Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/1988COMMISSIONERS ADJOURNED SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers MINUTES TIME: 6:30 m. DATE: August 25, 1988 a \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I _ INDEX PRESENT I *I *I *I *I 1 *I *I All Commissioners were present. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney Robert P. Lenard, Advance Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Principal Planner Chris Gustin, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Joanne MacQuarrie, Secretary Minutes of August 11, 1988: Minutes of * Motion was made and voted on to approve the August 11, 8 -11 -88 *Ayes 1988, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Public Comments: Public No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: 1posting Of A the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the enda Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August 19, 1988, in front of City Hall. A. General Plan Amendment 87 -1(A) AND (E) Item No. 1 These amendments involve major revisions to the Land Use GPA 87 -1 and Circulation Elements of the Newport Beach General ('A) & (E) Plan. The proposed revisions to the Land Use Element • involve establishment of various densities and inten- LCP No.13 sities of development citywide. The revisions to the Circulation Element include modifications to the City's Rec.& 0'S. adopted Master Plan of Arterial Highways as well as a Element .& reevaluation of the necessary roadway improvements and Housing funding sources available to the City of Newport Beach. Element - 1 - COMMISSIONERS August 25, 1988 ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX AND B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 13 Adjourned to Amendments to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to 9 -1 -88 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. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Chairman Persdn summarized the remaining hearing schedule for the General Plan program and also explained • that the evening's hearing agenda would focus primarily on commercial zoning regulations in older sections of the City, and when all comments had been heard or at 10:00 p.m., the Commission would hear comments on specific sites and other aspects of the General Plan. Commissioner Debay stated that as a property owner in West Newport Beach, an area being addressed in the current zoning proposals, her own property is not affected as it was rezoned a few years ago from R -2 to R -1 after an existing duplex was remodeled into a single family residence. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager reviewed the changes proposed in the commercial floor area ratios, and stated that in order to provide some flexibility for property owners and recognizing that certain land uses are much less traffic intensive in nature, staff had suggested some changes in regards to the proposed .5 FAR standard. The approach would be to limit traffic generation from future land use rather than just limiting the building size based on FAR. The proposed alternative.standard would allow traffic generating uses up to a maximum of 1.0 FAR as long as they did not exceed 60 daily trips or 3 peak hour trips per 1,000 sq.ft. of development, a 'traffic envelope' approximat- ing traffic generation of a retail project. High traffic generating uses would be restricted to FAR's less than .5. 2 - COMMISSIONERS ym(�� �^y�tey9 N�9ic • yy ��y c� 9yo August 25, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In responding to concerns regarding the draft Land Use Element's proposal to include above grade covered parking in FAR computation, with a suggested maximum of 1.25 overall building bulk for residential mixed uses as compared to .5 for some waterfront properties which are limited to commercial uses, Mr. Lenard explained an alternative proposal of applying a 1.25 building bulk standard area -wide. Mr. Lenard asked Don Webb, City Engineer, to comment on the beach traffic as it affects the peninsula, an issue raised at previous special meetings. Mr. Webb informed the Commission that data showed that in ten years, summer counts have been relatively stable, some fluctua- tion, but no growth, and unless the number of parking spaces is increased significantly, an increase in recreational uses is not forecast. Though congested, summer weekend traffic is considered 'bad' 3 -4 times a year. Mr. Webb continued that including the projected winter counts, the system handles 858 to 908 of the year satisfactorily. The measures required to provide for the remaining approximately 108 are not economically feasible, i.e., eliminating parking in the median area in order to create the equivalent of a high capacity Vehicle lane or eliminating parking on the Balboa Peninsula. