Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/1988COMMISSIONERS ADJOURNED SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 1:30 p.m. DATE: September 8, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX: .PRESENT * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. - EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: 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: Posting of the Robert P. Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, Agenda September 2, 1988, in front of City Hall. A. General Plan Amendment 87 -I(A) AND (E)(Continued Item No. 1 Public Hearine) 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 Rec.& 0.5. Circulation Element include modifications to the City's Element & adopted Master Plan of Arterial Highways as well as a Hse.Elem. reevaluation of the necessary roadway improvements and funding sources available to the City of Newport Beach. - 1 - COMMISSIONERS Zm F`�d'y s %A September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX AND B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 13 (Continued Adopted Public Hearine) Res. 1181 and Amendments to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to Res. 1182 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 Advance Planning Manager Lenard summarized the various • reports and documents that had been transmitted to the Planning Commission since the last Special Meeting and also offered clarification regarding two issues that had been questioned in the interim: 1) Flexible FAR: The types of uses that would be allowed to exceed the basic. FAR would be limited to those uses capable of being monitored in cases of transitioning to other uses that are higher traffic generators; specifically office use would not be permitted to exceed the basic FAR. 2) Building Bulk: The base FAR would include any struc- turized, covered, above grade parking. In those projects permitted to develop to the maximum FAR due to their lower traffic generation rate, the maximum FAR would likewise include above grade, covered parking. The public hearing on this item was continued at this time. Mr. Chan Lefebvre, 2112 E. Balboa Blvd., representing the Balboa Point Association Board of Directors, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the ongoing concern of the Association has been the inability of getting satisfactory traffic volume data concerning the 4 months of summer beach peninsula traffic. Mr. Lefebvre stated that he felt it was necessary to have this information and to have it included in the Traffic Study analysis. Commenting that the City population was dramatically impacted by the summer traffic, Mr. Lefebvre said he wanted to know that 2 COMMISSIONERS September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX in 2005 when the peninsula will have unknown thousands of additional square footage of commercial development, plus the projected increases in traffic, that the daily traffic then will not be the same as the present day weekend traffic. Discussion followed, whereby Chairman Pers6n referred to data from a 1985 Traffic Study which addressed summer weekday and weekend peninsula traffic and the volumes anticipated, which had been made avail- able to the Association and also included in the current file. He also referenced proposed language included in the proposed Plan which encourages the mixed use of residential and commercial in Central Balboa as well as the waterfront areas in an effort to reduce traffic. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to and read Policy 5 in the proposed Circulation Element, "Identify and imple- ment, measures to reduce the impact of high volume summer traffic on persons living along and around the beach and bay." He also quoted from the Policy 5 Discussion, "...Accordingly, the City commits to further study of the proposals outlined in the Local Coastal • Program, as well as continued implementation of certain enforcement practices that provide some relief to residents during the most congested times." He con- tinued that this language had not been included in the previous Circulation Element and reflects the ongoing effort to address the problem. Mr. Lefebvre expressed the opinion that the language quoted above was very general in nature and did not address the problem in as specific detail as that which he felt should be required of the proposed Plan. In order to establish some legal parameters, Assistant City Attorney Carol Korade stated that the purpose of the General Plan is to correlate different required sections under the Government Code. Basically the City is only legally obligated to provide a Circulation Element that provides for traffic, roads, and other circulation aspects sufficient to deal with and satisfy the needs created by land uses in the city. Summer traffic is considered regional traffic, and the Circula- tion Element does not need to deal with it, although in this instance, the City, though not legally required, is attempting to address the problem. Chairman Pers6n stated that he had previously made a • commitment to Mr. Lefebvre and the Balboa Point Associa- tion that at the completion of the General Plan Review, the Planning Commission would request staff, through the City Manager, to begin work on the Central Balboa 3 - . COMMISSIONERS ymG9ti yNOy�({ o,� CITY OF NEWPORT September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Specific Plan. He also stated that the current proposed Land Use Plan was permitting 728 less commercial development, throughout the City, than what would have been permitted under the existing Plan. Mr. Shant Agajanian, '501 Harbor Woods Place, appeared before the Planning Commission representing the Harbor Woods Place Homeowners Association Board of Directors. Mr. Agajanian stated that the Board's position regarding the two proposed connections to the Transportation Corridor was that they would prefer neither connection, however, alternatively, they supported both connections occurring simultaneously, rather than one and not the other. They opposed the Ford Road connection without the San Joaquin Hills Road connection to the corridor; however if for some reason the San Joaquin Hills Road connection were eliminated, they would support a northerly alignment of Ford Road, or as Mr. Agajanian explained, "a new road that would parallel or very near parallel Ford Road" that would eliminate the through traffic capabilities coming off of the Corridor and traveling down San Miguel Road. Mr. Frank Trane, 2018 E, Bay Avenue, representing St. James Church, appeared before the Planning Commission, and referring to the agenda of the September 1 Special Meeting, stated that he noticed and therefore questioned the absence of some institutions from the list of those proposed to be "down zoned," namely the Roman Catholic Church, the Assistance League, and St. Michaels. In reply, Principal Planner Pat