Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/1974COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Special Planning Commission Meeting D � T 4 T A 1; Place: City Council Chambers MINUTES p� Z m Time:. 7:00 m. ru, m - - vac. �anuar ice, i7iw INDEX Present X X X X X X EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director David R. B'.aade, Assistant City Attorney Ben Nolan, Assistant Public Works Director STAFF MEMBERS Rod Gunn, Advance Planning Administrator Bill Darnell, Traffic Engineer Bill Foley, Senior Planner Joanne Bader, Secretary - Motion X Minutes of December 13, 1973 were approved Ayes X X X X X X as written. Beckley abstained because he Abstained X was not present at that meeting. . Item A -1 Public Hearing - Request to consider the adoption of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and acceptance of Environmental Impact Report EIR /NB - 73 -045. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach. Mr. Hogan informed the Commission that the first item on the agenda is the continued hearing on the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan., He stated that the Commission has made a number of decisions on this element and that the votes and decisions that were made are listed in the Minutes of the last special meeting. He stated that the purpose of this meeting is to discuss those items that were not previously discussed and on which decisions were not made. He informed the Commission that it is the staff's intent, after the Commission has completed their hearing on this element and has adopted it, to-put it in a form for presentation to the Council. He stated that if the Commission takes action tonight and unless that action is extremely complicated, the staff expects to be able to put the item together that they will present to Council and bring it to the Commission on the 17th to be sure that the staff has incorporated in it the Commission's intentions. -1- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF N EWPORT BEACH Z Z v p m n m MINUTES 101L CAL` Tj0 '0 January 10, 1974 . INDEX The Commission discussed the fact that they have been receiving letters on the 5th Avenue bypass. Mr. Parker felt that the Commission was not furnished with any substantial evidence concerning the merits of the 5th Avenue bypass and only received evidence to the contrary. He felt that the Commission is being criticized for something for which they had no evidence. The.Commission voiced their disappointment that the people who are criticizing them did . not come to the public hearing to voice their opinion. Chairman Agee then opened discussion on Projects 33 and 34 of the Consultant's report which provide for a second crossing over Upper Newport Bay. He then read these projects for the Commission and audience. Chairman Agee then opened the public hearing on these projects. There being no one desiring to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the • public hearing. Chairman Agee stated that there was testimony on that item from Willard Wade, who represented the Dover Shores Community Association at the Commission's December 13, 1973 Special Meeting. He read from the Minutes that Mr. Wade is opposed to Projects 33 and 34 as listed in the Phase III Report because he is concerned with any additional roads that might bring additional traffic. He further read that Mr. Wade felt that adding this traffic would add noise and air pollution to the area and that the people of Dover Shores who live facing the water do not-want to look at an additional bridge. Chai.rman Agee mentioned that this is a very low - priority item and a very expensive one. The Commission felt that some consideration should be given to making the new bridge at Coast Highway extra wide so that the two bridges could be combined: Chairman Agee stated that the only reason for really studying this second crossing was that • a lot of people only use the short segment between Jamboree and Dover to get around the bay and that since there is no other way, it puts an overload on that one segment. -2- COMMISSIONERS s ? '0 oe m CAI T. p p CITY OF January. 10, 1974 NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES -° - INDEX The Commission discussed the possibility of widening the existing bridge, the fact that the bridge would contain 6 travel lanes and two right -turn lanes at Dover, and discussed whether the bridge is a bottleneck. Mr. Nolan stated that the bridge is substandard in more than one way; it is substandard as far as width is concerned and it is substandard structurally. He stated that the bottlenecks on Coast Highway are the signalized intersections and that the congestion shows up at the bridge. Mr. Nolan stated that the capacity that can be developed crossing the bridge is going to depend on the design of the new bridge which is constructed and the design of the facilities that serve the bridge. Mr. Nolan stated that if the interchange is not constructed on Dover Drive then some drastic intersection widening and treatment is going to be needed to try to provide an acceptable level of service through that intersection. In response to the Commission's question as to who would pay for the interchange and the grade separation, Mr. Nolan stated that Coast Highway is a State Highway and that it would be the City's position that improvements to Coast Highway, including the interchange at Dover