Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - General Plan Amendment 99-1 - SupplementalESP° "r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item NO.: u i PLANNING DEPARTZME?NT Staff Person: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92655 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 99 -1: Report of the actions of the Planning Commission February 22, 1999 14 Patricia L. Temple 644 -3200 SUMMARY: Following is a summary of the recommendations of the Planning Comtission on each of the requested General Plan Amendments: A. 341 La Jolla Drive: A proposal to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential to Two - Family Residential. Based upon the fact that most of the residences on La Jolla Drive are single family residences, the Planning Commission recommended that this request NOT be initiated. B. 3000 through 3012 Lafayette and 514 through 520 31" Street (Cannery Restaurant and parkins lot): A proposal to change the land use designation from Retail and Service Commercial to Single Family Residential for 11 lots. Upon deliberation on this request, the Planning Commission first debated a motion to initiate the requested General Plan Amendment only for the seven bay front parcels, leaving the four inland parcels designated for commercial/residential mixed use. This motion failed. After further discussion, the Planning Commission concluded that the possible establishment of the Single - family Residential land use classification represents a significant departure from the existing Specific Plan for the Cannery Village area and has potential significant conflicts with surrounding land uses. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended that this request be incorporated into a review of the Cannery Village General and Specific Plans to allow the Commission flexibility to adjust adjacent land uses to be compatible with this request if it receives favorable consideration. C. 260 Newport Center Drive: A proposal to increase the development limit to accommodate a 323 square foot addition to an existing office building. The Planning Commission recommended initiation of this request. D. Bie Canvon Area 1 (Sea Island Community Association): A proposal to increase the dwelling unit limit to allow the construction of three residential units on an existing tennis court. The Planning Commission recommended initiation of this request. E. 3443 Pacific View Drive (Harbor Day School): A proposal to increase the development limit to allow the addition of a gymnasium to an existing school facility. The Planning Commission recommended initiation of this request. F. 1009 Bayside Drive (Shark Island Yacht Club): A proposal to change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to allow construction of an office building. The fee owner of this property did not agree to this request, which was filed by the long -term lease - holder. Therefore, this item was removed from consideration for initiation. G. Newport Center: A proposal to increase the development limitation for several areas of Newport Center as follows: ➢ Fashion Island: Increase the permitted development by 100,000 square feet. ➢ Block 500: Increase the permitted development by 450,000 square feet. ➢ Corporate Plaza: Increase the permitted development by 69,000 square feet. ➢ Corporate Plaza West: Increase the permitted development by 101,000 square feet. ➢ Block 600: Increase the permitted development to allow the addition of 150 residential/resort units. ➢ Avocado North: Establish entitlement to allow the development of day care and college uses. The Planning Commission recommended initiation of this request. In taking this action, the Commission also recommended that the evaluation of Newport Center be a comprehensive planning effort. That is, look further than just the properties owned by The Irvine Company. Specifically, the request for additional office space on Block 800, the proposed new uses at the Newport Beach Country Club, and an Gewral Plan Amendment 99 -1 - Supplemental Febmary 18. 1999 Page 2 evaluation of the parking issues at Block 400 (Medical Plaza) should be included. Smaller requests, such as the Pacific Mutual tent and the 260 Newport Center Drive lobby expansion, should be allowed to move forward as independent requests. The Planning Commission felt that reviewing only the properties in The Irvine Company request is not comprehensive planning, and will result in incremental planning of Newport Center. The Commission also felt that there are other issues that may exist, but would only be identified through a comprehensive plan, which will not be addressed if the incremental approach is taken. In a separate motion, the Planning Commission also recommended that the City should study the interrelationships between Newport Center, the Airport Area, and the LCP planning area in the event all three planning programs move forward, and coordinate them to the maximum extent feasible. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager W Attachments: Additional correspondence Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director General Plan Amendment 99 -1 - Supplemental February 18, 1999 Page 3 Jan 01 SG 01:47a Brad Lear [7141 650 -2585 P.1 MARY L. LEAR 3000 BEACON ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 642 -5161 FAX (949) 650 -2585 February 18, 1999 To: City of Newport Beach City Council & Planning Commission c/o Patricia Temple Subject: General Plan Amendment - 341 La Jolla Drive The owner of the subject property also owns the adjoining property at 345 T,a Jolla Drive. My home is next to that property and is affected by activity at both properties. Our neighborhood has always been a single family area with many children and families. The multiple tenants in these two houses have created a major parking problem on La Jolla Drive. There have been many times that I have not been able to drive down La Jolla due to up to ten cars on the street just for these two properties. It is rare that a fire engine would be able to pass to obtain access to many homes in the area. Due to the tight passage on La Jolla many cars turn around in front of my house to exit out Beacon Street to Santa Ana Avenue. One of these cars recently hit my daughter's car which was parked in front of my home. Please do not allow the subject property to be considered for multiple family housing. Our once peaceful, single family neighborhood cannot sustain any increase in usage without creating more problems for neighbors, police, and firemen. RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEW =OP:T REACH AM FEB 18 1999 PM 718,9110,11,1211-1213, ' 15 16 q L'JHH ;1WPT ID :949- 759 -1004 FEB 17'99 16 :56 P4u.007 P.01 WAYNE & CHARLEEN AUSTERO 343 Santa Ana Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 CpLANNIN DEP 6y TYpc�G �4R ENT February 17, 1999 AM FEB � � IJ�� City of Newport Beach 1,; �1�11 �i1�'111�131 6 City Counsel and Planning Department ATTN: Patricia L. Temple 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca 92658 Via Facsimile (949) 644 -3250 Re: General Plan Amendments 99 -1 A. 341 Le Jolla Drive. To whom it may concern: We oppose the requested change to the land use designation of the property at 341 La Jolla Drive from a single family residence to a two family residence. We are Wayne and Charleen Austero who have resided for twenty five years at 343 Santa Ana Avenue, the property in front of and across the street from the subject property. The neighborhood is a very nice residential area consisting of single family residences. Many of the properties have been upgraded with new and expensive homes within the last twenty years and many of the residents have young children. In our opinion it would be detrimental to the neighborhood and its residents to begin turning the properties into income producing properties. For example the property in question along with the property immediately east of it at 345 La Jolla drive which is owned by the same individual, already is being used to produce income and houses multi- families at the present time. Between the two houses there are maybe nine different families or more residing there. This has presented numerous problems for the neighbors, such as overcrowded parking on the streets. We have counted as many as twelve vehicles parked in the small street behind us and along side of our house. This has made it very difficult for us to go in and out of our garage. Many of the vehicles parked behind the house are trucks. This fact combined with the narrow street, only twenty feet wide, contributes to the problem. When vehicles, especially trucks, are parked on this street it makes it difficult or impossible for some vehicles including emergency vehicles and city trucks to h L7HW/ I W P T Patricia L. Temple February 17, 1999 Page 2 ID:949 °759 -1004 FEB 17'99 16:56 110.007 P.02 get through the street. On many occasions, I have seen drivers who did not want to take the chance of squeezing through a narrow space, have to back up their vehicles, turn around and go in the opposite direction. It should be noted that none of the problems referred to herein existed before the owner began to allow multi - families to live in these "single family" residences. The use of these properties as multi- family residences has had other detrimental affects on the neighborhood, which in our opinion, has affected the character and feeling of the neighborhood and will reduce the property values of the surrounding houses. When the problems related to the use of the