Temple explained that in remapping the General Plan, staff attempted to identify all churches and other uses that would fit into the G -E- I-F category and color -coded the sites as such on the proposed Land Use Map. Ms. Temple continued that the existing two churches on 15th Street have been so designated; and because the Assistance League includes both a retail store and a medical office, the site was retained as retail which generates a different traffic ratio than G- E -I -F. She stated that if staff were apprised of any remapping omissions, they would be corrected. Chairman PersGn added that it was his hope that recent changes in church parking requirements would not cause St. James Church to move from the peninsula. He also stated that the Land Use Designation could be amended through the General Plan Amendment process. Mr. Don Demars, 1969 Port Bristol, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his support of the 4 - COMMISSIONERS �mG'�y �woy `c o September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to the Transporta- tion Corridor. Mr. Demars said that he also believed in the equal distribution of traffic, and therefore supported the Ford Road connection and the northerly realignment of that road. Ms. Dana Boyer, 2953 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and voiced her support of the recommended 7,000 sq.ft. as the minimum subdivision standard for lots on the southerly side of Cliff Drive. Mr. Dean Wilson, 2224 Port Carlysle, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated he was very concerned with regards to the Transportation Corridor and likened it to having another "San Diego Freeway in the back yard" with its attendant dirt, smog and pollution, and stated his disappointment that the City had encouraged its development. In reply to Mr. Wilson's inquiry regarding Resolution 85 -11, City Engineer Don Webb explained that in February, 1985, the City Council drafted Resolution 85 -11 which enumerated several items deemed necessary to be considered during the preliminary design and EIR preparation for the Transportation Corridor. And at their August 22, 1988 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution 88 -89 which contains the City's comments in response to the County Transportation Corridor EIR. In this resolution some items are deleted and other items added to the original list contained in Resolution 85 -11. Copies of both resolutions would be available from the City Clerk's Office. Responding to a question from Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Webb continued that the concept of the corridor began in the late '70's when the first County EIR established the need, evaluated several possible alignments, and decided on the one felt to be the most appropriate, Resolution 88 -89 addresses the resulting County San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor EIR. Chairman Pers6n explained that the corridor was a County project which the City had supported. It was understood that no one wanted the corridor in his backyard, but the corridor was seen as vitally necessary to residents throughout the City. He continued that the City has a unique problem of only two routes crossing the back bay area, 3 1/2 miles apart, which further exacerbates the traffic problem. Mr. Wilson continued that he supported Harbor View's 4 Point Program; he felt the corridor was inevitable, and therefore supported the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to the corridor as being the most equitable for all the residents. 5 - COMMISSIONERS yGG 9N �9 9 L • �� Gy C` yQ September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Nancy Brundage, Harbor View Hills resident, appeared before the Planning Commission to express her concern with the Transportation Corridor. She stated that if the goal of the Corridor was to relieve traffic on Coast Highway and not promote development, she felt a 6 lane road and not a 10 lane road to be adequate. She voiced her support of the aforementioned Harbor View 4 Point Program and the realignment of Ford Road. Due to the many children in the area, Ms. Brundage emphasized the need to keep San Miguel Road from becoming a thorough- fare. She said it was her belief that MacArthur Blvd., San Joaquin Hills Road, Ford Road, and Pelican Hills Road were adequate to service the traffic, however, if Ford Road was connected to the Corridor, then San Joaquin Hills Road should be connected also. Ms. Joan Leguay, 1906 Port Weybridge, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the Transportation Corridor. She stated that if it was necessary for the • City to have the Transportation Corridor and its connections, then it was essential that the Planning Commission fight to preserve the quality of life and safety of the citizens. She voiced her concern at having a major freeway within a mile of her neighborhood and only have the Ford Road connection, which she said would cause serious noise problems from both the Corridor and a widened and heavily traveled Ford Road. Ms. Leguay stated her support for the northerly realign- ment of Ford Road, and if it were to be connected, then also the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to the corridor should be made. Ms. Leguay referenced a comment she said was made by a City Council Member who supported the deletion of the San Joaquin Hills Road connection with the reasoning the connection would cause increased traffic coming north through Old Corona del Mar. Ms. Leguay said she disagreed with this reasoning, feeling that traffic would travel north either via Pelican Hills Road or Mac Arthur Blvd. Mr. Max Bartosh, 405 Flagship Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bartosh, president of the Newport Harbor Lawn Bowling Club located on San Joaquin Hills Road and heavily attended by seniors, wished to bring this fact to the attention of the Commission. • Mr. Keith Jacobson, 1904 Yacht Maria, representing the Seaview Homeowners Board of Directors, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Jacobson stated it was the Board's understanding that the City of Irvine was 6 - COMMISSIONERS y���i9�NZ99ci '�y0'3c September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX actively pursuing the elimination of the connection of Culver Drive to the Corridor. He stated that the Board's concern is that without the Culver Drive connection, the Turtle Rock community would have only one exit towards Newport Beach area via Bonita Canyon Road to Ford Road and San Miguel Road. Mr. Jacobson questioned whether or not the City of Irvine could, in fact, prevent the Culver Drive connection, and if so, his Board would be adamantly opposed to the Ford Road connection. He said that all of the Corridor connec- tions must be made for an equitable distribution of the increased traffic and pollution. Mr. Jim Tucker, resident of Harbor View Hills Phase I and past