Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Overview of Proposed General Plan Amendments in Newport Center - CorrespondenceFrom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Stop Polluting Our Newport <Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org> Sunday, April 24, 2016 9:12 AM Dixon, Diane; Muldoon, Kevin; Petros, Tony; Duffield, Duffy; Selich, Edward; Peotter, Scott; Curry, Keith Kiff, Dave; Brandt, Kim; Wisneski, Brenda; Harp, Aaron; Torres, Michael; Brown, Leilani Discussion of General Plan Issues at April 26 City Council Meeting City Councii_160425_GenPian.pdf SPON members, many of whom worked hard to create and pass the Green light Initiative in 2000 and defeat Measure Y in 2014, feel a great sense of frustration and uneasiness about the number of sizable projects that are being considered in addition to those being built in the city right now. Please find attached our comments regarding the discussion of General Plan Issues scheduled for the April 26 City Council Meeting. Thank you. Marko Popovich President PO Box 102 I Balboa Island, CA 92662 I 949.864.6616 www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I lnfo@SPON-NewportBeach.org Facebook SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport STOP POLLUTING OuR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 14 PO Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 949.864.6616 OFFICERS PRESIDENT Marko Popovich VICE PRESIDENT Elaine Linhoff TREASURER Dennis Baker SECRETARY Allan Beek BOARD MEMBERS Nancy Alston Don Harvey Dorothy Kraus Donald Krotee Andrea Lingle Bobby Lovell Jeanne Price Melinda Seely Jack Skinner Nancy Skinner Jean Watt Portia Weiss Terry Welsh April 25, 2016 To: Mayor Diane Dixon, ddixon@newportbeachca.gov Mayor ProTem Kevin Muldoon, kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov Councilman Tony Petros, tpetros@newportbeachca.gov Councilman Duffy Duffield, dduffield@newportbeachca.gov Councilman Ed Selich, edselich@roadrunner.com Councilman Scott Peotter, speotter@newportbeachca.gov Councilman Keith Curry, keithcurry1@yahoo.com Subject: Discussion of General Plan Issues at April 26 City Council Meeting Dear Mayor Dixon and City Council Members: SPON members, many of whom worked hard to create and pass the Green light Initiative in 2000 and defeat Measure Yin 2014, feel a great sense of frustration and uneasiness about the number of sizable projects that are being considered in addition to those being built in the city right now. It has the feeling of being too much, too many, too fast, too high, increasingly dense and not in keeping with the vision expressed in by voters in 2006. We are not oblivious to the need for change and redevelopment, but we are convinced that new plans and developments need to occur in an orderly manner with the ability to assimilate the impacts before approving more and more. What got our attention in 2014 was the fact that the Banning Ranch development and the proposed Newport Center development were going to occur along with a myriad of other new projects such as the Dunes hotels, all impacting the already problematic PCH. Wouldn't it be better to see the results of all these known projects on the ground, on the roads, and in the increasingly congested parking lots before giving the green light to more major changes? A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I lnfo@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport PO Box 102 April 25, 2016 Page Two Balboa Island, CA 92662 949.864.6616 Subject: Discussion of General Plan Issues at April 26 City Council Meeting We understand we have a Traffic Phasing Ordinance which intends to give us some assurances of road capacity, but we also understand that its regulations can be overridden as the City has chosen to do many times ... especially for intersections in Corona del Mar. Now, before we see and can assimilate the effects of the remaining development in the 2006 General Plan- San Joaquin Plaza, Uptown Newport and more-the city is processing new major projects in Newport Center. Adding insult to injury, residents just received a request to reduce water use so as to compete for "good city" awards. This doesn't sit well on top of uneasiness about the impacts of upcoming projects. Having recognized the uneasiness and frustration of people in the city who are not sure why this is allowed to happen, we have spent the past two years trying diligently to inform ourselves and others. We always appreciate the city staff's willingness to meet and work with us. However, the development tracking tables promised in 2006 have just begun to be available and we still find certain key issues difficult to pin down. Most troubling, we have come to the conclusion that a number of approvals that past City Councils have been encouraged to make seem to be inconsistent with both the General Plan and the City Charter. Among the questionable past actions affecting future development in Newport Center are the following: • In 2008, to implement Measure B, planning staff recommended the Council approve adding the new City Hall site to the General Plan, but without stating a limit on the amount of development, and without reducing the development potential at the site from which the measure had moved it." • In 2012, on the same night that planning staff recommended the Council approve amending the General Plan to increase the development potential for the Newport Beach (Golf) Country Club by 21,000 sf, Council was encouraged to approve expanding the development potential for the adjacent Tennis Club by 38,000 sf, but