properties including the over crowdedness and the affects therefrom are disclosed to a potential buyer of neighboring property, which would be required, it is our opinion the potential buyer would look elsewhere or offer less. Some of the other problems that have been created as a direct result of the over crowdedness are as follows: many of the vehicles parked along the side of our house and several of my neighbors houses are in disrepair and look unsightly along the side our houses. More importantly many of them have for some time leaked fluids and have stained the street for great distances along our house and the neighboring houses. This is not only unsightly for the streets in this nice neighborhood but it may create a hazard that someone will slip on the substance and injure themselves. Also, because of where the cars park they sometimes leak fluid (we have dectected transmission fluid) directly into the public storm drain. We assume, because of the crowded conditions they park along side our house blocking the side entrance into our house even when asked politely not to park there. This presents a problem for our mothers when they come to visit. When a car is parked blocking my walkway they must squeeze between the car and the walkway which causes a potential for them to lose their balance and fall thus possibly injuring themselves. Though we don't know the details as of yet, it has been brought to my attention by another neighbor who has lived here longer than us, Darrel Boucher, that an attempt to change the use designation of this property was sought over twenty years ago and the request was denied. Clearly no circumstances have changed within the last twenty years that would warrant such a change. The list can go on with respect to the problems created by squeezing too many people into a space that was not made for multi - families. M LOHH, -NWPT ID :949- 759 -1004 FEE 17'59 16:57 110.007 P.O., Patricia L. Temple February 17, 1999 Page 3 The bottom line is that there is no legitimate reason why this property should be designated R -2. The property is too small to have two residences on it. Where do the requests stop? Does the owner next apply for her adjacent home to be R -2? Does someone else apply for a change and argue she did it why can't 1? Many of the people in this neighborhood have bought in this neighborhood and upgraded their properties at substantial cost because of the character and feel of the neighborhood. There is no legitimate reason why the requested change should be granted. When the applicants stated purpose to "produce income" is weighed against the problems created by the overcrowedness not the least of which is the look and feel of the neighborhood such a change is not warranted. The property can not withstand the change because of its location and size without having adverse and detrimental affects to the neighborhood. We respectively request the applicants request be denied. There has been no showing and there is no justification why this process should not be ended at this stage. Respectfully Submitted, Wayne and Charleen Austero 1 Philip Arst 2601 Lighthouse Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 February 16, 1999 Mayor Dennis O'Neill and Members of the Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mayor O'Neill and Members of the City Council: This is to report on an investigation of the benefit/cost ratios of office buildings in terms of costs to the City. Summary • Office buildings are revenue neutral at the time of their construction. • As office buildings age, their cost of services is forecast to rise faster than their property tax revenues (limited by Proposition 13.) • Retail and Hotel developments are highly profitable for cities because their sales and TOT taxes provide high excess revenues over the cost of their needed city services. • Office buildings generate large amounts of traffic creating congestion, particularly during rush hours. It is recommended that the City of Newport Beach should take note of this information and revise its thinking about growth accordingly. For example, the city should not make General Plan changes to permit high- intensity office building development. The City instead should concentrate on encouraging retail and hotel facilities. In point of fact, the city probably loses retail sales and hotel TOT revenues if it permits excessive traffic congestion generated by high- intensity office buildings on already overcrowded streets. Instead, it should encourage retail and hotel development by keeping Newport Beach a pleasant uncongested place to shop and visit. This data has been obtained from objective sources, principally the City of Irvine General Plan. There is no doubt that a consultant could be hired to make other