The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/27/1979COMMISSIONERS Special Adjourned Planning Commission MINUTES Meeting m Place: City Council Chambers r Time: 7 :30 P.M. Date: September 27, 1979 w y N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Present 1x1x1x[1-1ry_nPPTrTn MFMRFRS . V. Hogan, Community Development Director ugh Coffin, Acting City Attorney ames Hewicker, Assistant Director Planning obert Lenard, Advance Planning Ad inistrator red Talarico, Environmental Coord nator on Webb, Assistant City Engineer lenna Gipe, Secretary inutes Written By: Glenna Gipe 0 -1- F�equest to consider proposed amend Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation pen Space.Elements of the General Preliminary review of a screen check Study. ents to the and Plan, and the Initial Items # 1 and 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 79 -1 AND GENERAL AND PLAN AMENDMENT equest to consider proposed amendments ulation Element of the General Plan, to the Cir and the ac- 79 -2 eptance of an Environmental Document. CONTINUED NITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach TO A SPECIAL ADJOURNED Motion Motion was made that discussion regarding � T umber 1 be deferred to follow discussion ing site number 16. g g site regard- PLANNING COMMISSIO MEETING. ON OCTOBE ommissioner Haidinger stated his that an impasse regarding any one ply that the General Plan would stand understanding item would im- as is. , 1197 0 -1- COMMISSIONERS 7 i to 7C OFF September 27, 1979 Of MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I i I I INDEX Ayes Noes o ommissioner Balalis stated his pr ference to be- in with discussion regarding site number I. otion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. iscussion then began regarding Site No. 2, Jam - oree Road and MacArthur Boulevard Motion Lotion was made that Site No. 2, 8 mboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, be listed as a Public Works Reserve or Park and Ride fac lity, as is {he Local Coastal Program's recomm ndation. 0 0 ugh Coffin, Acting City Attorney, ould be required to leave some vi roperty and that historically.the ated the primary use as one for t hat they have indicated also that se is not feasible, that a second omic use is designated on the pro isallowing all the private viable erty could be deemed as taking an ation. he Public Hearing continued rega nd Robert Shelton, The Irvine Co efore the Planning Commission an his was permitted, in view of th he public hearing notice, to whi eek replied that they are taking t this time.and that the City At t a later date. stated than it ble use of, the City has desig e City, but if the primary ry private eco- erty, because uses of the pro inverse condem- ing this item any, appeared inquired wheth limitations on Commissioner nl y straw vote rney can advis n response to a question posed by Commissioner cLaughlin, Don.Webb, Assistant City Engineer;, re- lied that the proposed loop would require pro - ably 1/3 to 1/2 of the westerly portion of the ite. n response to a question posed by Commissioner alalis, Richard Hogan, Community Development irector, responded that it would be possible to ark 125 cars per acre per level. . -2- �m September 27, 1979 Of Beach MINUTES I ROLL CALL I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I INDEX Motion ommissioner Cokas requested the ationale behind ommissioner Thomas' motion, to w ich.Commissione homas replied that it would be a valid location or a major arterial highway. ommissioner Haidinger posed a qu�stion, to which r. Hogan replied that there is a provision to rovide an alternate use as well. mendment to the Motion was made Jo a:dd the exist ng General Plan designation as a secondary use. r. Shelton again appeared before ommission and requested that the ion attempt to make appropriate he suggested changes, including ngs.and analyses, stating his fe as been determined that would wa ual way the change of use to a v hich does not appear in the Gene the Planning Planning Commis . ustificati.on fo omments, find - ling that nothi g rant in a fac- gue designation al.Plan. x x Straw Vote was then taken.on the Amendment to the s x x Motion, which MOTION CARRIED. Ayes Y x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Potion, which Noes x x x MOTION CARRIED. Discussion then ensued regarding Site No. 3, San Diego