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Pomeroy, Commissioner Debay, Chairman Pers6n, and Mr. Webb as to what measures might bring relief to peninsula residents who must traverse the peninsula for ingress and egress to their homes. Chairman Pers6n summarized the alternative FAR proposal, and queried staff as to how the proposal could be monitored when changes in land.use occur after develop- ment under one scenario. Planning Director James Hewicker responded that the FAR proposals are concepts in terms of the General Plan and that ordinances to implement these concepts are not being presented at this time. Director Hewicker continued that there will be problems in writing ordinances to properly fit the concepts and in educating staff and public alike as to what those ordinances permit. At the request of Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Lenard explained • how the trip generation standard of 60 daily trips per 1,000 sq.ft, was established. Existing uses on the peninsula were found to generate an average of 36 daily trips; projected uses will generate an average of 40 total daily trips; the PM peak is fixed at 3 trips. 3 - COMMISSIONERS August 25, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES IROLLCALLIJ I Jill I I INDEX N Raising the daily trip standard to 60 allows some uses which have an even spread throughout the day to be limited by the secondary daily traffic standard. Mr. Lenard further stated that the concept of including above grade covered parking in calculating the FAR standard for properties developed in the City is as proposed in the draft Land Use Plan. The change staff is suggesting would allow two standards: one based on traffic generation and one based solely on building bulk, eliminating confusion as to how much is going to be parking and how much traffic generating land use. The 1.2 standard would include both above grade covered parking and the predominant land use; 5 with the ability to go to 1, would not include any parking but solely based on land uses which are traffic generated. In order to reduce the number of trips in the bay front area and citing Cannery Village and Central Balboa • properties as examples, Chairman Pers6n asked Mr. Lenard if staff had looked at the possibility of mixed use zoning which provides for commercial use downstairs and residential use upstairs. Although there are certain arguments in favor of mixed use, Mr. Lenard explained one reservation would be the high possibility of restaurant development and the potential noise impact affecting residential uses. Mr. Lenard stated that in the past, the Coastal Commission has objected to the mixed use provision in bay front areas, however, because of the changes being proposed with respect to FAR's, mixed use in the bay front area may be reasonable for the Planning Commission to consider. The public hearing was continued in connection with this item. Z4 Mr. Jack Williamson, 126 31st Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to Mr. William - son's query as to how the proposal would affected an expansion to a residential use above an existing commercial, Chairman Pers6n said it would remain the same as it is today, i.e.; .75 FAR. Mr. Lenard added that under the current standard, .75 commercial and .75 residential is permitted for an overall 1.5 FAR under the Specific Plan provisions, and the proposed Plan reduces the overall lid to 1.25 FAR. However, Mr. Lenard continued that on some of the smaller lots in Cannery Village, due to parking requirements, .75 commercial is not possible. Z4 COMMISSIONERS August 25, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mrs. Gail Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive, representing the Newport Heights Community Association appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Demmer asked for verifica- tion of her understanding with respect to the proposal that the only incentive uses to build above and beyond the .5 FAR would be those pertaining to traffic, and that marine- oriented incentive uses would no longer exist. Following Mr. Lenard's affirmation, Mrs. Demmer then asked for an identification of view corridors and whether or not view corridors would affect the land uses. In response, Mr. Lenard stated that staff was not proposing amendments to the Mariners' Mile Specific Plan under the General Plan Update process, but once FAR's are established for that area, zone change amendments would be proposed, consistent with the FAR's adopted in the General Plan. Mr. Tom Testa, representing California Mutual, 4299 MacArthur Blvd., appeared before the Planning Commission • and requested an example of calculating FAR for a 10,000 sq.ft. property. Mr. Lenard answered .5 x 10,000 sq.ft. = 5,000 sq.ft. base FAR x 60 (ADT) s 300 ADT or 15 peak trips (3 x 5,000), creating the traffic envelope to which could be applied other uses with lower trip generation rates. Mr. Testa stated it was his understanding that while above grade parking would be included, subterranean parking would not be counted in FAR, and asked for clarification regarding parking that might be partially above grade as well as below grade. Mr. Lenard re- sponded that the issue would be defined at the time of adopting specific zoning regulations, but most probably parking that was less than 508 above grade would not be counted. An alternative might be if parking were 508 above grade and 508 below, one -half would be included in the FAR. Mr. Thomas Edwards, 1333 Hampshire Circle, an attorney representing the Balboa Improvement Association and the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Improvement Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Edwards commented that he recognized the difficult task before the Commission and the City of updating the General Plan in order to conform with State law and to balance the provisions of the Land Use and Circulation Elements, and he felt the suggested concept changes to be important steps in adding needed flexibility to the proposal. 