposed Plan, there is no provision allowing duplex construction on the above described lot; it would require an amendment to the General Plan. In regards to the Transportation Corridor and the two proposed connections, Commissioner Winburn asked staff for an example of the impact on the San Miguel to Ford • Road connection without the San Joaquin Hills Road connection, given the 4,000 and 3,000 ADT increases projected in the respective City and County studies to be traveling those two roads. Don Webb, City Engineer referred to projections contained in the Traffic Study and explained that similar ADT increases could be ex- perienced by driving MacArthur Blvd., which shows 27,000 ADT's between Coast Highway and San Miguel Rd., and an increase of 5,000 to 32,000 between San Miguel Rd. and San Joaquin Hills Road. Another example was given as San Joaquin Hills Road showing an ADT of 12,000 between MacArthur and Santa Cruz, and an increase of 5,000 to 20,000 between Santa Cruz and Jamboree Road. Mr. Webb pointed out that any increase would be distributed over a 24 hour period, but that the early morning and PM peak hours could be expected to illustrate the most percep- tible difference. Discussion ensued between the Commissioners and staff in regards to the timely preparation of the materials for the next meeting and the possibility of placing the General Plan Amendment on both the afternoon Special Meeting Agenda and the Regular Evening Meeting Agenda. Chairman Pers6n instructed staff to prepare a straw vote schedule of voting which would include the site specific proposals; the south side of Cliff Drive; alternatives in regards to lot widths; each and every aspect of changes proposed for the Circulation Element and Master Plan of Streets and Highways; the Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills Road connections to the Transportation 14 - COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL P, yes C September 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Corridor; the commercial FAR's in the older sections of town and consideration of any distinguishing charac- teristics of those areas; and the residential issues in the R -2 and R -3 zones. Chairman Pers6n also requested staff to prepare additional information in regards to the south side of Newport Heights with comparison data on lot sizes and slope areas in Cliff Haven and other areas. Assistant City Attorney Korade asked that each Planning Commissioner contact her in regards to any potential conflict of interest in regards to voting on the proposed Plan. Motion was made and voted Planning Commission meeting 1988, with instructions to sary resolutions for the upon. MOTION CARRIED. on to adjourn the Special to 1:30 p.m., September 8, staff to prepare the neces- Planning Commission to act ADJOURNMENT: At 10:25 p.m. the Planning Commission adjourned to the September 8, 1988 Special Planning Commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 15 - MINUTES INDEX