Creek. Commissioner Balalis stated his a derstanding tha the southerly 47 acres is the sit that is pre - sently considered by NEWA as a de ilting basin. Mr. Hogan requested that Commissioner Thomas writ a definition of what he 'intends "Public Works Re serve" to mean, to be incorporated as part of the Genera -1 Plan. Motion x Motion was made to change the 12 acres on.the nor Itherly site and the 47 acres on the, southerly sit into a Public Works Reserve. Motion x Substitute Motion was made that t e southerly 47 acre portion of this parcel be re oved from the Motion on the floor, with the and rstanding that . it be considered later. MINUTES September 27, 1979 i 2r i W ! itv of Newport Beach Motion x Substitute Motion was made that the southerly 47 All Ayes acres be considered as a Public Works Reserve, . which includes, but is not limited to, a desilting Basin, upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Motion x Motion was.made that the 12 acres on the northerly site be planned as a Public Works Reserve. Motion x mended Motion.was made to include as a secondary use the addition of retail and ser ice /commercial- o the 12 acres on the northerly side of Univer- ity Drive. n response to a question posed by Commissioner leek, Mr. Hogan replied that the p actical aspects of designating primary and seconda y uses is that if the public didn't acquire the p operty and put to the use designated in the Ge eral Plan, it ould-b.e the right of the.property owner to come im with a proposal for the seconda y use and the • N blic would then. have to make the ether they.intended to purchase decision as to that for public or not, and if not, then he property fiurposes ner would be given the right to roceed with the secondary use. 0 obert Lenard, Advance Planning Ad inistrator, nformed the Planning Commission t at the existing eneral Plan designations on both this and the revious site all "ow commercial, in ustrial and ffice uses with no square footage limitations and hat in the past when a site did n t have an adopt d P -C development plan, staff has made estimates f a reasonable density factor, ba ed on some xisting developments and that on hese two sites, he density is low. n response to a question posed by Commissioner llen, Mr. Hogan replied that the jublic in.many nstances can proceed to acquire funds through and issues and don't have to have the funds on and immediately, and must come before the Plan- ing Commission with either a P -C Dr a Use Permit t which time a square footage is established, -4- I,rag September 27, 1979 m MINUTES R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX Ayes Noes Ayes Noes x x x x.x x x x x x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the A hich'MOTION CARRIED. . i t�raw Vote was then taken on the M CARRIED. I ended Motion, tion, which MOTION Discussion regarding Site No. 4, N rth -Ford, then began. Motion Motion lotion was made that Site No. 4 be planned for re -l' use at a density of 6 dw lying units per buildable acre specifically with tie understanding that buildable acres does not incl de anything in she. over 65 CNEL zone and with the further under - standing that the density will be increased to ligher densities if the landowner 5uggests appro- Iriate proposals for development. in response to.a.,question posed by Commissioner laidinger, Ke.ith Greer, The Irvine Company, ap- before.the Planning Commiss on and replied • teared hat the density of Westcliff Grov is approxi- nately 7,000 sq.. ft. lot size aver ge and there . is a total of 29 units. Steve Sendlund, The Irvine Company, appeared be- the Planning Commission and stated that ac- core ording to the EIR supplement for orth- Ford, .the, area is approximately 37% of the site that would be affected by the 65 CNEL or larg r. ommissioner Cokas expressed his f eling that it would be a mistake:to go with anyt ing but a com= ercial development, as proposed. Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made t at the 6 dwell- ing units per acre figure be chang d to 4 dwelling nits per acre. Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made t eliminate the provision:that allows developers t come in with i plan for development that could al.ter the den- ! ity. ommissioner Beek accepted these a endments as mo- ifications to be incorporated int his original • otion., -5- COMMISSIONERS 7 � a��o�ma N i57C w 7 September 27, 1979 lel l i'. fi MINUTES I R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX Ayes x x x ltraw Vote was then taken on the M tion, which Noes x x !OhTTION CARRIED. n response to a question posed by Mr. Lenard, ommissioner Beek stated his intention regarding his motion that the 65 CNEL contour can be moved f appropriate structures such as terms, walls., andscaping or depressing or relocating the free - ay occurs. Motion x Notion was made to reconsider the revious motion. in response to a question posed by Commissioner . Allen, Mr. Sandlund replied that tie chart in- cludes the CNEL noise contours fron the noise gen- rated by Jamboree Road and the cu rent alignment eing considered by Orange County foe the Corona el. Mar freeway extension and does not include the traffic from MacArthur Bouleva d and that the dower 65 CNEL line represents nois generated. by • the new alignment of the combinati n of the ex- tension of the Corona del Mar free ay as it con- nects with MacArthur Boulevard. Ayes x x x x x Motion was then voted on, which MO ION CARRIED. Noes Motion x Potion was made that the North-Fori parcel be lanned for a residential use at tie density of dwelling units per buildable acra with the understanding that the area over tie 65 CNEL zone rot be counted:as buildable, and t at the 65 CNEL Tine be drawn to include noise generated by the roposed Corona del Mar freeway after mitigation. ommissioner Haidinger explained that his reason for stating the motion such was to avoid homeown- rs who will become irrate if the freeway is ever uilt. ommissioner.Cokas again expressed his feeling hat this is a.classical industrial area that hld be developed in that way. Vote was then taken on the Motion, Lra which Ayes x x x OTION CARRIED. Noes x z x 10 = September 27, 1979 11 � itv of Newport Beach he Planning Commission recessed econvened at 9:10 p.m. MINUTES 9:00 p.m..and iscussion then began regarding Si a No. 6. Mr. ogan informed the Planning Commis ion of a few, hanges and additions in the Staff Report regard - ng said site, stating that the to al remaining tc e developed is 1,447,000 sq. ft. ess 105,000 sq. Motion Motion was.made that the remaining vacant.areas o Newport Center be planned for resi ential use at density of 8 dwelling units per uildable acre, . with the understanding that increa ed density will Ile provided if appropriate proposa s are made. M +ion x Amendment to the Motion was made that higher den- sities would be allowed if there was a demon - trated significant public benefit consistent wit ealth, safety and welfare. ommissioner Beek stated his acceptance of this mendment to be included in his motion. ommi.ssion:er Cokas inquired of the - Planning_C'om- ission the purpose of changing the General Plan s "it - presently exists, to which Commissioner' eek responded with his feeling that Newport Beac as an over - abundance of commercial development, severe employment imbalance and that by adding urther commercial, the imbalance is exaggerated n an area which is more "desirable for residen- ial. 4r. Shelton appeared before the Planning Commis- sion and inquired whether Commissioner Thomas in- ended to imply moderate income housing, to which ommissioner Thomas replied that it would be the determination of.the City Council and he also •,inquired whether Commissioner Beek could ,cite !studies or analyses that.could 'support the concl-u • sions inherent in his remarks, to which Commis- sioner Beek replied that accordin to a study mad by Dave,.Dmohowski previous- .Advan a Planning'.Ad- ministrator, Newport Beach has mo e -7- September 27,1979 �- 3 y x w W1 itv of Newport Beach an its share per capita of comme hts. ike McLaughlin, Pacific Mutual, a he Planning Commission and expres elated to Blocks 700 and 800, sta 404 sq. ft. was planned as an exp earning center, feeling that it w n additional burden on the traffi MINUTES ial develop- peared before ed his concern ing that the nsion of their uld not cause r. Hogan responded that Block 800 is the Pacific utual P -C, which was approved by h%City Council or the development of the 27 -stor towers, not part of this General Plan Amendm nt, although he land is still vacant. on Hendricks:on,.The Irvine Compan ore the Planning Commission and r revious actions which they have t o Civic Plaza, and that in relian • iions of the Planning Commission