without benefit of a General Plan amendment (supposedly justified by eliminating 17 tennis courts). A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I lnfo@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport PO Box 102 April 25, 2016 Page Three Balboa Island, CA 92662 949.864.6616 Subject: Discussion of General Plan Issues at April 26 City Council Meeting • Also in 2012, planning staff recommended the Council approve transferring an entitlement for 79 rooms at the Newport Beach Marriott to what is now called Villas Fashion Island (at San Joaquin Plaza) and converting them to residential units without benefit of a General Plan Amendment (supposedly justified by an assumed traffic equivalency). Nothing in the General Plan land use tables approved by voters in 2006 gave the Council authority, without an amendment, to approve development greater than or inconsistent with the clearly stated voter-approved limits. Beyond that, nothing even in the larger Council-adopted portion of the General Plan (aside for a limited exception within the Fashion Island shopping center) gives the Council authority to convert allotments from one land use category to another without amending the voter-approved tables. Since Greenlight is tripped by the cumulative effect of non-voter-approved General Plan amendments, it appears to us that one reason the Planning Division had for recommending past Councils increase development limits above those in the General Plan without amending the General Plan tables was to avoid Green light. That view has surfaced again as reflected in Attachment B ("Statistical Area L1 Tracking Table") to the April26 Staff Report for Council Item 14, which suggests that because of the absence of a measure formally calling itself an amendment, the 79 extra dwelling units added at Villas Fashion Island are not accounted for and appear to be ignored. SPON does not accept that reasoning. As citizens of Newport Beach we feel the role of our representatives on Council is to ensure that our Charter, including Green light, is enforced-not circumvented. The 79 dwelling units added since 2006, the 38,000 new square feet at the Tennis Club, and the unlimited development potential at the Civic Center site are clearly above and beyond anything voters ever approved. A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I lnfo@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport PO Box 102 April 25, 2016 Page Four Balboa Island, CA 92662 949.864.6616 Subject: Discussion of General Plan Issues at April 26 City Council Meeting In addition to these technical inconsistencies with the published General Plan hindering compliance with the Charter, we are concerned about what we view as an ongoing misapplication of the Planned Community District zoning designation, setting a bad precedent for spot zoning of small parcels out of character with their surroundings. The PCD's for the 150 Newport Center (formerly "Newport Center Villas") and Museum House proposals would be for one-and two-acre properties, far below the ten-acre limit set in the Zoning Code and the even larger minimum size implied by the 2006 General Plan (citing the 400 acre Banning Ranch as one of the few properties for which a PCD would be appropriate). Because of broad concern about these matters, and because of the importance of restoring public confidence, we ask that the City Council initiate a cleanup amendment to bring the General Plan tables into alignment with the transfers and conversions that past City Councils have authorized since 2006. That cleanup amendment needs to be processed before any further General Plan Amendments are considered. Such a cleanup amendment would remove any doubt that the 79 new dwelling units and tennis court conversion need to be counted toward Greenlight and clarify the matter of whether a vote is required on the new proposed projects in Newport Center. We have attached a letter sent to the Newport Beach Planning Commission for its April 7 Study Session regarding the Museum House project, which we understood would include a staff presentation on development potential in Newport Center, but did not. The letter was sent on behalf of SPON by attorney Doug Carstens of Chatten-Brown Carstens and is intended to delve a little more deeply into the laws that may apply. A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I lnfo@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport PO Box 102 April 25, 2016 Page Five Balboa Island, CA 92662 Subject: Discussion of General Plan Issues at April 26 City Council Meeting Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, President 949.864.6616 Attachment: Chatten-Brown & Carstens April 7, 2016 letter to Newport Beach Planning Commission cc: City Manager Dave Kiff, dkiff@newportbeachca.gov Community Development Director Kim Brandt, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov Assistant Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov City Attorney Aaron Harp, aharp@newportbeachca.gov Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres, mtorres@newportbeachca.gov City Clerk Leilani Brown, lbrown@newportbeachca.gov A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I lnfo@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport <SBC Hermosa Beach Office Phone: (310) 798-2400 Fax: (310) 798-2402 Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP San Diego Office Phone: (858) 999..