president of their Homeowners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. He referred to a homeowners petition, signed by some 700 residents, opposing the Ford Road connection to the Corridor, which had been submitted to the City Council for their con- sideration in deliberating the issues resulting in City Council Resolution 85 -11. He stated that he felt both the City Council and the Planning Commission should honor the provisions of Resolution 85 -11, and if the situation has changed in the years since its adoption, then both San Joaquin Hills Road and Ford Road should be treated equally: connect neither road to the Corridor or connect both roads to the Corridor. Rev. David Anderson, Rector, St. James Church, 3209 Via Lido, appeared before the Planning Commission. Rev. Anderson referred to previous testimony in which he had stated concern regarding the proposed zoning change for the church site which he said would result in a con - siderable reduction of the land value of the site, based on 1980 appraisal figures, and thus a severe monetary loss to the church. Rev. Anderson continued that whether or not the church would ultimately move from its current site or choose to expand the current facilities, the loss of value would profoundly affect the amount and the terms of financing available. Discussion followed between the Commissioners, staff, and Rev. Anderson regarding possible alternatives. These included the concept of retaining the existing designation with a G- E -I -F overlay; the traffic projection inaccuracies which would occur if they were not based on the actual and existing land use; and the unknown current appraisal value of the church site considering the uses the proposed Plan allows. 7 COMMISSIONERS ti ASeptem ber 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. xCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Bill Cecka, 1 Monterey Circle, Vice President of the Spyglass Hills Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission with authorization to represent Spyglass Hills, Jasmine Creek, Jasmine Park, Harbor View Broadmoor, and Harbor Ridge Associations. He stated that the increased traffic projection for San Joaquin Hills Road is the same as it was when the City Council adopted Resolution 85 -11 supporting only the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hills Road, with the latter providing access to the Transportation Corridor. Mr. Cecka opined that this decision should be maintained until the Corridor has been in operation a few years, and that the impacts on Pelican Hills Road will be known after only a couple of years. He con- tinued that the traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road will increase when it is connected to Pelican Hills Road and also as the result of increased traffic on Ford Road, and stated his belief that the projection of 25,000 ADT's for the road as being proof that the area resi- dents are sharing the burden of the projected increased traffic. Mr. Cecka said that more attention must be given to the overall noise problem along all roads impacted by the traffic increases, that the traffic ADT projections are 'estimates' that may or may not be realized, and suggested that traffic density terminology might be better understood with terms such as "extra heavy, heavy, medium, and light" together with assigned tolerance bands, i.e., 20,000 - 30,000 ADT for 'heavy.' Ms. Terry Daves, 2015 Yacht Vendix, appeared before the Planning Commission to express her view that she would prefer not to have the Transportation Corridor nor the connections, however, believing that the Corridor will become a reality, she firmly supports both the Ford Road and the San Joaquin Hills Road connections. She voiced support for the Ford Road realignment, the relocation of the Park and Ride lot to Bison Road, and the diversion from San Miguel Road of as much through traffic as possible. Mr. H. Ross Miller, President of the Spyglass Ridge Homeowners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission, to express their opposition to the connec- tion of San Joaquin Hills Road to the Corridor. He stated that he had attended a meeting of the Harbor View • Homes South Homeowners Association the previous night and opined that Association was not fully supportive of the connection as had been reported to the Commission. He continued that the Spyglass Ridge Association was in 8 - COMMISSIONERS \XIV, 9 September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX agreement with the group represented by Mr. Ceka, in feeling that the burden of the increased traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road resulting from its connection to Pelican Hills Road was burden enough for the impacted residents, without the road's extension to the corridor. Speaking as a member of the steering committee for SPON, Mr. Miller stated that SPON supported the Transportation Corridor as a 6 lane, scenic highway, without either connection, Ford Road or San Joaquin Hills Road. Ms. Anita Meister -Boyd, 1848 Port Carlysle, Secretary - Treasurer Newport Hills Community Association and Member of the Harbor View Ad -Hoc Committee, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that the Ad -Hoc Committee represents 7 community associations encompass - ing approximately 5,500 residents, all who will be heavily impacted by the increased traffic, noise, and reduced air quality which will result from the Ford Road • connection to the Corridor. Ms. Meister -Boyd stated. that it would be totally unfair to approve the Ford Road connection without the San Joaquin Hills Road connec- tion; that such deletion would further exasberate the adverse impacts already mentioned, plus cause increased traffic volumes on MacArthur Blvd. and Coast Highway. She continued that a large number of small children criss -cross San Miguel Road playing, going to school, walking and biking, and their safety is of grave concern. She stated that it was imperative for con- sideration be given to the circulation route of traffic through the impacted roadways, that Ford Road should be realigned, and the Park and Ride lot relocated. She opined that if the Associations' position contained in their 4 Point Plan cannot be supported, they in turn cannot support the Ford Road Corridor connection. Mr. Hal Woods, 2919 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his support in staff's recommendation of requiring a 7,000 sq.ft. subdivision standard for the bluff side lots on Cliff Drive. He opined that an approval of a standard greater than 7,000 sq.ft. would be compromising the rights of the property owner. In reply to a question by Commissioner Debay whether Mr. Woods' project, which had received previous City approval, would be affected by the Planning • Commission action regarding the bluff side lots, Assistant City Attorney Carol Korade explained that normally once project