Drive would be the state's responsibility He further stated that knowing the funding limitation that exists on the part of the state as well as the City, the state and .others have talked about project priorities being increased by local cooperative participation. In response to the Commission's question as to what would be involved in making Dover Drive a major road, Mr. Nolan stated that it would involve the widening of the easterly side of the road. He further stated that it would be physically feasible since the easterly side is undeveloped, except for the present interim development in Bay Shores. The Commission then questioned if this was studied by the Consultant. Mr. Nolan informed them that a study was not prepared on this. . The Commission questioned how they can adopt a project of this significance without the . Environmental Impact Report which they will study after they have acted on the Circulation Element. -3- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (1 T MINUTES 20, CAI ` T P P p January 10, 1974 - - -- - -- INDEX The Commission had a general discussion as to` whether they should adopt the second bay crossing as a low- priority item or eliminate it. Motion K Motion that Projects 33 and 34 be deleted from Ayes X X X X X the Circulation Element. Noes X Chairman Agee then opened discussion on the Project 14 description which provides for the widening of- Dover Drive from Westcliff Drive to Coast Highway. The Commission discussed that since they have already voted to delete the Second Bay Crossing whether it would be appropriate to increase Dover from the Coast Highway 17th to major road status. The Commission then decided to discuss Projects • 14 and 15 together. Mr. Nolan pointed out that the upgrading of the portion in Project 14 does not imply an upgrading in the classification of Project 15. Chairman Agee opened the public hearing on Projects 14 and 15. There being no one desiring to be heard on these segments, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. The Commission questioned that if they upgraded Project 14 to a major status, considering their previous action of eliminating the second bay crossing, would there still be traffic deficiencies forecasted for the future. Mr. Nolan answered that if this is upgraded to major status, there would be.no traffic _ deficiency on Dover Drive'. �R' 7.,j) The Commission then questioned whether it would be physically possible to have six lanes tied into 17th. . Mr. Nolan answered that in the case of this particular project, he thinks that the widened Dover Drive from Coast Highway to -4- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (� m MINUTES QiS�� rein j m p p A January 10, 1974 - -- — INDEX, Westcliff could be accommodated fairly well because the traffic that will be using that street will split in two fairly major streams; one, northerly on Dover Drive into the West B1 "uff residential area, and the other westerly on Westcliff Drive and into the commercial area, thus providing two arterial highways connecting to one arterial highway. Motion X Motion to adopt a major road status for the All Ayes section from Coast Highway to 17th for Dover Drive. The Commission then questioned whether they need to go to a 4 -lane divided or leave it as a .primary on the extension of Dover (Project 15). Mr. Nolan stated that he does not feel there has really been any evidence presented that calls for consideration of a change of the primary status of the portion extending northerly of Westcliff and connecting to Irvine Avenue. The Commission questioned whether Dover Drive north of 17th is presently classified as a primary road modified. Mr. Nolan informed them that it is. Mr.: Nolan stated that he feels it is important in discussing this item to rememb.er that the arterial .classification of the roadway is not changing regardless of whether or not the implementation of Project 15 is recommended by the Commission in this case. Mr. Nolan stated that the adoption of Project 15 by the Commission would constitute an endorsement by the Commission that at such time as the traffic demands required, the Commission would endorse the concept of the conversion to a one -way cuplet operation. Mr. Nolan mentioned that this does not make any change in the width of the roadway but that it would increase the traffic handling capacity. The Commission then had a general discussion • on the status of the cul- de- sacing from Mariners to Irvine. The Commission questioned whether the impact of the potential traffic flow that 'might be -5- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f m P MINUTES CAI m p p January 10, 1974 -- - -- INDEX generated, had been considered in light of the proximity of the Mariner's Park and school, etc. Mr. Nolan stated that he does not know if that point was discussed during the .conduct of the traffic study. He did not feel that this change would;'generate additional traffic but..would enable the traffic that is there to be better handled. The.Commission discussed that this area is a highly - gravelled area by pedestrians; children, bicycles, etc. and whether it would be wise to speed up traffic. The Commission also discussed the speed limit that would be imposed on the street. Mr. Nolan stated that there would probably be some improvements in pedestrian safety particularly because in crossing either half of the roadway, one would