assumptions and prove almost any case. "Environmental consultants are typically not retained to prepare environmental documentation that results in denial of their client's projects." (Robert Burnham, City of Newport Beach —See attachment 2.) Therefore any subsequent such study must withstand the test of objectivity vs. the conclusions of the City of Irvine. Office Building Economics2.doc 1 02/16/99 General Discussion A complete source of information on the Benefit/Cost tradeoffs of Office buildings is in the General Plan of the City of Irvine. (See attachment 1. - Table IV -5) It concludes that office buildings are neither revenue positive nor revenue negative for the city. Irvine's tabulation of the nud-suryhis of revenues-Der acre for both Commercial/Industrial and Residential Land Uses is as follows: Commercial Hotel +$62,000 Retail +$29,014 Mfg./ Warehouse +$5,479 Office -$70 Medical Office -$463 R &D -$496 Residential Land Use High Density 49,053 MedHigh -5,685 Medium 42,939 Low - $1,725 Rural/Est. 4374 The Irvine Planner who did the study commented that they conducted a survey of office workers and found that they do their shopping in their home neighborhoods. They therefore considered sales tax revenues from office buildings to be insignificant and did not include them. They made allowances for excessive street wear /maintenance for the high amount of traffic generated by this use (10 -13 ADT's per 1000 -sq. ft.) on the cost side. The net conclusion on office buildings was that without sales taxes there was not enough revenue to show a surplus over the levels of public services required for their support. • The study performed by the City of Irvine is the primary data source used, as no other cities that have performed this type of analysis have been located. Calls were made to many large Orange County cities and several upstate. Calls were made to the County of Orange and particularly the OC Fire Authority, and the Fire Chief of the City of Newport Beach. • Corroboration of this revenue neutral conclusion was obtained verbally from Al Gobar of Al Gobar & Associates, an economics consultant, who is experienced in this type of study. His exact words were that "all things considered, office buildings are a push." • Due to the objective approach taken by the city of Irvine Planning Department and the corroboration of the other data sources, its conclusions are reasonable to show a trend. Some drawbacks of the Irvine Study are: It is approximately ten years old. All data is expressed in 1988 dollars. Revenues are based upon the higher level of property tax revenues available at that time Revenues and expenses exclude Fire Safety costs as Irvine uses the OC Fire Authority. Because of the above drawbacks, the Irvine study is considered conserva ive and understates the true losses of office buildings and other similar industrial developments. This is because: The percentage of property tax revenues that are rebated by the State to Local Cities has been severely reduced since 1988. Office Building Economics2.doc 02/16/99 f1 Property tax revenue increases are limited by prop. 13 to a maximum of 2% per year. This class of property is typically owned for very long periods of time (when was the last time the Irvine Company sold a major office building in Newport Beach ?) The costs of city services are primarily personnel costs. These can be conservatively estimated as increasing at the long -tterm rate of inflation or 4% per year. • Even if the Irvine cost estimates were understated, the same rationale was used for all classes of Land Uses thereby making the relationships between them valid. Even if the Irvine cost estimates were understated, the resultant effects of the cost of services rising more rapidly than property taxes will serve to make office buildings a higher drain on the City General Fund as time goes on. • Neither the OC Fire Authority nor the City of Newport Beach has any data comparing the costs of providing fire safety services to office buildings vs. revenues received. Both stated that modern sprinklered buildings have a much lower incidence of fires than older buildings, but that the risks when one occurs are significantly greater. Both stated that providing paramedic services for these buildings has become increasingly costly. For example, in a 500,000 -sq. ft. 10 -12 story building, 4,000 employees must be served. Time to get to the building, use the elevators and to provide emergency paramedic service is critical and increasingly costly. Neither claimed that office buildings were anything but break even at their current level of cost analysis. Conclusions While this is an admittedly small sample, it is from a major city - planning department and is corroborated by an outside source. These results