()070 Phone: (619) 940-4522 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 www.cbcearthlaw.com April 7, 2016 Kory Kramer, Chair, kkramer@newportbeachca.gov Tim Brown, Vice Chair, tbrown@newportbeachca.gov Peter Koetting, Secretary, pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner, bhillgren@newportbeachca.gov Raymond Lawler, Commissioner, rlawler@newportbeachca.gov Erik Weigand, Commissioner, eweigand@newportbeachca.gov Peter Zak, Commissioner, pzak@newportbeachca.gov Douglas Carstens Email Address: dpc@ cbcearthlaw.com Direct Dial: 310-798-2400 Ext. 1 Kim Brandt, Community Development Director, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov Brenda Wisneski, Assistant Community Development Director, bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov Community Development Department Planning Division City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Potential Proposals for General Plan Amendments and New Development Throughout The City ofNewport Beach Dear Chainnan Kramer and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: These comments are submitted on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) regarding potential General Plan amendments and proposed new development throughout the City of Newport Beach (City). Founded in 1974, SPON is non-profit public education organization dedicated to protecting and preserving the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. We wrote to you previously in October 2015 about the Newport Center Villas Residential Project to construct 49 condominiums in a single seven-story building with three levels of subterranean parking on 1.26 acres located at the southwest comer of Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive. The concerns that prompt this letter include the Newport Center Villas Residential Project and the Museum House Project in Newport Center, but go well beyond those projects. Planning Commission City of Newport Beach April 7, 2016 Page2 SPON understands that new General Plan amendments are about to be proposed to allow residential development in Newport Center above the levels approved by voters in 2006. Although the City's Greenlight initiative (City Charter Section 423) allows 100 dwelling units to be added to the General Plan limits for a statistical area without voter approval every I 0 years, evidence demonstrates that 79 of those discretionary units were already used when in 2012 the City Council approved the conversion of 79 (non- residential) hotel rooms that voters had approved at the Newport Beach Marriott (Anomaly 43) into an entitlement for 79 dwelling rooms. Those units were then transferred (along with other remaining residential entitlements) to Anomaly 48, but throughout the process without ever amending General Plan Table LU2. SPON is deeply concerned about this City practice of approving development inconsistent with the clear limits stated in General Plan Table LU2 and believe that the table needs to be amended to reflect the prior approvals. The general plan is the "constitution for future development." (DeVita v. Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773.) Any project approvals must be consistent with the General Plan. (Govt. Code § 65300.5; (Friends of"B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 998.) To be consistent, a project must be compatible with the objectives and policies of the general plan. (Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural Etc. County v. Board of Supervisors, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1336, 1341-1342; Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782 (Endangered Habitats League).) It appears that the prior conversions were approved in violation of the applicable zoning and Planned Community restrictions at the donor and receiving sites (in one case entirely prohibiting residential uses, and at the other prohibiting conversion of non- residential to residential uses). The General Plan Land Use Element must set forth allowable densities of development in the land use element. (Govt. Code § 65302 (a). [~'The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan."]) State law requires that separate parts of a general plan be fully integrated and relate internally without conflict. (Gov't Code § 65300.5) Internal consistency requires that the diagrams and tables in the open space, land use, and other elements reflect the written policies and programs of those elements. (Citizens Ass 'nfor Sensible Dev. OfBishopAreav. Countyoflnyo(l985) 172Cal.App.3d I5l;Env. Councilv. Board of Supervisors (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 428; and Karlson v. City ofCamarillo (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 789.) Furthermore, the City ofNewport Beach has a very specific requirement in section 20.10.030.C requiring consistency of its Zoning Code with the Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Planning Commission City of Newport Beach April7, 2016 Page3 At such time as an amendment to the General Plan is properly proposed, under the Greenlight rules, 80% of the added units will count towards the Greenlight quota for the next 10 years. As a result any amendment adding more than 36 dwelling units to the Newport Center area over the next I 0 years would exceed the 100 unit limit and require voter approval. There are also many other issues related to deviations from the General Plan limits and questionable compliance with Greenlight since 2006. These include, but are not limited to, expansion of the Newport Beach Country Club by 59,000 square feet above limits approved by voters, numerous transfers and land use conversions not reflected in Table LU2, the counting of density bonus units, the absence of limits for the allowable size of public facilities under the 2006 General Plan, staff's implementation of 2008's Measure B by entitling a new Civic Center (again, without limits) without removing any entitlement from the donor site, and (closely related to this) approving a General Plan amendment for the new Lido House Hotel without accounting for the removal of the old City Hall entitlement. Therefore, we ask that you properly assess the current state of development in the City, including where it has been allowed in violation of General Plan restrictions, account for that development within the strictures of the Greenlight Initiative, and then examine any future development proposals subject to the continuing limits of Greenlight, and the requirement to hold an election if the General Plan is to be amended to allow more development. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, ~~~Jf'~ Douglas P. Carstens cc: . Leilani Brown, City Clerk, cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov 3 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach April7, 2016 Page4 Greg Ramirez, Senior Planner, gramirez@newportbeachca.gov Makana Nova, AICP, Associate Planner, mnova@newportbeachca.gov Aaron Harp, City Attorney, sharp@newportbeachca.gov Michael Torres, Assistant City Attorney, mtorres@newportbeachca.gov From: Sent: To: Harp, Aaron Friday, April 22, 2016 9:32 AM Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: The requirement for a Greenlight vote lg-share-en.gif Attachments: From: Torres, Michael Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 8:10 PM To: Harp, Aaron Subject: Fwd: The requirement for a Greenlight vote FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Susan Skinner <seskinner@me.com> Date: April21, 2016 at 7:58:41 PM PDT To: Diane Dixon <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>, <tpetros@newportbeachca.gov>, <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>, <kmuldoon@newportbeachca. gov>, <edselich@roadrunner.com>, <speotter@newportbeachca.gov>, Keith Curry <keithcurry1@yahoo.com>, "Kramer, Kory" <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>, "Brown, Tim" <tbrown@newportbeachca.gov>, "Koetting, Peter" <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>, "Hillgren, Bradley" <bhillgren@newportbeachca.gov>, "Lawler, Ray" <rlawler@newportbeachca.gov>, "Weigand, Erik" <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>, "Zak, Peter" <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>, Dave Kiff <DKiff@newportbeachca.gov>, "Brenda Wisneski" <bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov>, "Brandt, Kim" <KBrandt@newportbeachca. gov>, "Torres, Michael" <mtorres@newportbeachca. gov> Cc: christopher NB Indy <christopher@firebrandmediainc.com>, John Canalis <John.Canalis@latimes.com>, Jean Watt <jwatt4@aol.com>, Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com>, Nancy Skinner <jskinnermd@aol.com>, Dorothy Kraus <medjkraus@yahoo.com>, Ridgeway Development <tridgeway@sbcglobal.net>, <bwitte@related. com> Subject: The requirement for a Greenlight vote Dear Newport Beach leaders (and other interested parties): I am writing this Email to explain to you why I feel that the Greenlight standards are required to be applied on The Museum House and 150 Newport Center Drive. I am aware that a staff report is due out tomorrow regarding this, but do not know its contents at this time. As you know, in 2000, the residents of our city approved a smart growth initiative that requires the city to obtain voter approval before approving projects of a certain size. The General Plan is like the blueprint of the city and assigns development 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 14 rights to property. Greenlight protects all existing property rights in the General Plan, but requires a vote for developments that will exceed their General Plan entitlements by a set amount or projects whose cumulative growth in combination with other projects exceeds a certain set limit. If a General Plan Amendment (GPA), combined with other growth approved over the previous 10 years, adds more than 100 dwelling units, 40,000 sq ft of non-residential development or 100 peak hour traffic trips to the General Plan within a set area, the voters get to decide. The language of Greenlight compares the entitlements in the General Plan to the total entitlements in an area that will be allowed with a particular GP A to determine if a vote is required. The actual language says that the City Council shall require a vote if: 11 The Amendment authorizes an increase in the number of dwelling units for the property or area that is the subject of the Amendment that exceeds one hundred (100) dwelling units when compared to the General Plan before approval of the Amendment." In the case of the Museum House and 150 Newport Center Drive, the GPA for these projects cumulatively add 179 homes and 128 homes respectively to what is allowed in the General Plan. Thus, they require a vote. This situation occurred because of the 79 hotel rooms that were converted into dwelling units as part of the plans for San Joaquin Plaza in 2012. There have been comments that the statute of limitations is well past for this action and that is completely true and completely irrelevant. It is simply the fact that the dwelling units are added to the inventory in Newport Center that are important. A GPA was not done and whether or not it should have been can be debated. The only relevance of this fact is the way that these dwelling units are counted but not if they are counted at all (if a GP A had been done, there would have been a "credit" of 20% included in the calculations). It is my position that the conversion of the 79 hotel rooms to dwelling units was improper in the first place, although this fact is not pertinent to the above discussion. It does reinforce the commonly held perception that the city is playing a shell game with entitlements to evade Greenlight. Here is my logic: The zoning rules of Newport appear to require that the transfer not increase intensity, and it seems intuitively obvious to me that a transfer of hotel rooms for actual dwellings does increase intensity. Here is the section of code that applies to this: .................... ~9.