have to look out for traffic approaching from one direction only rather than two directions. He added . that he thinks that the tendency of the driver on the street would be to travel a little faster than if the two -way streets were retained. Mr. Seely stated that he believes that in that area there is no particular danger of encroachments on the existing right -of -way so if the matter were to be taken up again some in the future, it could be conveniently done. He stated that in the meantime, he is hesitant to route a heavily - travelled route through what is a residential area and particularly with the park and school. He felt that a minimal diversion is involved to send people down 17th and up Irvine if that is the particular direction they want to go. lotion X Motion to delete Project 15. ayes X X X X X X Voes X Chairman Agee then opened discussion on Projects 21, 22 and 23. • Mr. Hogan informed the Commission that in Project 21 there is a 21 -A which calls for a cuplet below San Joaquin Hills Road from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road on -6- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (1 m X m T A M Cw11 10 January 10, 1974 MINUTES - INDEX Avocado and MacArthur. Chairman Agee then opened the Public Hearing on these projects. There being no one desiring to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. Chairman Agee reviewed the Consultant's recommendations for the Commission and audience. Mr. Nolan pointed out a map error on page 60 of the report, Project 23 which should show State Route 73 going from Ford Road to Bison Avenue.. Motion X Motion to accept the Consultant's recommendations All Ayes on Project 21 to widen Old MacArthur Blvd. between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Motion K Motion that ' Projects 22 and 23 be approved All Ayes with modifications discussed earlier. Mr. .Hogan then brought up the Corona del Mar freeway which is not shown as a project in the report. He suggested that the Commission consider whether or not they want to take a position on the relocation of the Corona del Mar freeway into Bonita Canyon. Mr. Hogan stated that this is not shown as a project in the report because it is not in the City, and consequently, it isn't a project that the City will undertake. Mr. Hogan stated that this route is shown on the map as a route that "requires further study and coordination" because it does require the coordination of at least three other jurisdictions the state, City of Irvine and the county. Chairman Agee then stated that he thought that at the meeting of December 13, 1973 it was decided that the map would say "requires further coor- dination" because the Commission did not want to imply that they would start all over and study it again. Mr. Hogan stated that the . word "study" can be removed from the map to read "requires further coordination ". -7- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ,e m n m ceu m p p January 10, 1974 MINUTES _ -- INDEX Chairman Agee then opened the public hearing on this item. Calvin McLaughlin, Corona del Mar stated that . re- routing the Corona del Mar Freeway through Bonita Canyon freeway is an essential element of the circulation pattern through Corona del Mar since if one doesn't have this, one will not be able to handle the anticipated traffic flow without other modificiations which would tend to disrupt the character of Corona del Mar. He urged the Commission to go on record as favoring this re- routed freeway per the Consultant's report. In addition, he stated that he hopes they have read the white paper that he prepared about the general circulation through this area and that it would show them that the Corona del Mar Freeway is a vital thinq that is recognized by the Consultant. There being no others desiring to be heard on this item, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. IdOon X Motion that Planning Commission recommend that all Ayes the city adopt the Consultant's recommendation for the Corona del Mar freeway routing through Bonita Canyon. At this point Mr. Seely brought to the attention of the Commission that Project 7 was not listed in the Minutes of the Special Meeting of December 13, 1973. Chairman Agee stated that he thought.the Commission voted on this item and accepted the recommendations of the Consultant (Option 2 which calls for the widening of the Coast Highway). The Commission then questioned if there is an interchange proposed. Chairman Agee stated that there was an inter- change proposed at one time. He stated that the interchange was proposed primarily if it tied into a 5th Avenue alignment. He • stated that this was the reason for one of the options with an interchange and that it. was not really necessary with no 5th Avenue alignment. -8- COMMISSIONERS r+ m <£ T A m rA, 1 T P P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 10, 1974 MINUTES INDEX Mr. Seely stated that one of the reasons for Project 21 -A, the two -way cuplet, was to avoid some of the problems that would other- wise exist at the interchange of State Highway 73 and Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Seely then asked if the increased traffic capacity of widened Route 73 would increase the problems at the interchange with Pacific Coast Highway to such an extent that Alternate 21 -A be given more consideration by the Commission. Mr. Nolan stated that he believes