a Ouncil, there are currently plans Ongs that have been in the City Bu ent for over a month, representin in excess of $200,000. Motion x ubstitute Motion was made that th ommercial areas remain as they ar eption that the 29 acres at Newpo lanned for residential uses at 10 per acre and that a Phasing Plan b approved by the Planning Commissio ¢il for the development of the rem port Center. In response to a question posed by thomas, Mr. Hogan relayed a map th that the 65 CNEL involves about" Borth end of the site. , appeared be- minded them of ken with regar e upon the ac- e the City for two build - lding Depart - an expenditur designated with the ex- t Village be dwelling units prepared and and City Coun inder of New- Commissioner t indicated r : of the ommissioner Cokas stated his conc rn relevant to he Planning Commission attempting to discern he location of the 65 CNEL zone , inquiring hether there was some way of increasing the num- er of dwelling units from the 339 figure to a Ie INDEX w m W(A MINUTES September 27, 1979 of Newport Beach mber proposed by the developers, ssioner Balalis replied that thi ptable to him. ith Greer, The Irvine Company, p .which Mr. Hogan replied that .th the General Plan originally, wa & Island, was not removed from t d should be subtracted from the aving only 245. to which Com- would be ac sed a question 94 figure was amended by e General Plan 39 figure, Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made t increase the existing dwelling units`. by 290 and reduce the existing office and commercial by 70,000 sq. ft., including a Phasing Plan for the development of he remainder of Newport Center. Commissioner Balalis accepted Comm ssioner Cokas' mendment to be included in his motion. Motion x ubstitute Motion was then made th t the remaininc A x rea of Newport Center be planned or residential No s x x x x se at a density of 7 dwelling uni s per buildable acre, excluding the 9404 sq, ft. i volved with pacific Mutual's learning center, pon which a Straw Vote was taken. Ayes x x x x $.traw Vote.was then taken on the p evious Sub - Noes x Y x titute Motion, which MOTION CARRI D. The Planning Commission recessed at 11:00 p.m. and reconvened at 11 :10 p.m. iscussion then began regarding Si a No. 7, Bay - iew Landing. dommissioner Beek suggested approa ine Company projects as an entire veal Coastal Planning Advisory Co estions concerning density transf etween these parcels and consider vacant parcels, but Promontory Poi ort areas which have already been Io hing The Ir- y in lieu of t mittee's sug rs among and not only the t and Park New developed. INDEX MINUTES September 27, 1979 Of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I INDEX Motion Motion was made re 9 9 ardin Site No. 7 that Public Recreational be included in Al tern to Use No. 6, or a lesser intense use. Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made that Site No. 7 Ayes x x xx x be low = density residential at 4 dwelling units pe Noes K x acre as an alternate use, and to b ild residentia on the lower portion to allow a view corridor, %hich is to be figured by the tote units per acr on the entire site and put on the lower site, upo I hich a Straw Vote was taken. Ayes x x x Ix Sit raw Vote was..then taken on the M tion, which Noes x ION CARRIED. iscussion then began regarding Si a No. 8. E {�r. Greer again appeared before th Planning Com- mission and addressed himself to the three proper - ties on the backbay: Castaways, N wporter North and West Bay, stating that the comments from the representative from Fish and Game nvolve areas that can be worked out in the refinement of the lan. He requested that the Plann ng Commission aintain.the present General Plan n these three ites, as they see no reason to re uce the General lan designation of these sites fr m the stand - Doint of either traffic or residen ial character. ommissioner Balalis expressed his feeling that he transfer from one site to anot er is an ex- ellent idea, and that it would be necessary to ransfer to a location that would of impact the ay. ommissioner Cokas expressed his f�eling that fro he standpoint of traffic, to incr ase the densit t Castaways would be counter to.g od traffic. ommissioner Haidinger agreed that conserving the ay was one objective, but that cl stering homes n one area.to save the bay may br'ng other un- avorable results. 