~.4.~.~.Q.?..Q ... ~.!.~.~.~.~.9..~.~J..r.~L:~·.~.::·.~.~·::: .. ~ .. -.:~.·.~:.·:::~.·:J .............................................................................................................. . B. The transfer of development rights will not result in any adverse traffic impacts and would not result in greater intensity than development allowed without the transfer and the 2 proposed uses and physical improvements would not lend themselves to conversion to higher traffic generating uses; The next part that appears to apply is the North Newport PC agreement itself. This document says: C. Transfer of Development Rights The transfer of development rights among sub-areas of this Planned Community and to/from other areas in the Newport Center/Fashion Island District identified in the General Plan is allowed in accordance with the General Plan. Development rights may be transferred through a change in location ofuse(s) and/or a conversion of non-residential use to any other non-residential use allowed by the General Plan and this Planned Community Development Plan or applicable zoning at the receiving site(s). Residential use may be relocated, but may not be converted to or from another use. The transfer of development rights shall be approved, as specified in Section IV.C below, if the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts and will not result in greater intensity than development allowed without the transfer. I read this as saying that the transfer from any areas in Newport Center are covered by this section. The Planning Division disputes this. Here is the link to that site: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/MAP DOCUMENTS/PC TEXT/PC 56 North Newport Center .pdf Finally, Greenlight itself addresses transferring of non residential to residential for the purposes of having it count for Greenlight: On page 7 of the Greenlight implementation rules, it states: 4. Change in Land Use Category. In the case of an Amendment that proposes a change in land use from non-residential to residential or vice versa no floor area credit shall be given for allowed density (dwelling units) and no density credit shall be given for allowed intensity (floor area). For example, in the case of a Residential parcel with an allowed density of 20 dwelling units the allowed intensity is zero square feet of floor area and in the case of a Non- residential parcel with an allowed intensity of 100,000 square feet, the allowed density is zero dwelling units. 3 Here is the link to this site: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=2516 Based on this information, it seems to me that the transfer was improper in the first place. I look forward to seeing what is presented tomorrow in the staff report. Thank you, Susan Skinner 4 From: Sent: To: Harp, Aaron Friday, April 22, 2016 9:34AM Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: The requirement for a Greenlight vote (response to staff report) From: Torres, Michael Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 6:14AM To: Harp, Aaron Subject: Fwd: The requirement for a Greenlight vote (response to staff report) Begin forwarded message: From: Susan Skinner <seskinner@me.com> Date: April21, 2016 at 9:04:16 PM PDT To: Diane Dixon <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>, <tpetros@newportbeachca.gov>, <dduffield@newportbeachca. gov>, <kmuldoon@newportbeachca. gov>, <edselich@roadrunner.com>, <speotter@newportbeachca.gov>, Keith Curry <keithcurry1@yahoo.com>, "Kramer, Kory" <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>, "Brown, Tim" <tbrown@newportbeachca. gov>, "Koetting, Peter" <pkoetting@newportbeachca. gov>, "Hillgren, Bradley" <bhillgren@newportbeachca.gov>, "Lawler, Ray" <rlawler@newportbeachca.gov>, "Weigand, Erik" <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>, "Zak, Peter" <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>, Dave Kiff <DKiff@newportbeachca.gov>, "Brenda Wisneski" <bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov>, "Brandt, Kim" <KBrandt@newportbeachca. gov>, "Torres, Michael" <mtorres@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: christopher NB Indy <christopher@firebrandmediainc.com>, John Canalis <John.Canalis@latimes.com>, Jean Watt <jwatt4@aol.com>, Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com>, Nancy Skinner <jskinnermd@aol.com>, Dorothy Kraus <medjkraus@yahoo.com>, Ridgeway Development <tridgeway@sbcglobal.net>, <bwitte@related.com> Subject: Re: The requirement for a Greenlight vote (response to staff report) Jim points out that the staff report is out, and as expected, it indicates that a vote is not required. However, there is a glaring error in the staff report that should be corrected as it would change the staff recommendation. Staff report states: "The two projects combine to increase the total number of residential dwelling units allowed in Newport Center from 529 to 678, representing a 28% increase in