the Study has identified a deficiency and a problem there and that is why the alternate showing an interchange was considered. Planning Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Chairman Agee read Option 2 of Project 7; which is the Consultant's recommendation for the Commission and audience. Motion X Motion to accept the Consultant's recommendation. Then Mr. Seely stated that on the question of an interchange at MacArthur and 73 there is a great deal of available space where the zoo use to be, etc. so there is sufficient land to accommodate an interchange with little effect. Commission discussed some of the deficiencies that would result in not having an interchange. Mr. Seely felt that because there will be later review and E.I.R.'s etc. and if it appeared that there were some environmental detriments that would offset all of the benefits that might be realized from an interchange, then it could be easily deleted from the Plan. Mr. Seely stated that to him, Option 3 seemed to be the far - better alternative and that it might relieve • whatever problems remain by virtue of not having a 5th Avenue bypass and. would -9- COMMISSIONERS v �, Z Z b p m f� � m o • � �' Z ROLL CALL 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 10, 1974 MINUTES INDEX do so with very little impact on Corona del Mar. Chairman Agee expressed his disagreement with Mr. Seely because he felt Option 3 was listed primarily to accommodate the 5th Avenue corridor. He felt that the Traffic Consultant would express that if he were at the meeting. He.felt that there is no demonstrated need for the interchange. The Commission discussed the fact that this interchange would be financially the state's responsibility.. I Chairman Agee expressed his regret that the Consultant was not present to defend his position. Mr. Seely felt the concern of the residents was that an interchange would make a 5th Avenue bypass more necessary. He stated that • this doesn't appear to be the case and would provide benefits to the whole city as stated j by.the Consultant. i Chairman Agee re- opened the public hearing because the Minutes did not show that a vote was ever taken. Calvin McLaughlin, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that if the Commission could picture in their minds the kind of high - volume interchanges that are at least 25 feet high, they would have the appropriate mental picture and it would comp:are with three -story and two -story buildings. He felt it would have an adverse visual effect. He stated that because of the added expense of building it, the visual impact, and the fact that you are placing high -speed traffic onto the Coast Highway, there is.hardly any sense in building another high- speed inter- change. The Commission discussed the reasons they felt the interchange is necessary, discussed the • importance of continually- moving traffic and -10- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n MINUTES Ro CAI T p p January 10, 1974 INDEX explained that they are not necessarily talking about high -speed interchanges. Mr. Nolan stated that the primary function of the interchange would be to separate the heavily conflicting left -turn volume from MacArthur Blvd. southbound onto Coast Highway eastbound. He further stated that the presence or absence of 5th Avenue is irrelevant as far as the major traffic movements are concerned. Chairman Agee felt that because there is a light planned at Avocado which is fairly high on the priority list and a light already in operation at Golden Rod, that it doesn't seem necessary to build an interchange at MacArthur if people are going to be stopped at Avocado and Golden Rod. There being no others desiring to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. 4otion X Substitute motion to adopt Option 3 for Project 7 Rescinded by action ay X X X X X of the Circulation Element of the Plan. taken Jo� X X 1/17/74 Chairman Agee stated that it was unfortunate under that the Consultant was not present at this additional meeting. He stated that because of an error in business, the procedure of the last meeting or in the 15 Minutes, a major segment of the items they had pages and 16: discussed at their last meeting had been x.1.1' turned around from the Consultant's report without allowing him to give the logic of his reasoning. The Commission then questioned why the Consultant was not at the meeting. Mr. -Hogan answered that it was because he appeared before the Commission earlier and the Commission had adequate opportunity to question him. He further stated that the Consultant's contract did not call for him to be at this meeting and that the Community Development Department didn't have money to pay him for it. Mr. Parker requested that the record show that he did not agree with the Chairman's last statement and that although he voted with the . Chairman, he did so for different reasons. The Commission voiced their disappointment that the Consultant was not present and stated that they had assumed he would be at the meeting -ll- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M i DS ^ Z < MINUTES R CALL m p a January 10, 1974 INDEX since this meeting was a continuance of their meeting of December 13, 1973. .Chairman Agee then stated that he felt the best thing to do would be to recommend to the Council that if they have a continued meeting that they have the Consultant there