1501M COMMISSIONERS z n w September 27, 1979 City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that they are ignoring the tenants of the Coastal Act. Commissioner Balalis stated-his un erstanding that it would be necessary to reduce the existing den- sity of Castaways and then increase it with the ensity transfers. r. Hogan inquired regarding the purpose and an- ent of the density transfers, stating that nor- ally when densities are assigned nd there is a ossibility of density transfers, he person who as the property is allowed to dev lop the pro - erty at that density; however, if he determines hat he doesn't want to develop th' .property, he las the right to transfer those pr perty rights too another property owner at anoth r location and that is normally not for public pu poses, but pri- vv�ate purposes., and that if it is tie intent to deduce the intensity of developmen on the West- gay Site and not to allow it-to be developed at • intensity of development then.the Icertain orrect intensity of development s ould be assigne t this time. ommissioner Beek stated his under tanding that t lanning.Commission would like to ee Castaways avant or low = density, but that th Westbay Site as specific view prospects which hey wish to reserve; the Newporter North area has specific abitat buffer areas, Eastbay and ayview Land - ngs are specific points to be pre erved, leaving astaways as the "catch -all ". Motion x otion was made that Castaways be Jesignated as ow- density residential at 4 dwelling units per cre, excluding the 5 acres at the bottom to re- ain commercial. Motion Rmendment.to the Motion was made t include plus r minus those units transferred from other Irvine tompany sites around the Upper Bay. 0 -11- COMMISSIONERS September 27, 1979 Of MINUTES ROLL CALL I l l l l l l l I INDEX Ayes x lit Vote was then taken on the A endment, which I Noes x x MOTION CARRIED. Motion Amendment to the Motion was made t at the 5 acres Ayes x x in the southerly portion be zoned obile home.par Noes x x rather than commercial, to maintai the existing oderate and low- income housing, u on which a Straw Vote was taken. Ayes Noes K K x x x K x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, OTI N Cam! RRIED. which Discussion then ensued regarding S te.No. 9. Motion K Notion was .made that the General -P an.designation be 4 dwelling units per buildable acre, that it be designated a density transfer area and that the density be transferred to Castaway . Motion x mendment to the Motion was _made that only 3/4 • viays. f those building units be transferred to Casta- I'ommissioner Thomas accepted Commi sioner Beek's mendment to be included in his motion. Motion x mendment to the Motion was made t delete the Ayes x x x transfer of the dwelling units to astaways, upon Noes x a Straw Vote was taken. l,hich Motion x Substitute Motion was made that th 3/4 be trans- lIerred to the North -Ford Site, rat er than the castaways Site. ommissioner Beek expressed his co cern that the nits would be considerably less v luable on North -Ford than they would on one f the parcels on Upper Bay. Ayes x Yx traw Vote was then taken on the S bstitute Mo- Noes x x x x ion, which MOTION FAILED. Ayes x x Yx x Straw Vote was then taken on the M tion, which Noes x x 0I0N CARRIED. iscussion then began regarding Site No. 10, • the Eastbluff Remnant. -12- MINUTES September 27,1979 x itv of Newmt Beach Motion Potion was made that Site No. 10 be low- density Ayes x:x x esidential at 4 dwelling units per buildable Noes x x x cre, all of.which would be transferred to the Castaways site, upon which a. Straw Vote was taken Discussion then began regarding Site No. 11; Oewporter North. Motion Potion was% made that Site No. 11, iewporter North be planned at 4 dwelling units per buildable acre ith ; of the units transferred to Castaways. Commissioner Haidinger suggested deleting the ransfer. ommissioner Beek explained that h included the ransfer due to the archaeological site which woul eed to be protected in some way. Motion ' mendment to the Motion was made t at the trans A x x x 'e optional, upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Not x x Ayes x x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the.M tion, which Noes x MOTION CARRIED: he :Planning Commission recessed aft 11:00 P.M. nd reconvened at 11:10 p.m. Discussion then began regarding Site No. 16, Mouth of Big Canyon. Motion K Potion was made that Site No. 16 be low- density t 4 dwelling units per buildable acre and that hese units be transferred to Castaways. 