5 - COMMISSIONERS. 9 . N Oy9`` o August 25, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Tex Von Oppenheim, 507 Edgewater, appeared before the Planning Commission. In describing his theory of a transparency factor, which in essence is a building design providing more view 'around or through' a structure, Mr. Oppenheim suggested that there be incentives for developers to provide such projects, which he stated are more costly to build, but are assets to and for the community. In response, Chairman Pers6n reiterated the proposed FAR alternative which would allow an increased FAR providing the increase does not cause abrupt scale relationships with the surrounding area. Planning Director Hewicker stated that within the Municipal Code, there exists the ability to increase height limits of developments subject to use permit, allowing the Planning Commission or City Council in review, to require more set backs in exchange for increased height limits. Mr. Bill Wren, representing the Balboa Peninsula Point • Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wren emphasized that traffic congestion on Newport Blvd. and Balboa Blvd. and the need for adequate parking are of great concerns to the Association. He stated that while parking is a major concern, the Association objected to the 'paving over' of the beaches in order to provide parking. He stressed that adequate parking should be provided for the specific property use within the area of the development; that in -lieu fees have not been effective and that any new development should be required to provide rather than buy parking. He continued that although he understood why the summer beach traffic counts were not included in the traffic analysis, that they should be considered along with respective mitigating measures. Speaking as an individual, Mr. Wren suggested an arbitrary traffic level be established whereby any new development be required to provide facilities to mitigate the additional traffic the development would generate at the day of occupancy. If in -lieu fees were imposed, that they be used to provide parking within the area of the development. . In reference to the in -lieu fee program, Chairman Pers6n described it as totally inefficient, and stated that the Planning Commission had been attempting for several years to get the City Council to address the system. 6 - COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT August 25, 1988 BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In this regard Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Planning Department had been working closely with the City Council's In -Lieu Parking Ad Hoc Committee. He added that specific alternatives were to be proposed at the Committee's next meeting which would be available for the Peninsula Point Association's review. The Planning Commission recessed at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Terry Austin, Traffic Consultant, was requested by Advance Planning Manager Lenard to explain why 60 daily trips per 1,000 sq.ft. rather than 40 were used in establishing the base FAR. Mr. Austin explained that various traffic schemes were considered that would allow some control of traffic while mixing the land uses. His recommendation was to use the peak hour traffic genera- tion, the rate used to size the traffic system and road- ways, and which relates specifically to capacity, as the primary test. However, as hearing testimony referenced • all day traffic as an additional concern, he also suggested the concept of a secondary test for those land uses that might have a low peak hour generation but a high daily trip generation. By using the relatively higher 60 ADTs, this secondary safety net would seldom be triggered except in those uses that generate a low peak hour and a very high ADT. Advance Planning Manager Lenard added that the traffic model runs thus far illustrate that the system is in balance and are based on the average of three PM peak trips. Mr. Lenard suggested that as the dual -test concept is newly developed, the Planning Department would like to apply the standards to areas other than the peninsula to check their validity and the results reported back to the Planning Commission. Responding to Chairman Pers6n's inquiry of the Commis- sioners as to their feelings regarding expanding the commercial and residential mixed -use in other waterfront areas, Commissioner Pomeroy indicated his approval of the concept. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that it offered an opportunity for the land owner to gain some additional revenue by having the mixed use, and although losing some of the commercial building size, the residential use would reduce the overall traffic generation in comparison to solely commercial use. He further stated that being able to adjust the FAR to the use for traffic generation would give the land owner 7 COMMISSIONERS TOLL CALL MINUTES August 25, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX use for traffic generation would give the land owner some flexibility and allow a balance between the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. Chairman Pers6n expressed his concern in the eventual drafting of the implementing ordinances to accommodate the concepts and in monitoring the changes in uses when they occur. In replying to Commissioner Debay's statement that it was her understanding that the Coastal Commission dis- courages residential uses on bayfront properties, Mr. Lenard stated that although that has been the case in the past, it was his belief that under the context of an overall General Plan Review, and in looking at the issues of traffic and circulation on the peninsula, and realizing that this General Plan Amendment will involve significant amendments to the LCP, the concept is one the Planning Commission should consider. Mr. Lenard stated that he would talk with Coastal Commission staff and attempt to get some direct feed back. The public hearing continued in connection with this item. Mr. Bill Blurock, 2300 Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Blurock comple- mented staff for putting together a proposal that he felt was logical and offered some. measures of com- promise. Mr. Blurock asked that the staff and the Planning Commission give consideration to what he felt important issues to resolve and include in the final plan. These concerns included weekend traffic peaks; reduction of traffic generation by permitting residen- tial use on bayfront properties; abuses of the height limit; and infringement of view corridors. Mr. Piero Serra, owner of the Portofino Beach Hotel, 2306 W. Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Serra gave a brief outline of his plans for expanding the hotel, and for acquiring and develop- ing the surrounding properties. Mr. Serra voiced his concern that if changes in zoning would not allow the project to 'pencil down,' he would have to abandon the • project and the redevelopment of the area. In addressing Mr. Serra's concern, Chairman Pers6n invited Mr. Serra to work with City staff, as he has in the past, and that the proposal's alternative FAR concept should provide some flexibility. Chairman Pers6n stressed that it is 8 COMMISSIONERS ZmG�Z aN'y�! qo� August 25, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX not and never has been an intent of the Commission to discourage the upgrading of property and encouraged staff and residents to develop .creative ideas to maintain a higher level of quality. Dr. Jan Vandersloot, 2221 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission and said he was in favor of retaining the .5 FAR, including parking structures in the calculation, and eliminating the use of incentives to exceed the basic height limits. He expressed his feelings that the latter provision has ruined the bay view from the Cliff Park area of Newport Heights. Mr. Allen Beek, 1945 Sherington Place, appeared before the Planning Commission, and commented that although he agreed with the alternative FAR proposal, he did have some questions regarding the figures in the table of Trip Generation Examples. He questioned what he termed a large discrepancy between the daily trips as compared to the peak hour trips that a commercial office develop- . ment would generate. Mr. Beek continued that he supported a .4 or .45 FAR for office development which would allow at grade parking and eliminate above grade parking and its inclusion in calculating FAR. As no one else appeared before the Planning Commission to address commercial areas in older parts of the City, Chairman PersSn continued the public hearing for anyone wishing to address the proposed General Plan Amendment 87 -1 (A)(E), and asked Advance Planning Manager Bob Lenard to request Terry Austin, Traffic Consultant, to address the Planning Commission. For clarification, Mr. Austin reviewed the reasoning for using 60 ADT as a standard for the alternative FAR proposal. Mr. Austin explained that if the same criteria for the peak hour and the ADT were used, the result would be something like 40 ADT for the ceiling. In order to identify those uses which generate many more ADT's than peak hour trips, 60 ADT was used as the standard criteria. Using PM peak only as a criteria would not offer the control desired for the high ADT generators, but by combining it with the higher 60 ADT, it offered a two -way standard on which to judge trip generation. In addressing traffic improvements proposed for the City's roadways and the widening of Jamboree in par- ticular (where to where ?), Mr. Austin