residential dwelling units over the 2006 General Plan limits." However, the 2006 General Plan limits are NOT 529, but 450 dwelling units. Here is a link to the current stated General Plan limits, which clearly state 450 dwelling units (http: I I ecms.newportbeachca.gov /Web I 0 I doc( 56370 I Page7.aspx) and a link to page 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 14 3-14 in the current General Plan stating the same thing (http://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/Web/O/doc/56370/Page7.aspx). If the limit is 450 dwelling units in L1 (Newport Center), and it is, there will be 179 units in excess of that with The Museum House and 128 units in excess with 150 Newport Center Drive. Thus a vote is required. Susan 1. On Apr 21,2016, at 7:58PM, Susan Skinner <seskinner@me.com> wrote: Dear Newport Beach leaders (and other interested parties): I am writing this Email to explain to you why I feel that the Greenlight standards are required to be applied on The Museum House and 150 Newport Center Drive. ram aware that a staff report is due out tomorrow regarding this, but do not know its contents at this time. As you know, in 2000, the residents of our city approved a smart growth initiative that requires the city to obtain voter approval before approving projects of a certain size. The General Plan is like the blueprint of the city and assigns development rights to property. Greenlight protects all existing property rights in the General Plan, but requires a vote for developments that will exceed their General Plan entitlements by a set amount or projects whose cumulative growth in combination with other projects exceeds a certain set limit. If a General Plan Amendment (GP A), combined with other growth approved over the previous 10 years, adds more than 100 dwelling units, 40,000 sq ft of non-residential development or 100 peak hour traffic trips to the General Plan within a set area, the voters get to decide. The language of Greenlight compares the entitlements in the General Plan to the total entitlements in an area that will be allowed with a particular GP A to determine if a vote is required. The actual language says that the City Council shall require a vote if: "The Amendment authorizes an increase in the number of dwelling units for the property or area that is the subject of the Amendment that exceeds one hundred (100) dwelling units when compared to the General Plan before approval of the Amendment." In the case of the Museum House and 150 Newport Center Drive, the GPA for these projects cumulatively add 179 homes and 128 homes respectively to what is allowed in the General Plan. Thus, they require a vote. 2 This situation occurred because of the 79 hotel rooms that were converted into dwelling units as part of the plans for San Joaquin Plaza in 2012. There have been comments that the statute of limitations is well past for this action and that is completely true and completely irrelevant. It is simply the fact that the dwelling units are added to the inventory in Newport Center that are important. A GPA was not done and whether or not it should have been can be debated. The only relevance of this fact is the way that these dwelling units are counted but not if they are counted at all (if a GP A had been done, there would have been a "credit" of 20% included in the calculations). It is my position that the conversion of the 79 hotel rooms to dwelling units was improper in the first place, although this fact is not pertinent to the above discussion. It does reinforce the commonly held perception that the city is playing a shell game with entitlements to evade Greenlight. Here is my logic: The zoning rules of Newport appear to require that the transfer not increase intensity, and it seems intuitively obvious to me that a transfer of hotel rooms for actual dwellings does increase intensity. Here is the section of code that applies to this: .................... ?Q~.4.~.:.Q.~.Q ... f..~.~.~-~-~.9.~.:.~!.9.~~-~-~r~~-~-~.:.9J.f.?.: ....................................................................................................... . B. The transfer of development rights will not result in any adverse traffic impacts and would not result in greater intensity than development allowed without the transfer and the proposed uses and physical improvements would not lend themselves to conversion to higher traffic generating uses; The next part that appears to apply is the North Newport PC agreement itself. This document says: C. Transfer of Development Rights The transfer of development rights among sub-areas of this Planned Community and to/from other areas in the Newport Center/Fashion Island District identified in the General Plan is allowed in accordance with the General Plan. Development rights may be transferred through a change in location ofuse(s) and/or a conversion of non-residential use to any other non-residential use allowed by the General Plan and this Planned Community Development Plan or applicable zoning at the receiving site(s). Residential use may be relocated, but may not be converted to or from another use. 3 The transfer of development rights shall be approved, as specified in Section IV.C below, if the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts and will not result in greater intensity than development allowed without the transfer. I read this as saying that the transfer from any areas in Newport Center are covered by this section. The Planning Division disputes this. Here is the link to that site: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/MAP DOCUMENTS/PC