support the common sense conclusion that without sales tax revenues, even with high business license revenues; office buildings do not provide any net income to the city. Over time, they can be shown to be a net cost against the General Fund. Unquestionably, different approaches can be taken for some of the calculations. However, the net conclusion of revenue neutrality is reasonable and will not change. The City of Newport Beach will be better served by not permitting additional office building developments beyond those that can be accommodated by the Circulation Element capacity as authorized by the General Plan. Instead, the city should encourage retail and hotel development by keeping Newport Beach a pleasant uncongested place to shop and visit. In the hope that this is of value to you in your efforts to make Newport Beach a better city, Sincerely, CC: Newport Beach City Council Newport Beach Planning Commission L. Arst CAA Members, Jean Watt, Tom Hyans, others Chairmen EQAC and EDC Office Building Economics2.doc 02/16/99 In r -_ I 1 I h tb J O l LL r. 9 as H � M i i ! ra . mON0000bMghfn0 r V . . � v .r v .Y •Y w P . !2;.*;; m M p N■ A. O A Y. M �• N �^ A U A. w •YM m . Op ' M M C i i P. OOmOOPAO�Inp 'M M aNAn; . A W$ r A��ew1 NN L . ■ N . Y f 'd PM OO . Yf P•gOON� -'•00 I� M . NN N MNwNN .O . . r ■ N . rN� 'at ' w . f O o i •O °W ° �r1 °�qO r.pN 0, $ J. N 40 N V N. °�•!•"OY1wN � ; re 31 in N�yyM•GN ■Yi !2 R' M . Y . MN N r i b0 ^pOVMOVANA Y\ N V i W.� r N C O .• r 0. . ■rY . . f v♦ w i.o �.prMa -O bq bP ON N . !2;.*;; m M p N■ A. O A Y. M �• N �^ A U A. w •YM m . Op ' M M W . A W$ r A��ew1 NN >v;.AgOq yA1ANLA us NpMO..MIN M N Z • Y'a-. . r ■ N . rN� 'at •J i Ngy fO�bq�ONlN lYl pNp M M P O N V N; N N °�•!•"OY1wN � re 31 in N�yyM•GN ■Yi !2 R' M J. 1N1�l!O N A � A ^� MN N N■ M. N . f v♦ w i.o �.prMa -O bq bP ON W.V AVO�V.Y Y A. AM N N . rNN Y A . AN ■ N • M M . I. i Y • 7 X . Y . . • . OP�NdPOln0 O:A 00 ■P . ' NY a In .OA N O YN . . ■ N . MoMMdoopvaonem°im �� r a� Y N e . Y . 1. . m i M O r VN 00! P^ O O A O 0 Y `■ e f Y Mvr.. w:i ! Y . � I•1rO��OM BOO ^POOAOm uq i r . ■ N . O. I�M. Y i A O M M O O N P 0 0' 0 0■ N i d MY ~MP1 q U i $f CNf Y . . u. Q O M 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 A 0 0■ O. . ■ M . Y ;I°MN ry O ::NOONOb A m m ,3 V r E r . ■ N . . f } . ♦• N iKum lWi.We O Y �M�yyW 99[[MF`+W qC •+O K f ..r s -F•r�N fMi"i3 u . 7 d W { 2 r = 6 woo ~ i M N O fV M a. v A A V �a N M V v fN- H r V N v A 11Mh� V V a O M M h a N V p N O M M M N V M r O a M W ..0 q Oi K 6 d W V K m AGOMM 74.2 Rpp., i Y. M �• N �^ A U A. M in . r ■ N . . ■ M . °�•!•"OY1wN � Y.M f f 1 . YiAO'gMNMY ^� r . . f . Y i AOOV�.Yq q q i Y f . u. 0 0 0 � M V N■ M. u. L . ■ b . Y . i1p4 ° ^qf��V 1N' � . M1 r• N N u �• ! � Y i ��yY yW� M . v ?• N i a}w.Y U we W tb . O C OG Y O. W 1!..+ N V . V. G u �h' O M V fWi. 7 i Y• n . ■F� �K( 1W�1 u oY<1 ��.•wN� Y t «n � r.`u�d 00 • r. s.2 VYL7� �ibV ou a M N O fV M a. v A A V �a N M V v fN- H r V N v A 11Mh� V V a O M M h a N V p N O M M M N V M r O a M W ..0 q Oi K 6 d W V K m 0 ll2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 101 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FM ROBERT H. BURNHAM, CITY ATTORNEY, #44926 ROBIN LYNN CLAUSON, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, #123326 DANIEL K. OHL, DEPUTY-CITY ATTORNEY, #109372 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. 3300 NEWPORT BLVD-1 P. 0. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACHt CA'92659 -.1768 (714) 644 -3131 Attorneys for CITY.OF' NgwpORT!:6EACH BEFORE THE-BOARD OP DIRECTORS OF THE REGIONAL WATER.Q'UALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA'REGION DRS.'.ZEDL£R,•SONG AND GOODWIN. During the December••15,.: 199.5 certification hearing,. IRWD consultants, and staff.: adc itted, • for:. the- first•: time, that there was a good faith disagreement among experts regarding potential Project impacts. ...'We believe that all of-the experts retained by interested parties are.W411.cqualifLed prof easionale. we also believe that IRWD and:. ite.:Oobsultants were,.and are, well aware that their Project'would be ,denied If-the EIR concluded the Project-would adversely••impact the environment or-that the evidence was irisut£i'cient,,?to: support ••a • finding of, benefit to the receiving watere:::_.Conau prepare envircnmental.�dc are 'typically, not .retained to nentation;that,results in denial of their, clieht,s Pzbject:f: °MprepYezj events. relevant to-.the Project have not always been prgmptly disclosed to,all: interested parties. The Upper: Nei+pert Bey,10010gical%Reserve ,.is. an extremely valuable reeource.and,: in'lightiicSt .tiri'e: ciTcu,matapoe,a: surrounding this Project, we etrongiy encourago the Board to yesolve the ..7-.•�..:y. 1. �,.. .,.±;`' .. M 1T