explained that 9 - COMMISSIONERS • y�G�Z �inOy �C 9��'3c August 25, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX where at one time traffic engineering of roadways was thought of in terms of incrementing by 2 (2, 4, 6, 8- lane roadways), various techniques of road widening are employed today. Mr. Austin explained the concept of an augmented 6 -lane roadway, which does not have a simple standard, but requires design discretion at each intersection and at each section of the roadway. Mr. Austin continued, that while an intersection may have B- lanes through the intersection, between intersections the median might be narrowed or a lane dropped entirely if the length of the roadway section permits. What really creates problems of capacity in the intersections are the turning movements, particularly the left turning movements. By way of illustrating the volumes and differing peak hour movements that the traffic study analyzes, Mr. Austin pointed out that today Bison serves only as a cross street between MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Road, but in the time frame the study addres- ses, it will provide direct access to the Corridor. In describing the future configuration for Jamboree (from • Ford Road to Bristol Street), Mr. Austin said it would be an 8 -lane or augmented 6 with' the recognition that there would be some design discretion at intersections. In response to a question from Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Austin stated it was his opinion that the aforementioned section of Jamboree could correctly be designated as an augmented 6 -lane roadway at buildout in 2010 in the Master Plan of Streets and Highways of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Mr. Austin said that the terms 'augmented' and 'enhanced' were being included in many cities' General Plans. Mr. Stan Troxel, 112 - 28th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission and described his plans for building a duplex with a 4 -car garage on his 2,375 sq.ft. lot. He stated that the size of the living space was greatly limited by the city's parking requirement, and he requested that the Commission permit duplexes where 4- car garages were provided. Mr. Troxel expressed his concern that he might not be able to attain the neces- sary approvals from both the City and Coastal Commission before the proposed changes take affect. Mr. Troxel requested that the Commission allow those persons whose plans are already in the 'pipe line' to proceed. In • response to Chairman Pers6n's inquiry, Mr. Troxel stated his plans were to build 3 bedrooms in each unit of the . duplex to accommodate a family of four. Mr. Troxel agreed with Chairman Pers6n's statement that the 10 - COMMISSIONERS F � y�G�y�� %CC Om CITY OF NEWPORT August 25, 1988 BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX bedrooms would be small, but opined he would be improv- ing the property by removing the existing old building. In responding to Mr. Troxel's request for a time table of the Planning Commission's action, Chairman Person answered that provided all public testimony had been heard, a vote might be taken at the September 8 meeting or the meeting of September 15, but explained the Commission action taken would reflect only the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council, therefore, the public hearing process would be repeated before the City Council. Chairman Person commented further that although there was still testimony to be heard in regards to the proposed minimum lot size required for two units, he personally might be disposed to vote to permit 2 units on the smaller lots, but his main concern was that a 3 bedroom duplex might very well result in 6 cars with only 4 parking places provided. Mr. David Dmohowski representing The Irvine Company appeared before the Planning Commission and indicated • his intention to address site - specific issues as they relate to the draft Land Use Plan. Mr. Dmohowski informed the Commission that The Irvine Company had spent considerable time during recent months reevalua- ting their plans for their properties_ within the Newport Beach community. With regards to commercial properties, Mr. Dmohowski stated The Irvine Company was suggesting .25 FAR and with respect to residential properties and consistent with the City's current General Plan suggest- ing a mix of types ranging from low density up to multi- family residential. Mr. Dmohowski distributed to the Planning Commission and staff the written comments of The Irvine Company relative to their sites within the City, and followed the distribution with his comments comparing the proposals in the draft Land Use Plan with those of The Irvine Company. 