approval is received, the property owner can proceed as long as he has vesting rights to 9 COMMISSIONERS September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX proceed, which basically means he has obtained a building permit, dug a hole, and poured some concrete. She continued that the City does have the right to affect certain rights of certain types of development that are pending. Mr. Woods outlined the.rather lengthy subdivision process which he and his partners had begun in November of 1987, and the steps still to be taken before they could begin construction. He added that the property was purchased with the understanding that the intent of subdivision for 4 sites was possible. If the project would be affected by approval of a standard subdivision lot size larger than 7,000 sq.ft., it would eliminate one of the four proposed homesites. Mr. Mark Balgau, 2912 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and questioned the 'down zoning' of Cliff Drive parcels if the reason for the action was an attempt to reduce traffic. Advance Planning Manager Lenard replied that in the instance of Cliff Drive, the effort was to find and establish a clearly stated sub-, division standard. In responding to Mr. Balgau's question as to how the proposed standard lot size of 7,000 sq.ft. for the bluff side was reached, Mr. Lenard explained that staff had conducted a cursory survey which looked first at the lots between Tustin Ave. and Irvine Ave. This showed lot sizes of exactly 7,000 sq.ft. including some sloping area. Secondly, the lots on Kings Road towards Dover showed lot sizes varying from 10,000 sq.ft. to 14,000 sq.ft. with substantially large portions of the lots sloping down to the commer- cial sites on Coast Highway. Consequently, the 7,000 sq.ft. proposed is not gross lot area, but rather buildable lot area, deducting any slope areas greater than 2:1. Mr. Balgau continued that he preferred that the area be left alone with no changes, but would support a required subdivision standard of 6,000 sq.ft. Mr. Brian Webb, 121 27th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the 'down zoning' proposed for the peninsula, specifically, the require- ment of a 2,400 sq.ft. lot for duplex construction. He voiced his opinion that the requirement would not alleviate any of the existing problems of traffic, density, parking, and would not be an encouragement to owner occupancy. Mr. Webb continued that he didn't feel that the number of lots which would be affected would make any difference, stating that his count identified 360 lots, and that approximately 300 of the 360 lots already have existing duplexes. He opined that the 10 - COMMISSIONERS September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX restriction would extend the life cycle of the existing old' structures indefinitely, as it is not economically feasible to tear down an existing, cash producing structure to build a single family residence. Ms. Rhonda Hein, 505 `35th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the requirement of 2,400 sq.ft. lot for duplex construction. Representing her family who own three 2,375 sq.ft. lots on 24th Street which, she stated, was already predominantly constructed with duplexes, she opposed the requirement and requested consideration of her letter that had been transmitted to the Planning Commissioners prior to the hearing. Mr. Sid Sofer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission and without agreeing one way or another, complimented the Planning Commission for facing some of the difficult problems facing the City. • He continued that traffic numbers are difficult to understand, but opined that the lack of coordinated signaling was a major problem with traffic circulation. He stated that down zoning was a matter being more closely looked at by the federal courts, and it was his hope that someday it would be compensated by monetary damages. Ms. Sue Bogdan, 1945 Port Bristol, Harbor View Homeown- ers Association Board Member, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the impact of the increased traffic on the safety of the neighborhood children. She stressed the existing dangers and increase in the number of accidents, specifying the intersections of Ford and MacArthur and Ford and Jamboree as being especially hazardous. Ms. Bogdan stated the traffic and attendant problems would be even worse without the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to the corridor. Ms. Peggy Stair, 2240 Port Dunleigh, addressed the Planning Commission to voice her support for the realignment of Ford Road and stressed her concern for the safety of children who must deal with the increased traffic. She stated also her support for the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to the corridor. • Ms. Beverly Engstrom, 1701 Newport Hills West, appeared before the Planning Commission. She explained that as an original resident of Harbor View Hills, Phase II, she had witnessed, over the years, the increasing traffic - 11 - COMMISSIONERS September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX and resulting danger for the children, at play and traveling to and from area schools. She expressed her terrible shock when her own child was hit by a car on San Miguel Road and requested the Commission's con- sideration on behalf of all the children. Ms. Candy Grant, 1985 Port Edward Circle, President, Anderson School PTA, addressed the Planning Commission representing that body's executive board, to express their support of the Ad Hoc Coalition of Homeowners Associations. She emphasized the concern of parents regarding the safety of their children traveling on San Miguel Road, and the need for stop signs and perhaps signals for traffic control. Ms. Nora Jean Shamrell, 1701 Port Abbey, addressed the Planning Commission regarding the increased noise occurring from the increased traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. She asked the Planning Commission to consider the noise that will result from the Ford Road. Corridor connection traffic. Mr. Bob Duke, 7 Muir Beach Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the Transportation Corridor. He stated that he had been involved with the citizens who had worked together with the City Council in the processes that led to the drafting and adoption of Resolution 85 -11. He indicated that the residents of the San Joaquin Hills Road area had agreed to the extension of that road, past Spyglass Hills Road to Pelican Hills Road, but not its connection to the Corridor. They also supported the realignment of Ford Road. The public hearing was closed at this time. The Planning Commission recessed at 3:20 p.m. and reconvened at 3:35 p.m. Chairman Person explained that the Planning Commission would be voting on the various elements of the General Plan as they had been proposed and amended by staff as a result of the discussions and