0 ommissioner McLaughlin stated her opposition to he motion, expressing her concern regarding trans erring dwelling units when builda 1'e area is not efinitely defined and the total n mber of dw;ellin nits is not known. -13- INDEX COMMISSIONERS 1 w MINUTES September 27, 1979 of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I l l l 1 I INDEX ommissioner Beek expressed his fe ling that they s no buildable space in this area and the curre eneral Plan designati.on is Open S ace with Resi- ential as an alternate use, and s ggested that he motion be withdrawn. Motion K otion was made to.leave Site No. 6 at its cur - All Ayes rent designation, upon which a.Str w Vote was i aken. Mr. Lenard stated. that they had al ocated some- here between 370 and 425 units to the Castaways site, assuming only a 2'5% figure loss to buildable Icreage, when in reality it will p obably be much greater. Motion x otion was made that density trans ers to Casta- ways not be made, but that the dwelling units fie left on each of the sites. M ion otion was made to table the previ us motion to A x x x x ollow discussion of Site No. 1. Noes x x Abstain x liscussion then began regarding Site No. 1, Koll enter. Motion x f1lotion was made that Koll Center b rezoned as concerns the three major undevelop d parcels, Of- fice Sites A, B and C, with the ex epti,on of a small corner of Site B, to 8 dwelling units pler acre residential, with the understanding that Nigher dwelling units will be allotsed if approp- late uses are proposed. r. Lenard stated that it had come to the staff's ttention that there is a General Plan Amendment oefore the City of Irvine on a project called Douglas Plaza at the intersection and adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive from Koll enter Newport. He added that there is an exist - General Plan allowance in Irvine for 350,000 Png q. ft. of commercial office development and.an gxisting hotel and office uses on the site and hat there is a proposal for a General Plan Amend - ent that is being made by the developer, McDonnel ouglas, to add 350 residential condominium units • o this site consisting of a mixture of bachelor -14- Motion • September 27, 1979 iS H Z 6tv of Newport Beach nd one and two bedroom units rang rom.$65,000 to $100,000 and the d aken the position that these unit ny traffic problems that have bee he 350,000 sq. ft: of commercial - oint where the net traffic impact ent would be less, and he is requ mount by which the traffic is red ack.to him in square footage for ffice uses. MINUTES ng in price veloper has will mitigate generated by ffice to a with his amend - sting that the ced be given he commercial- ommissioner Allen expressed her o servation that esidential is considered by someo a with more conomic expertise as a good alter ative on this ite and that a residential mix wi h the existing ommercial greatly reduces traffic r. Hogan expressed his concern th oes not provide the facilities ne ential development in.anywhere ne icinity of that residential devel ne justification provides for liv ity,of the working area. avid Dmohowski, The Irvine Compan ore the Planning Commission and i hat a proposal of this sort was b he Irvine City Council in the rec nvolved the introduction of resid nto the Irvine Industrial Complex ity Council rejected an applicati -C in that area because of the la ial support facilities and other menities. t this proposal ded by resi- r the immediate pment, but the ng in the vici- , appeared be- formed them ought before nt past which ntial units area and the n to amend the k of residen- esidential endment to the Motion was made t eliminate Sit at the corner of Jamboree Road a d Campus Drive om consideration. r. Shelton again appeared before the Planning. ommission and relayed some inform tion regarding cDonnell- Douglas; stating that in addition to he developers wanting to add to tie intensity of evelopment already authorized, his proposal for 50 units works out to 45'u:nits to the acre, and -15- INDEX MINUTES September 27, 1979 f x w 6tv of Newport Beach sked the Planning Commission to consider that if he objective is to put affordable housing in ommercial places to