for both stages. Chairman Agee opened the public hearing on the traffic study for items that haven't yet been discussed in this Plan. There being no one desiring to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. Mr. Seely stated that he is concerned with the extension of University Drive at the upper end of Newport Bay. He questioned whether or not the necessity of that route warrants the intrusion into a very significant open space • and then as it continues over toward Newport Blvd., a residential area. He stated that people could use the Newport Freeway and the Corona del Mar freeway. He felt that this perhaps would be a duplication, and unnecessary to have this proposed major road coming down through that area. Mr. Nolan stated that if one looks at the map, they can see the tremendous hole in the arterial street system that is created by the presence of the upper bay. He stated that the freeway is not a substitute for the local streets that are needed to accommodate local traffic and that the projected volumes that demonstrated the need for University Drive do take into account the presence of the Corona del Mar freeway. Mr. Nolan stated that Mr. Williams, of the Friends of Newport Bay addressed this subject briefly at the previous hearing and indicated that he was not particularly fond of having additional streets such as University Drive bordering on the bay but that he did recognize • there was a problem that had to be resolved and that if the use of a street such as -12- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TTi xasT (1 T M f 2 o �e�� T p A p January 10, 1974 MINUTES - -- ` -' INDEX .University Drive could lessen the need for additional bridge crossings of the bay, then although he may not like it, he would be willing to accept it. Mr. Gunn stated that the staff is also concerned about the potential impact but there is an E.I.R. report budgeted for this segment and that this type of concern is better taken up . at the project stage. Mr. Nolan stated that there is money budgeted in this year's budget and in fact it will be by far the most comprehensive E.I.R. that has been prepared within the City for a City project. Motion X Motion to delete Projects 28, 29, and 30. Chairman Agee voiced his disagreement with Mr. Seely's motion and again stated that he wished the Consultant could have been at the meeting to speak of the importance of this route. • He stated that the Consultant does state quite clearly that this new roadway is very important within the system since it will provide the major road link around the end of Upper Bay. .Because of its importance, some capacity deficiency could develop, particularly if construction on the Corona del Mar freeway is substantially delayed. Mr. Nolan stated that westerly of Irvine Avenue the street is known as Del Mar and is located in unincorporated Orange County territory and in the City of Costa Mesa. He stated that both of those agencies do project the widening of Del Mar to an arterial standard and that right -of -way acquisition is well advanced for.those projects. Mr. Gunn stated that perhaps the Project 30 description, to be consistent with other sections of the report should be eliminated from the report since it is outside of the City limits and our proposed sphere of influence. Mr. Seely discussed that it is difficult for • him to accept as a reason for adopting this route the fact that the Corona del Mar freeway may be delayed. -13- COMMISSIONERS n � q T D • � Z ,o p p ROLL CAI i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 10, 1974 MINUTES INDEX The Commission questioned what the projected deficiency would be. Motion X Motion to delete Projects 28, 29 and 30. Motion Ayes i X Failed. Noes X X IX X X X Motion to approve the Consultant's recommendation Motion X on Projects 28 and 29 and eliminate Project 30 description.. Motion X Substitute motion that the route be approved and Ayes X X be given a Class B priority. Mr. Seely's reason Noes X X X X X. being to simply defer the consideration or action on University Drive so at least to give an opportunity for other improvements to be constructed before final action is taken on this i proposed route. Motion failed. Motion X Original motion to approve Consultant's recommenda Ayes X X X X X X tion on Projects 28 and 29 and eliminate Project 3 Noes X description. • Mr. Seely then brought up Project 26. He stated that a map of this project appears on page 62 which is the Bison connection between Jamboree and MacArthur. He mentioned that this is given low priority. He stated that he is uncertain as to the need for this as it does deadend essentially on Jamboree with the exception of the residential street coming out of East Bluff and serves only a relatively small area of proposed light industrial. Mr. Seely stated that this particular inter - section of Jamboree and Bison is a substantial problem as it now stands and stated that he doesn't really see why new traffic flow couldn't be served by Ford Road and the northerly intersections. Mr. Nolan stated that the street serves a couple of functions, 1) when it is completed and extended easterly, it will connect to Bonita Canyon Road and that it will provide service from the general overall eastbluff area into the University area and 2) it will provide service to the industrial area north • and south of Bison Avenue between MacArthur Boul.evard