hearings of the Planning Commission. The straw vote guide, attached to the September 8 staff report, identifies each and every subject brought before the Planning Commission in which • a controversy had arisen. At the conclusion of the vote, a motion to adopt the resolutions will be made which confirms the straw vote as being the vote and recommendation of the Planning Commission. Chairman 12 - COMMISSIONERS • y�G�y ��o %� 90� f September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Pers6n explained the voting procedure to be followed to the Commissioners whereby a 'white vote' would indicate a potential conflict of interest on behalf of the respective Commissioner, and if a Commissioner wished to abstain on any vote, to so signify to the Chairman prior to the vote. Ms. Pat Temple, Principal Planner, explained to the Planning Commission, item by item, the minor changes recommended by staff to the straw vote guide. Chairman Pers6n indicated that he would exercise his prerogative from the floor to make the first motion which would allow the other Commissioners to comment, to make a subsequent motion, or to disagree as in normal voting procedure. STRAW VOTE: Land Use Element Motion * I. Introductory sections of the Land Use Element. All Ayes Motion was made to approve items A through E. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * II. Major Land Use Plan Designations. All Ayes Motion was made to answer YES. MOTION CARRIED. III. Residential Issues. Motion * A. Two - Family Lot Limits (for two units). Ayes * * * * * Motion was made and voted to approve 2,375 sq.ft. No * MOTION CARRIED. Motion * B. Multi- Family Lot Limits (per unit). Ayes * * * * * Motion was made and voted to answer YES. MOTION No * CARRIED. C. Other Peninsula/West Newport Redesignations. Motion * 1. What shall the lot area requirements per unit for R -3 development on the Balboa Peninsula be? Motion was made to approve 1,200 sq.ft. Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve 1,187.5 sq.ft. Motion * Commissioner Pomeroy stated that 1,187.5 sq.ft. was one - * half of the 2,375 sq.ft. recently approved and would be * * * * * more appropriate. Chairman Pers6n stated that he would not be supporting the substitute motion on the basis the difference was between two - family and multi - family. The substitute motion was voted on. MOTION FAILED. The All Ayes original motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. 13 - COMMISSIONERS MINUTES '0 September 8, 1988 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * 2. Shall all blocks where the predominant underlying subdivision lot size is less than the Two Family Standard adopted in Item A above be redesignated "Single Family Detached "? All Ayes Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTION CARRIED. Motion • 3. Shall all blocks where the predominant underlying subdivision size is less than the Multi- Family standard adopted in Item. C.1 above or 30 feet wide or less be redesignated "Two Family Residential "? Motion was made to answer YES. In 'answering a question from Commissioner Winburn regarding the number of Multi- Family blocks remaining, which would be affected by the proposed change and the difference between those changed from those remaining, Advance Planning Manager Lenard stated that the bulk of the existing Multi - Family lots would be eliminated in favor of the Two - Family Residential designation. He continued that the 3 to 4 blocks of remaining Multi - Family lots would be in areas where parcels have already been legally combined to form subdivision lots greater than 2,400 sq.ft. and with frontages wider than 30 ft., and in areas already predominately developed with multi- family residences. All Ayes The motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. D. Newport Heights. Motion * 1 What shall the subdivision standard for lots on the southerly side of Cliff Drive be? Motion was made for 10,000 sq.ft. In the following discussion,. and responding to a question posed by Commissioner Debay as to whether or not Mr. Wood's project would be affected by the recom- mended action, Assistant City Attorney Carol Korade explained that it would depend on whether or not Mr. Wood had the required vesting rights to resubdivide. Ms. Korade indicated that Mr. Wood would not have to come back before the Planning Commission in order to resubdivide, and the current Planning Commission action would not affect his existing project approval, provided he has a recorded parcel map prior to final approval by the City Council. The City has the right to change zoning or anything else until Mr. Wood digs a hole and pours concrete. In replying to a question from Commission Pomeroy whether or not it was possible to place a special designation on Mr. Wood's property, Ms. 14 - COMMISSIONERS $ p O 9 9 �y L CITY OF NEWPORT September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Korade replied that it would be possible, but might be subject to a 'spot zoning' challenge in court. She stated that if 10,000 sq.ft. was voted today, Mr Wood would need to record his parcel map before final adoption of the Plan. Chairman Pers6n stated that he would support the 10,000 sq.ft. recommendation, and in so doing, was not considering a particular project, but rather based on the information learned during the ' General Plan Review process and from meetings and discussions with both residents and staff. He continued that at the time Mr. Wood's project had been before the Planning Commission, there had been some discussion that the project should wait for the General Plan Review. In responding to a question from Commissioner Winburn as to the number of homes that would be eliminated from the south side of Cliff Drive by the 10,000 sq.ft. requirement, Mr. Lenard answered that the total future allowable under the 7,000 sq.ft. standard would be 18. • Under the 10,000 sq.ft. standard, the total would be 13, and as there are 5 homes already existing, the total growth would be 8. Chairman Pers6n commented that in conjunction with the original motion, he would be requesting the Planning Commission to adopt the R -1.B.2 Standards, which allows the Commission to require 10 ft. side setbacks providing an opportunity for more extended view area, and still requires 408 open space, and permits 2 times buildable. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he was in disagreement with the motion on the floor, believing that the Substitute residents' comments heard before the Planning Commission Motion * reflected the view of the minority. A substitute motion was made to approve 7,000 sq.ft. Commissioner Winburn asked to address the main motion, and stated her support for the motion. She stated that she was not very proud of the project westerly of the theatre arts building and believed it to be on a 7,000 sq.ft. parcel, and believes that the southerly side of Cliff Drive needs to be treated differently. Ayes Noes * *. * The substitute motion was voted on. MOTION FAILED. * * * The main motion was voted on. MOTION FAILED. s Motion * Motion was made and voted on to pass this item on to the City Council without a recommendation. MOTION CARRIED. All Ayes 15 - COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ym °9�9 N'm September 8, 1988 G N y 9y 9A 1:30 p.m. OA Q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Motion * 2. Shall a minimum of 50 feet of frontage on Cliff Drive be required for each new subdivided lot on the Ayes * * * * southerly side of Cliff Drive? Noes * * Motion was made and voted on to answer NO. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * 3. Shall a subsecuent zoning phase include considera- tion of more stringent development standards, such as those defined in "B" combining district. for those lots on the southerly side of Cliff Drive? (These standards I I I I I I lot coverage_) All Ayes Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. CARRIED. Motion I I I* Newport Heights northerly of Cliff Drive? • Motion was made to answer YES. In answer to Commissioner Debay's question as to whethe or not a vote of 'yes' would preclude the R -2 lots fro being subdivided for a condominium, Chairman Fers6n sai 'no.' All Ayes Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. IV. Commercial Issues Motion + I I *I I I I I A. Shall above grade covered parking be included i floor area calculations for specific areas of the City? All Ayes Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTIO. CARRIED. Motion using a basic concept of . Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 3: "In clusion of parking structure in counted floor area base All Ayes upon the percentage of the parking structure abov grade." MOTION CARRIED. C. Flexible floor area intensities. 1. Group 1 on * Shall Group 1 areas be limited to the specific ment limits with no inclusion of parking strut no flexible floor area standards? All Ayes Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. CARRIED. - 16 - COMMISSIONERS September 8, 1988 m 9N 9� 9y 9i G9y� `C 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX: 2. Group 2. * Shall the (above) stated floor area ratios be es- Motion tablished with a mixed use building envelope limit of - -. Motion was made to approve 1.25. In the discussion that followed, Commissioner Pomeroy expressed his belief that public testimony had shown that a floor area ratio of 1.50 would allow a more livable residential unit and a better looking product Substitute for the benefit of the owner and the City. Motion * A substitute motion was made to approve 1.50 In the discussion that followed, Commissioner Debay expressed her support for the substitute motion stating that the 1.50 would better accommodate the parking Ayes * * * requirement. Noes * * * Substitute motion was voted on. MOTION FAILED. * The main motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. 2a. Cannery Village. Motion * Shall the above stated floor area ratios be established with a mixed use limit of . Ayes * * * * * Motion was made and voted on to approve 1.50. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. 2b. Balboa Bay Club. Motion * Shall the above stated floor area ratio be established. Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTION Ayes * * * * Absent * * CARRIED. 3. Group 3. Shall the stated floor area ratios be established? Motion * Motion was made to answer YES. In the discussion which followed, Advance Planning Manager Lenard replied to a question from Commissioner Debay as to why a maximum 0.65 FAR was shown for Hoag Hospital. He stated that 0.50 to 0.65 FAR was the envelope that Hoag Hospital had indicated would accom- modate their expansion plans, which are still to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lenard verified Commissioner's Pomeroy statement that the maximum 0.75 FAR shown in the Group 3 Chart, was based upon a scale . for lower traffic generation, and could not be exceeded even if the use had no traffic generation. All Ayes Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. 17 - COMMISSIONERS s CITY OF NEWPORT September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 4. Group 4. Motion * Shall the stated floor area ratios be established? Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTION All Ayes CARRIED. 5. Specific Sites. " Motion * A. Westbay. Motion was made and voted on to approve Recreational and All Ayes Environmental Open Space. MOTION CARRIED. B. Newport Village- Avocado /MacArthur. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 1: 10 acres for Art Museum; 100,000 sq.ft., 4 acres for Park, 2.5 acres for Transit Terminal, All Ayes Balance for Office @ 0.2 FAR. MOTION CARRIED. C. Civic Plaza (TIC Portion). tion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 1: Ayes 8,400 sq.ft. of office. MOTION CARRIED. D. Corporate Plaza West. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 3: All Ayes 94,000 sq.ft. office (APF) - .215. MOTION CARRIED. E. Villa Point. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 1: -- -'All Ayes 138 dwelling units (MFR). MOTION CARRIED. - - F. PCH /Jamboree. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 2: All Ayes 90 dwelling units (MFR) with 208 affordable. MOTION CARRIED. G. Freeway Reservation East. Motion, * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 3: Ayes * * * * * Recreational and Environmental Open Space. No * MOTION CARRIED. H. Jamboree /MacArthur. Motion * Motion was made to approve No. 1: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that because the subject site was adjacent to existing office use located in the City of Irvine, the suggested use was probably ap- propriate. However, he stated that because of the potential construction due to the corridor and align - ments, it might not be a prudent decision until the 18 - COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 8, 1988 G Novi 2 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . ROLL CALL INDEX eventual circulation system is in place. He added he would support the motion, with the stated reservations. All Ayes Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. I. Newporter North. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 1: All Ayes 212 dwelling units (SFA) with REOS. MOTION CARRIED. J. San Diego Creek North. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve. No. 3: All Ayes 112,000 sq.ft. office with 2.5 acre Fire Station. MOTION CARRIED. K. San Diego Creek South. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 3: All Ayes 300 dwelling units with 208 affordable. MOTION CARRIED._ L. Castaways. on * Motion was made to approve No. 1: 151 dwelling units (SFD) as long as appropriate Open • Space is designated around bluff. In the discussion which followed, Commissioner Debay opined that 151 dwelling units attached would permit Substitute more open space and made a substitute motion to approve .Motion * 151 dwelling units (SFA). Commissioner Winburn stated that she would be supporting the main motion based on the provisions for open space contained in both the bluff ordinance and the Recreation and Open Space Element. Commissioner Pomeroy asked staff to make a rough estimate as to the percentage of open space that would be available under No. 1 and No. 2. Advance Planning Manager Lenard replied that No. 1 represented land use in the existing General Plan including bluff setback area, a strip of open space along the bluff, a neighborhood park, and a conventional single family subdivision, with roughly 108 open space. No. 2, with dwelling units clustered might allow 408 to 508 open space. Chairman Pers6n stated his intention to support the main motion believing that the site was one of the prime areas of the City and worthy of the single family detached type of home. Commissioner Di Sano indicated his agreement with Chairman Pers6n and that it would allow the same type of homes as in Cliff Haven and Westcliff. Commissioner Winburn referred to the excel- • lent existing park in the area and the provisions of the Recreation and Open Space Element as reasons for supporting the main motion. 19 - COMMISSIONERS September 8, 1988 :Mlr� 1:30 p . m . oCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX: ..; Substitute Commissioner Pomeroy made a substitute substitute motion Substitute to approve 151 dwelling units, SFD, with 208 recreation- Motion * al and open space. In the discussion which followed, it was pointed out that the motion would allow 6 units per acre rather than the proposed 4 units. Advance Planning Manager Lenard confirmed Chairman Pers6n's statement that when development of the site occurred, a Tentative Track Map, a major Planned Community development plan, subdivision design, and plans for open space areas would be presented for City approval. Ayes Noes * * * * * The substitute substitute motion was voted on. MOTION FAILED. Ayes * * * The substitute motion was voted on. MOTION FAILED. Noes i Ayes The main motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. M. Bayview Landing. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 1: REOS on upper pad; 10,000 sq.ft. Restaurant or 40,000 sq.ft. athletic club. In reply to Commissioner Merrill's inquiry as whether or not the Commission's action would encumber the landowner to the uses designated, Chairman Pers6n said the landowner had indicated more interest in either a restaurant or athletic club use, and that if another use was desired, it could be amended through the General Amendment process. All Ayes Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. N. ATU Site (Bison and Camelback). Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 1: All Ayes 33,350 sq.ft. retail (RSC). MOTION CARRIED. 0. Amling's Nursery. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 1: All Ayes 5,000 sq.ft. retail (RSC). MOTION CARRIED. P. Newport Inn Expansion. Motion * Motion was made to approve No. 2: 68 hotel rooms transferred to Newporter Resort site with • Recreation and Environmental Open Space on the Newporter Knoll portion of the property. 20 - COMMISSIONERS September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY .OF NEWPORT BEACH :ROLL CALL INDEX In the discussion which followed, Commissioner Winburn, SulssEitute ' stated she could not support the 68 hotel rooms provi- Motion * sion and made a substitute motion to approve Recreation and Environmental Open Space. As explanation, Commis- sioner Winburn cited that during her term on the Planning Commission, "the Newporter Resort had first requested approval for additional rooms to accommodate their over supply of conference rooms. Following the room additions, they requested additional conference rooms. She opined that the City did not need more hotel rooms at this time. In responding to a question from Chairman Pers6n, Advance Planning Manager Lenard said that if the additional rooms were approved, the project would still come before the Planning Commission for discretionary approval. Commissioner Debay stated that she would be supporting the main motion in that the New- porter Resort was a distinct type of hotel needing to stay competitive with the newer and more modern Marriott and Four Seasons hotels. Chairman Pers6n commented that the applicant was giving up a substantial portion of. land for Recreation and Environmental Open Space, and that he felt the hotel's low rise characteristics were preferable to high rises in the City. Chairman Di Sano commented that he would support the main motion, adding he was aware of the competition that existed in the hotel industry. Ayes Noes * * * * The substitute motion was voted on. MOTION FAILED. A11 Ayes The main motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. Q. Crown House Site. Motion * Motion was made to approve No. 1: All Ayes Retail and Service Commercial @ 0.5/0.75 FAR. MOTION CARRIED. R. Balboa Bay Club. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 1: Ayes * * * * Mixed use Recreational and Marine Commercial and Multi - Absent * * Family Residential. MOTION CARRIED. S. Hoag Expansion. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 1: Ayes Governmental, Educational and Institutional. MOTION CARRIED. 21 - COMMISSIONERS +� o ; c� c0 4y << �o September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX T. Big Canyon/MacArthur. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve No. 1: Ayes.. * * * Recreational and Environmental Open Space. MOTION Noes * * CARRIED. U. St. James Church. Motion * Motion was made to approve No. 1: Governmental, Educational and Institutional. In the discussion which followed, Commissioners Debay and Pomeroy indicated they would be supporting the motion with the understanding that in the event the property was sold, the church could apply for a General Plan Amendment. Chairman Persdn stated that the proposed Planning Commission action was consistent with the designation being applied to all church sites. All Ayes' Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. * V. Cannery Village. Shall the mixed use concept be extended to include the waterfront lots in Cannery Village,%cFadden Square SAP? *on Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTION Ayes * * * * `Absent * CARRIED. W. Lido Peninsula. :-Motion Shall the language regarding Lido Peninsula be revised - to indicate the multiple ownerships involved in the Planned Community area? -:Ayes * * * * Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. X. Corona del Mar (additional errata) - Revise Page 29.7 as shown. - _Motion All Ayes Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTION CARRIED. Motion Y. Shall the revised Summary Charts with additional errata be adopted? All Ayes Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. . MOTION CARRIED. Circulation Element 1. Coast Highway. - on * What shall the section of Coast Highway between Jamboree - Road and Dover Drive be designated? Motion was made and voted on to approve Eight lanes, All Ayes Divided. MOTION CARRIED. 