have close proximity to work, hose are the kinds of density lev is that make ense. Motion x Teted stitute Motion was made to reduce by 30% the ail and office space, that the ourthouse re -, n the same, that the industrial space be re by 30 %, that the restaurant remain as it is find that the hotel remain as it is, using as the base point for the 30% reduction that each of. the owners would be allowed the initial 30 %, and the 0% remaining would total 673;767 and the reduc- ion would be 30% of that 673,767 figure, for a remainder of 471,637 added back to the initial 0% figure.of 238,756, to give a t tal of 760,393 sq. ft., plus the hotel. Motion Y ,mendment to the Substitute Motion was made that prior to computing any density reductions of any percentages, that the 141,021 sq. ft. that has no een built on the existing fully- developed sites first be deleted, leaving a total square footage f 552,108 sq. ft. -16- �n.response to a question posed.by Commissioner alalis, Mr Shelton expressed their feeling that ite C is not suitable for residen, ial use, but f residential use is under discus ion, one must lso discuss realistic figures. fr. Hendrickson appeared before th Planning Com= fission and stated regarding Site that based on he ADT on MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive, r. Percell sent comments regarding the CNEL line n said area, indicated that 100 f east of Mac- Arthur Boulevard is 72 +.CNEL and an they 100 ft. is 68 CNEL and going 200 Ft. further -in Iasterly s.64 CNEL, which shows a highly i pacted noise •area. Ayes x x x 'Straw Vote was then taken on the A endment, which Noes xf x x OTION_F�Fl LED . Motion x Teted stitute Motion was made to reduce by 30% the ail and office space, that the ourthouse re -, n the same, that the industrial space be re by 30 %, that the restaurant remain as it is find that the hotel remain as it is, using as the base point for the 30% reduction that each of. the owners would be allowed the initial 30 %, and the 0% remaining would total 673;767 and the reduc- ion would be 30% of that 673,767 figure, for a remainder of 471,637 added back to the initial 0% figure.of 238,756, to give a t tal of 760,393 sq. ft., plus the hotel. Motion Y ,mendment to the Substitute Motion was made that prior to computing any density reductions of any percentages, that the 141,021 sq. ft. that has no een built on the existing fully- developed sites first be deleted, leaving a total square footage f 552,108 sq. ft. -16- MINUTES _ September 27, 1979 m 1 51 14. 11 6tv of Newport Beach Ernie Wilson, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission.to express his feeling ;hat this wo.uld not be at all equitable. Ayes x Y x 6traw Vote was. then taken on the Amendment to the Noes x x x x ubstitute Motion, which MOTION FAILED. Motion x Revised Substitute Motion was made that regarding omumn "B ", the 107,000 figure be taken out of th eduction figure, that Comumn "C" then adds up �to 712,000 sq. ft.,.that 76% of 712,000 sq. ft. o 24% reduction of the current remaining allowabl e calculated at 526,000 sq. ft., that the 107,00 q. ft. be added back, for a remainder to be.de- �reloped of 633,000 sq. ft. Mr. Lenard explained that the two figures between plternate.l, an allowable from today forth and k1ternate 2, the area already constructed are not omparable and one figure must be subtracted.from the other to make them comparable. Motion x Revised Substitute Motion was made to give a 30% eduction and use Alternate 2 in all other re- ards, for a total figure of Column "C" at approx mately 40,000 sq. ft. less than the number shown or a total to be built of approximately 620,000 �q. ft. Motion Amendment to the Substitute Motior was made that Ayes x K x he 30% be left untouched and instead of taking Noes x x x x 0% of the:remaining 70 %, a 50% r duction in the remaining 70% be made, upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Ayes x x x K Straw Vote was then taken on the Revised Substi- Noes 1K x' x tute Motion, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion Ayes Noes 0 ll, jxjjjotion M was made that the Planning Commission ad- x x x x x .ourn at 12:30 a.m. to a special djourned Plan - ning Commission meeting on Octobe .4, 1979 at 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Cha bers. Debra A1Ten, Planning Comm City of Newpo -17- ecretary ssion t Beach