and Jamboree Road. He stated that neither of those industrial properties are very heavily developed at present. He stated that traffic studies that were prepared for Aeronutronic a number of years ago showed the -14- COMMISSIONERS x x 9 p m n m • � Z P P' P Roll. CAI rt' CITY OF January 10, 1974 NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES INDEX. critical importance of Bison Avenue.. He pointed out that the present Master Plan of Highways carries a major street classification for Bison Avenue (a 6 -lane divided street) and the recommended composite plan recommends the reduction to a primary classification.which would make it four lanes. He felt that probably the reduction in classification can be defended on the basis that there is not likely to be an interchange with the Corona del Mar freeway at that location. Motion X Motion that as an alternative to proposed Project 26 that Bison Road be 2 lanes. The Commission clarified that Mr. Seely's motion is to change Bison Road from the way it is today at 6 lanes an.d the Consu-ltant's. recommendation at 4 lanes and leave it as 2 lanes: The Commission recalled that when they approved • the P.C. for that area no plan was made to provide a bike trail and that later it was I recognized that there was a need for one. The Commission then questioned if it would be possible at this point in this Element to include that. Mr.. Gunn stated that procedurally the Commission would have to hold a public hearing and amend the Master Plan of Bikeways. Motion X Motion that as an alternative to proposed Ayes X X Project 26 that Bison Road be continued to Noes X X X MacArthur in its present configuration.which is 2 lanes. Motion failed. Motion X Motion for approval as stated in the report. At this time Mr. Gunn pointed out that the report is in error because it calls it a major road and that it should be .a primary road as shown on the map. Motion X Motion for approval as stated in the report Ayes X X X X with change listed above. N# X X X -15- COMMISSIONERS l� m A R• CAIN CITY OF January 10, 1974 NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES INDEX The Commission questioned what Project 36 does to the 38th Street park. Mr. Gunn replied that the City Council has recently considered this specific project. He further stated that it was one that the staff went back to the Council and asked.for clarification on what the Council's policy was on it. Mr. Gunn stated that as he recalls, at that time, the Council wanted to construct the widening of Balboa Boulevard from 44th to Coast Highway and see how that functioned before proceding. I Mr. Nolan stated that this is correct. He further stated that the widening from 44th to Coast Highway is in the present year's program and, in fact, is going out to bid now. He stated that the Council directed the staff to hold in abeyance any plans for widening from 33rd to 44th. Mr. Gunn stated that widening would take place on the north side where the 38th Street park is located so there would be right -of -way taken from that park. The.Commission, at this time, discussed the possibility of enlarging the park by acquiring property toward the water side to compensate for this loss of park space. Mr. Gunn stated that this consideration was eliminated from the Recreation and Open Space Element. Mr. Gunn then stated that however, within the Recreation and Open Space Element there is a proposal for an additional park at the extension of 32nd Street which is in this general area. He added that one of the reasons this proposal was added to what previously was contained in the interim Open Space Plan was the possibility of Balboa Blvd. being widened in the area of the 32nd Street park. He then stated that this was an attempt to arrive at a compromise solution between two conflicting public needs. • The Commission then questioned whether this Project should be given a priority higher than a -16- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ➢ m 2 i g p m 1 m T� T a i T . m Z i Z P p A ROLL CAU m January 10, 1974 MINUTES INDEX Motion X Motion that Project 36 be approved subject All Ayes to the condition that any future widening be accomplished without a net reduction in existing city park facilities in the general area. Motion X Motion to adopt Resolution 873 recommending All Ayes approval of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan incorporating the corrections discussed earlier and subject to the acceptance of an E.T.R. Item A -2 Discussion - .Recommendation of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the City Council on Revision to the Development Standards. Bill Foley then appeared before the Commission to summarize the history of some of the changes that have been made. He stated that the original committee's report was submitted to the Planning Commission at their public hearing. He stated that the Commission made some changes in the parking formulas as it relates to the • R2 district, changing basically what was a i recommendation for 3 spaces in any structure up to 2400 sq. ft. plus 1 for each additional 600 sq. ft. to 1 for each additional 400 sq. ft. He stated that this made the parking in the R2, R3, and the R4 all consistent. He further stated that when the report went on to the City Council, they referred it back to the Citizens Committee. The Citizens Committee has now recommended that the parking requirement