TEXT/PC 56 North Newport Center .pdf Finally, Greenlight itself addresses transferring of non residential to residential for the purposes of having it count for Greenlight: On page 7 of the Greenlight implementation rules, it states: 4. Change in Land Use Category. In the case of an Amendment that proposes a change in land use from non-residential to residential or vice versa no floor area credit shall be given for allowed density (dwelling units) and no density credit shall be given for allowed intensity (floor area). For example, in the case of a Residential parcel with an allowed density of 20 dwelling units the allowed intensity is zero square feet of floor area and in the case of a Non- residential parcel with an allowed intensity of 100,000 square feet, the allowed density is zero dwelling units. Here is the link to this site: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=2516 Based on this information, it seems to me that the transfer was improper in the first place. I look forward to seeing what is presented tomorrow in the staff report. Thank you, Susan Skinner 4 From: Sent: To: Subject: Gloria <gloria@newportpacific.com> Sunday, April 24, 2016 3:15 PM Dept-City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Public Comments: April 26 Council Agenda Item #14 Count me in as one of the voters against development of the Museum House. In addition to the extra traffic it will bring, I am very concerned about the extra water usage more development will cause. We who are trying so hard to conserve water feel betrayed by a City Council willing to trade our precious water and density for development fees! PLEASE do not approve another large development in Newport Center. Gloria Sullivan 1832 Marapata Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 14 From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynn Lorenz <lynnierlo@icloud.com> Saturday, April 23, 2016 9:22 AM Dept -City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Public Comments: April 26 Council Agenda Item #14 I am very concerned about all the. new development projects around Newport Beach which are not consistent with the character of the city that many of our longtime residents envision. The traffic of the city is increasing greatly and quantity and size of new buildings seems to be emphasized over quality of life. Lynn Lorenz, 38 year resident, Newport Heights 949' 6462054 Sent from my iPad 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 14 From: Sent: To: Subject: Chuck Allen <callencb@pacbell.net> Saturday, April 23, 2016 12:59 PM Dept-City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Public Comments: April 26 Council Agenda Item #14 When will you 11 0Ur" elected officials stop allowing the Irvine company to run over our city? lnforce the general plan with NO MORE DEVELOPMENT IN FASHION ISLAND ! ! ! This museum house project and building on the area around the old car wash is NOT acceptable. Didn't any of you hear the residences of our city when we voted 70% against more traffic??? Vote NO-NO-NO on these projects please. Thank you, Charles Allen 515 Begonia Ave. Corona del Mar 949-500-1954 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 14 From: Sent: To: Subject: Dorothy Ray Smith <dmraymd@gmail.com> Sunday, April 24, 2016 5:08 PM Dept -City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Public Comments: April 26 Council Agenda Item #14 Please do not permit these high-rise buildings to be built. They are out-of-order in our community ! ! DMR Sent from my iPad 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 14 From: Sent: To: Subject: To the City Council: Sharon Bilbeisi <sb@bilbeisilaw.com> Saturday, April 23, 2016 11:19 AM Dept-City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Public Comments: April 26 Council Agenda Item #14 My husband and I have lived in Dover Shores for 37 years and raised our children here. As with most of us, I have friends across the bay and make frequent trips there almost daily. All anyone talks about lately seems to be TRAFFIC and the appalling dense housing and office construction that you have allowed to occur over the past years in the Newport Center area. We all talk about the increased traffic because we are experiencing it daily to an alarming and increasing degree. You put up 20 story office buildings and where do you think these employees are traveling to get home. You put up massive housing projects and again, how are these residents moving about-on our streets, but of course, very slowly. You only have to note the crawl of traffic almost all times of day on Coast Hwy in CDM to see what your choices to build build build have caused, starting when Newport Coast was developed, but getting worse every day. It appears to be a game-the residents vote consistently to stop this pattern of non-stop construction destroying the quality of life in this town, and YOU and the Irvine Company just ignore the vote and find ways to do what you want to do anyway. Stop it now. Anyone voting for the Museum monstrosity condo project or approving any more condos or apartments in Newport Center will incur the consequences of being voted out of office for IGNORING the people who put you there. You do not have carte blanche to cast our wishes aside and do what you want by constantly amending the General Plan as ordered by your real bosses-the Irvine Company. Stop destroying Newport Beach -your decisions should not be first about tax dollars rolling into your coffers-it should be first and foremost about the kind of Newport Beach we the residents want and that Newport Beach is not about any more massive building projects in Newport Center. 