1) Corporate Plaza West: Draft LUP designation of residential, 100 du's. Mr. Dmohowski stated The Irvine Company wanted to maintain a business image at this entrance to Newport Center and recommended 100,000 sq.ft. of office with a FAR of.25 FAR, and added that if • a residential development were to be considered on this site it should be multi - family at approximately 20 units per acre. 2) Civic Plaza. Draft LUP recommends 8,400 sq.ft. of office at .06 FAR. Based on existing pattern of development in existing Civic Plaza, Mr. Dmohowski - 11 - COMMISSIONERS Z�G9��O�w�9CC ga�9t • August 25, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX said a .3 FAR would be more appropriate and generate a buildout of this planned community to 40,000 sq.ft. 3) PCH /Jamboree. Draft LUP recommends residential, 66 du's. Mr. Dmohowski said 90 du's are proposed by The Irvine Company. 4) Big Canyon /MacArthur. Draft LUP recommends Open Space. Mr. Dmohowski said The Irvine Company does not see sufficient justification in terms of environmental sensitivity or any identified recrea- tional need and recommends residential, 80 du's. 5) Freeway Reservation East. Draft LUP recommends Open Space /Residential, 18 du's. Mr. Dmohowski stated The Irvine Company recommends retention of the existing General Plan designation of residential, up to 76 du's; supports the LUP objective for a landscaped entry into the city. 6) Jamboree /MacArthur. Draft LUP recommends Open Space. Mr. Dmohowski commented The Irvine Company does not see sufficient justification nor need for Open Space designation at this site which he said is remote from residential development and proposes the site for low -rise garden office development 'up to 50,000 sq.ft. • at .25 FAR. 7) San Diego Creek North. Draft LUP recommends retail, up to 52,727 sq.ft. and a 2.5 acre Fire Station Site. Based on existing pattern develop- ment, a combination of office development and up to 100 residential du's is an alternative proposed by The Irvine Company which could include a Fire Station. 8) San Diego Creek South. Draft LUP recommends 220 du's residential. Mr. Dmohowski stated The Irvine Company supports the proposed change for this site to residen- tial, but requests additional density to approximately 20 units per acre, up to 500 du's in order to accom- modate employee housing and a substantial amount of affordable housing. 9) New-porter Knoll. Draft LUP recommends Open Space. Mr. Dmohowski stated The Irvine Company supports the Open Space designation provided there would be some allowance made for a future expans- ion of the Newporter Resort of approximately 68 rooms. In concluding his comments regarding The Irvine Company sites, Mr. Dmohowski asked Chairman PersGn for a few additional moments to address the draft Circulation Element. Mr. Dmohowski stated he wished to address some roadway capacity issues directly affecting Irvine Company sites in the context of more efficient use of private developer funds for transportation improvements. • Addressing Dover Drive between Coast Highway and Westcliff, Mr. Dmohowski questioned the conclusion for a 6 lane - divided designation inasmuch as the Traffic Analysis predicts an additional 8,000 trips per day. 12 - COMMISSIONERS August 25, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I H I I I I I I INDEX The Irvine Company does not feel a full 6 -lane con- figuration is justified by the amount of proposed development in the area or on the Castaways site. In addressing the grade separation proposed at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road, Mr. Dmohowski stated The Irvine Company's recommendation of.an at grade intersec- tion. However, if future traffic conditions warranted some form of grade separation, it would be their recommendation to go with one minimizing the change in grade of the roadway at the intersection. A preferred alternative would be tunneling under the existing intersection to provide a free -flow movement from Coast Highway eastbound to Jamboree northbound. Ms. Dianna Prosser, 330 Cameo Shores Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Prosser expressed her concern with possible negative economic and aes- thetic impacts with respect to property owners and the community if the proposed downzoning were to take • effect. She specifically mentioned the improvements in West Newport and her feeling that there must be motiva- tion, i.e., it must be economically feasible for property owners to upgrade their property, residential or commercial. Discussion ensued between Assistant City Attorney Korade, Chairman Pers6n, and Planning Director Hewicker in regards to Ms. Prosser's inquiry whether the proposed Plan provided for "grandfathering" or rebuild- ing after a fire, as it pertained to legal, nonconform- ing uses, and Planning Director Hewicker stated there were no plans to change the existing nonconforming use regulations. Mr. Allen Beek reappeared before the Planning Commission and voiced his agreement to the Chairman's earlier comments regarding the perceived parking problems which would result from a duplex with two 3- bedroom units. Mr. Beek expressed his opinion it is a misnomer for people to use the terms ' downzoning' and 'downgrading' with respect to some of the suggested zoning changes in the draft Plan. Mr. Beek said the highest quality of development results from R -1 use of the land, followed by R -2 use, therefore, 'upgrading' would be the more correct terminology and consistent