be changed back to 3 spaces up to 2400 sq. ft, and l additional space for each 600 sq. ft. He stated that the other change that the Commission originally made was in the open space option, it was originally the height times the width times 5 ft. in West Newport and Balboa Peninsula and 7, feet in Corona del Mar. He stated that the Commission changed that to 6 ft. across the board and restricted it to the front 12 feet of the structure. He stated that the Citizens Committee concurred with the Planning Commission action at that time. He then stated that the third item that the Council referred back to the Committee was the question of the limitation on the number of stories. He • stated the Citizens Committee concurred with their original recommendations and the Commission's recommendations so the only area that there is a difference now between the -17- COMMISSIONERS T S 2 a p A (� • m o A ROIL Call ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 10, 1374 MINUTES INDEX Citizens. Committee and the Planning Commission is the parking in the R2, R3, and R4 districts. Motion X Motion to agree with the Development Standards Ayes X XIX X X X Committee's findings and support the 600 sq. Noes I X ft. 1 parking space. Item A -3 Public Hearing - Request to consider the adoption of the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and acceptance of Environmental Impact Report EIR /NB - 73 -042. Mr. Hogan stated that the Commission had received.. the draft of the report some time ago. He mentioned that the staff had no additional. material to present, other than to discuss the report in whatever detail the Commission desires. Mr. Hogan stated that this item has been on the agenda for some time but was continued because • of the press of other business. He informed the Commission that this is a mandatory element of the General Plan. The Commission discussed the fact that State Law requires the City to review the Housing Element annually. At this time Mr. Hogan reviewed the policies of the report and discussed their implications. He informed the Commission that these policies Were taken from the Policy Report which has already been adopted. The Commission discussed the City's policy of not encouraging and, in fact discouraging, the development of new mobile home projects. The Commission discussed the sentence on page 10 of the Housing Element that reads "The City of Newport Beach will not oppose the provision of housing for lower income families within any .residential development if the developer finds that this is feasible ". Mr. Parker stated that he would tend to favor a more positive statement on this subject rather than a passive • "not opposing ". Mr. Parker then mentioned pages 15 and 16 of the Element which refers to open housing. He -18- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (� m • m. �? $ pp ? MINUTES m ROLL CALL P P January 10, 1974 INDEX stated that the action proposed to support the policy is that the City will adopt. an open housing ordinance. He stated that at least that has the benefit of saying the City is going to 'do something as opposed to "not opposing ". He then discussed the time schedule for adopting the ordinance. Mr. Gunn pointed out that if the Commission wants to add an additional policy in the low - income housing area, then the staff can look . at possible actions to implement it. Mr. Gunn felt this should be a separate policy in itself and at the present time there is no such policy. Mr. Parker questioned page 16 of the Element whi.ch refers to an Action of a Policy that states that the City will participate in the Orange County Housing Authority, will consent to the Housing Authority, and further states that transacting business within the City provided they do any business, would • require the City's prior consent to any action 1 that it takes. He stated that he does not call this .participation. Mr. Parker stated that the way this so- called action item is written, their action in participating is the granting or withholding of.consent and that that barely meets the requirements of the definition of "participates ". Mr. Hogan stated that this can get to be quite an issue as to whether you consent. He stated that what happens is that in many cases the City Council feels that they are turning over what they consider to be an extremely difficult question to an outside agency. He stated that the outside agency selects the location of where the.low- income housing is to be provided, or if there is a rent - subsidy program, they select the houses that are to be eligible for rent - subsidy and the Council and citizens of the City. Mr. Parker stated that as he read through the Element, the more the whole attitude.of the I Element was one that he didn't like. • Mr. Hogan then suggested that the Commission continue this hearing to January 17, 1974 which .would give the Commission a chance to work on -19- . COMMISSIONERS • ` % A A A Roll ca« m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 10, 1974 MINUTES INDEX th-e Element. At this time Chairman Agee opened the public . hearing on.this Element. jJoan Petty, 1720 Kings Road appeared before the Planning Commission and read her letter to the Commission which in summary stated that the League of Women Voters are concerned that the.Housing Element does not make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments. of