22 - COMMISSIONERS OJ90 September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX` . 2. Coast Highway. Motion * Shall the section of Coast Highway between Newport Blvd. and Dover Dr. be changed from a major arterial (6 lanes) to an augmented primary (4/5 lanes)? Motion was made and voted to answer NO. MOTION CARRIED. All Ayes Motion * 3. Shall Irvine Avenue /Campus Drive be designated as a major arterial, six lanes between University Dr. and MacArthur Blvd.? All-Ayes Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * 4. Shall Birch/Mesa be designated as a Primary (cor= rected to Secondary: f see pg. 251 arterial. four lanes from Irvine Ave. to Jamboree Rd? All Ayes Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTION CARRIED. * 5. What shall be the designation of Jamboree Road from Ford Road to Bristol Street? Wn * * * * Motion was made and voted on to approve Augmented Major. No * MOTION CARRIED. Motion * 6., Shall Ford Road include an interchange with the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor? A11 Ayes Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * 7. Shall the Newport Beach Circulation Element include languaze for the possible realignment of Ford Road northerly of its current alignment? Motion was made to answer YES. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that although public testimony indicated a support for the realignment of Ford Road, it must be emphasized that the subject area is located in the City of Irvine, therefore, the City of " All Ayes Newport Beach can only recommend the realignment. Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * 8. Shall San Joaquin Hills Road be connected between Pelican Hill Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transporta= tion Corridor? Motion was made to answer YES. itute on * Commissioner Merrill made a substitute motion to answer NO. He referred to traffic projections for various sections of San Joaquin Hills Road and Ford Road which indicate a system balance without the San Joaquin Hills 23 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ti� 9 9 September 8, 1988 6F Novi ��- 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Road connection. Commissioner Merrill referred to the earlier agreement between the City Council and homeown- ers associations which supported the Corridor, extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hills Road, but without its connection to the corridor, the connection of Ford Road to the Corridor, and the realignment of Ford Road. Ayes Noes * * * * * The substitute motion was voted on. MOTION FAILED. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that as a previous president of the Harbor View Hills Community Association, he had been involved in many of the meetings regarding the increase of traffic and its attendant adverse impacts. He explained that when the construction of Pelican Hills Road was suggested to relieve traffic congestion in Corona del Mar, the associations of Spyglass Hills and Spyglass Ridge consistently opposed any extension of San • Joaquin Hills Road, and now they were agreeing to its extension, but only so far, which, he opined, was self - serving and not fair. Ayes No * The main motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * 9. What shall be the designation of San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Sypplass Hill Road? Ayes * * * * * Motion was voted on to approve Augmented Primary No * Arterial, Four -Six Lanes. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * 10. Shall the City provide for the possible grade separation of Jamboree Road and Coast Highway with the elevation of Coast Highway remaining approximately the Ayes * * * * * same as existine? No * Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * 11. Shall the City designate the intersection of Irvine Avenue /Campus Drive at Bristol Street for further study and review with the potential for additional grade separation? All Ayes Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * 12. Shall Dover Drive between Coast Highway and Westcliff Drive be changed from a Major arterial (6 * * * * * lanes) to a Primary arterial (4 lanes)? �s * Motion was made and voted on to answer NO. MOTION CARRIED. 24 - COMMISSIONERS • dG�y �NOy �C o� September 8, 1988 1:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * 13. Leave the designation of Marguerite Ave. between Coast Highway and Fifth Ave. in the Master Plan of Streets and Highways as a secondary arterial with the (added) policy statement. All Ayes Motion was made and voted on to answer YES. MOTION CARRIED. Advance Planning Manager Lenard informed Chairman Pers6n that there had been a typographical error on Page 12, Item 4 of the Straw Vote Guide, and Secondary should be substituted for Primary arterial. Chairman Pers6n Motion * indicated the item would be revoted with the noted correction. All Ayes Motion was made and voted on. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1181 recommend- ing to the City Council the rescinding of the General Policy Report amended September 9, 1985, and the Land Use Element adopted February 11, 1985, as amended, in the form that is before the Planning Commission, as is revised by the Straw Votes; and adopt Resolution No. 1182 recommending to the City Council the rescinding of the Circulation Element adopted March 11, 1974, as amended, and adopting the new Circulation Element as amended in the Straw Votes based upon the material before the Planning Commission. All Ayes Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. In the discussion which followed, Chairman Pers6n thanked the public, the staff, and the Commissioners for their efforts and participation in the General Plan Review process. Commissioner Di Sano indicated his belief that a balanced program was being recommended to the City Council. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he was pleased at the interaction that had 'been displayed between members of the community, staff, and the Commission, and that the recommended plan was in the best interest of all concerned. Commissioner Debay commented that in her ancillary reading regarding the General Plan Review, she had come upon a statement she felt very apropos, "Failure to plan for growth, does not eliminate growth." Motion es * Motion was made to adjourn the Special Planning Commis- sion meeting. MOTION CARRIED. 25 - COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 8, 1988 CITY OF NEW BEACH 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL INDEX Adjournment: At 5:00 p.m., the Special Planning Adjourn Commission adjourned. • • JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION - 26 -