with the intent of the proposal to reduce future traffic generation. • Mr. Beek briefly outlined events of past years that have changed some of the older properties in Newport Beach from their original designations of R -1. In those areas that would be impacted by the proposal to require a - 13 - COMMISSIONERS A A � a+yy cy cf qyo August 25, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX minimum ,lot standard of 2,400 sq.ft. in order to build a duplex and where the block is predominantly developed at higher density, he suggested that there be a provision in the Plan that would allow the property owners an extension of time, a 'window period' of perhaps 5 years, in which to convert their property. He suggested looking at as many individual cases throughout the City as possible in order to develop a formula that would be appropriate and equitable. Mrs. Gail Demmer reappeared before the Planning Commis- sion as president of the Newport Heights Community Association. Mrs. Demmer stated that the Association was recommending a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq.ft. for subdivision on bluffs; requesting that the policy, "no subdivision of this area which will result in additional dwelling units is allowed" contained in some sections of the draft Land Use Plan be more clearly defined; and that there be no lot splits with regard to the residen- tial community in Newport Heights. Jan Vandersloot reappeared before the Planning Commis- sion and stated his agreement with Mrs. Demmer's foregoing remarks requesting there be no further lot splits or subdivisions permitted in the Newport Heights area. Dr. Vandersloot opined that a 7,000 sq.ft. lot size would allow the potential of subdivision and referred to a recent proposed subdivision which the Association was opposing. He had compiled a list of 39 areas within Newport Beach where the draft Plan recom- mends that there be no further subdivision and suggested that Newport Heights be an area where no further subdivision is recommended. Dr. Vandersloot continued that the lots on the south side of Cliff Drive have historically been larger than those on the interior due to their hillside location, and while the hillside slope is 11 short of the technical definition, these lots do constitute a coastal bluff (260 over 25 ft.). In addressing Mr. Dmohowski's previous recommendations regarding specific Irvine Company properties, Dr. Vandersloot disagreed that there was no justification for the Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation for the site southerly of the intersection • of Jamboree road and MacArthur Boulevard. He encouraged members of the Commission to visit the site, which he stated is one of the most virgin riparian habitats in the city and a direct connection to San Diego Creek. 14 - COMMISSIONERS August 25, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In replying to Dr. Vandersloot's concern as to why the Newport Heights bay side lots were not among those areas staff recommended for the policy of no further lot splits, Advance Planning Manager Lenard explained that some of the lots in the Heights are significantly larger than those in surrounding areas and exceed the standard used as the criteria for the policy. Mrs. Demmer reappeared before the Planning Commission to respond to Mr. Lenard's request for clarification as to the Association's requests for a minimum bay side lot size of 10,000 sq.ft. and for no further lot splits. After some discussion between Mrs. Demmer, Mr. Lenard, and Planning Director Hewicker, Chairman Pers6n sug- gested Mrs. Demmer check with the Association's Board as to the their specific priority in this regard. Dr. Vandersloot reappeared before the Commission to explain that the 10,000 sq.ft. standard bluff lot size being requested by the Newport Heights Association was . based on the low- density residential designation for that area which he interpreted as meaning 4 units per acre. Chairman Person commented that there were many areas in the city with a low- density designation, but were developed in the past as otherwise. In the discussion following, Dr. Vandersloot emphasized his opinion that the bluff lots be treated as low- density residential and included in the policy of no further lot splits, but if a minimum square footage be required, that it be 10,000 sq.ft. Mrs. Gail Demmer reappeared before the Planning Commis- sion to explain that her previous comments in regards to a minimum lot size requirement and no lot splits had been based on a previous subdivision proposal next to Ensign View Park in which case she would not expect a similar sized parcel to be developed as one site. Motion was made and voted on to adjourn the Special Planning Commission meeting to September 1, 1988. at All Ayes 2:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. • ADJOURNMENT: At 9:14 p.m. the Planning Commission Adjournment adjourned to the September 1, 1988 Special Planning Commission meeting at 2:00 p.m. - 15 - COMMISSIONERS .p . ymG y9 O,,4 t O Ir Z o „ � August 25, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 16 -