the community as is required by government code. She stated that the League is particularly concerned by the following specific items: On page 7 in paragraph 1 the concluding statement of Section 3 Shortage of Residential Land and Land Values. She stated that they do not feel that the Action Program adequately deals with this statement. She added that the statement is "This will result in those low and moderate income families currently living in Newport Beach being economically forced to relocate ". She stated that this is an untenable proposition totally unacceptable to the concept of a Housing I Element that purports to provide housing for everyone, regardless of background or position. She stated that economic discrimination is no more tolerable than racial discrimination, nor can .a viable community be developed without a balanced population. She stated that also on page 7 under Section 3 Subsidized Housing the statement that "(subsidy) programs depend upon availability of funds from the Federal Government" is too limiting. She stated for example, that local jurisdictions could materially aid the development of low and moderate income units through zoning, purchase of suitable land with Revenue Sharing funds, restrictions on developments and subdivisions to insure balanced neighborhoods, trade -offs between open —space and low- income units with.land- owners and local park and recreation districts. She stated that the League would hope that such positive solutions would be sought. She stated that Section 2 - Ho_usini Goals under • "General Objectives" in the last dine of page 3 reference is made to serving "the needs of all present and future residents of the community ". She further stated that this should refer to . the current residents of a given date. She -20- COMMISSIONERS n � • � Z ,TO p P ROLL CALL 7rc!! CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 10, 1974 MINUTES stated the attrition described in later sections of the Housing Element occurs constantly; thus, the number of lower- and moderate - income residents who are able to maintain homes in Newport Beach will decrease significantly each year. She stated that eventually, the "present" residents would all be.upper- income or wealthy. She then stated.that in section 4 Action Program, Item 1, the League is concerned by the statement: "This will offer a broad choice of housing types in Newport Beach for a variety of family sizes, types,:and incomes, within the range of economic feasibility which is obviously limited by the high and values." INDEX She stated that high land values do complicate the problem, but that the League believes that innovative solutions to the problems faced by such cities as Newport.Beach can be found. She. then urged the Commission to consider such proposals and search for one acceptable for our city. She stated that the next statement in Section 4 page 10 Action Program, item 1 is: • "The City of Newport Beach WILL NOT OPPOSE the provision of housing for lower income families... if the developer finds that this is feasible... ". She stated that the League recommends that "WILL NOT OPPOSE" be changed to "WILL ENCOURAGE ". Ms. Petty then stated that the League also recommends that all future requested zoning changes, redevelopment projects, and'General Plan changes be accompanied by thorough ,a analysis of the short and long -term impact upon the low and moderate - income housing stock. She further stated that approval should be withheld from all requested changes which show that their proposed programs will result in a decrease in such housing stock. Ms. Petty then stated that the League would encourage the city immediately to join the Orange County Housing Authority as one of the key agencies available for joint problem solving. She stated that this is a necessary first step towards positive solutions to the problems described in Section 3. She then stated that the League would also • recommend the creation of an appointed Citizens Committee to advise on Housing, as suggested by.the state guidelines. She said that public input cannot be insured by -21- COMMISSIONERS n � Roll CALL Q` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 10, 1974 MINUTES INDEX public hearings alone - continuing, coordinated, and comprehensive community participation should prove valuable to the Community Development Department, Planning Commission and City Council in accurately interpreting public opinion. The Commission stated that many of the statements that the League finds objectionable are statements of facts and that the facts are that it is extremely difficult to provide for low -cost housing in this City. Ms. .Petty stated that she and the League felt that the report had a negative tone to it and that they feel that it should be written in the report that some attempt should be made to overcome the problem. There being no others desiring to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. ion X Motion to continue this item to the meeting of. Ayes January 17, 1974. Motion X. i Motion for reconsideration of the Minutes of Ayes X X X X X X December 13, 1973 to January 17, 1974. Mr. Beckle Abstaine X abstained due to the fact that he was not present at that meeting. Motion X Motion for adjournment. All Ayes Planning Commission adjourned at 11 :35 p.m. J SEPH ROSENER, JR., Secretary lanning Commission. City of Newport Beach • -22-