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 14 April 26, 2016, Council Agenda Item Comments The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 14. Overview of Proposed General Plan Amendments in Newport Center The ways in which our City government works are a continuing mystery to me. At the Council’s February 9, 2016, meeting, the City Manager, at Council member Peotter’s request, put on the agenda (as part of Item XIII) the question of whether the Council wanted to discuss essentially the present issue (plus how the proposed amendments might affect the Council’s future flexibility in re-purposing the Police Department property). The conclusion was that Council member Peotter was unable to get even a second for the idea. Now it is back, apparently without any Council member requesting it. And what is back is confusing and in my estimation, misleading. I consider it misleading because it totally ignores what I consider key aspects of the context within which the two General Plan amendment proposals are being brought forth: First, that the General Plan limits presented to voters for approval in 2006 were said to be sufficient to accommodate growth through 2025. Second, that in 2014 voters overwhelmingly rejected increasing the 2006 limits for Newport Center, even if the increases were offset by promises of decreased development in Newport Coast. Third, that the residential development existing and under construction in Newport Center is already over the published General Plan limit. And fourth, that many residents are outraged at even a suggestion that the Council can approve such General Plan overages without staff counting them toward our Charter’s Greenlight limits. As an example, it is very difficult even for those who closely follow their government’s actions to understand the staff report when it says without further explanation (on page 14-3) that ―The two projects combine to increase the total number of residential dwelling units allowed in Newport Center from 529 to 678, representing a 28% increase in residential dwelling units over the 2006 General Plan limits.‖ That does not ring true because the General Plan is a published document, and most development limits are clearly stated in it (as I believe state law requires them to be). And if by ―Newport Center‖ we are talking about, as the staff report on page 14-5 says we are, the area depicted as ―L1‖, then by my estimation the number of dwelling units approved within it is not 529, but 1,201. That consists, as depicted on General Plan Figure LU13, of the 67 units in the Granville tract, 132 at Sea Island, 228 at Villa Point, 245 at the Colony and 79 in the Meridian development (all of which I believe had been approved by the Council prior to 2006), plus an allocation, newly approved by voters in 2006, for a maximum of 450 new residential units to be assigned by the Council in the future among the MU-H3 land use districts. That maximum of 450 residential units to be added to selected areas of Newport Center, which appears (on page 3-14) in the description of the ―Mixed-Use Horizontal 3— MU-H3‖ Land Use Plan Categories in Table LU1, was presumably what the Council and City staff, as of 2006, Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 14 April 26, 2016, Council Item 14 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 deemed sufficient, through 2025, to provide the residential component of the ―Opportunities for Change‖ in Newport Center referenced in General Plan Policy LU 3.3, Strategy LU 6.14.8 and Implementation Program 13.1. A maximum of 450 residential units is what was presented to voters in 2006. 450 is what the General Plan on the City website, supposedly current, still says. And since, short of an amendment to the maps and tables, the General Plan contains no provision for converting non- residential land use allocations to residential ones, it is difficult to see how that number could have changed. The number ―529‖ does not appear in any of the above. Planning staff appears to have obtained their ―529‖ by adding, without explanation, 79 to the voter-approved 450. Since neither of the present proposals has anything to do with MU-H3 districts, staff’s failure to explain why they are singling out the 450 number, and why they are adding 79 to it (if that is indeed what they are doing), does a disservice to the public. As has been explained by the public in the press, the mysterious addition of 79 units appears to arise from the Council approval at its July 24, 2012, meeting, of the conversion of 79 allotted but unbuilt hotel rooms at the Newport Beach Marriott into an entitlement for residential units, and their subsequent transfer to San Joaquin Plaza, where they are part (along with 445 of the 450 voter-approved units) of the 524 apartments currently being constructed as the Irvine Company’s ―Villas Fashion Island.‖ Although the Council was asked in 2012 to make a finding that this action was ―consistent‖ with the General Plan (so that in staff’s mind it didn’t require a General Plan amendment), as the public now understands, there is no way it could have been consistent without an amendment. Not only does the General Plan contain no provision to allow for conversions from one land use to another, but the land use designation of the Marriott property does not allow residential uses at all, so without an amendment to that, the conversion could not have occurred there even if conversions in general were allowed. Alternatively, if the excess hotel entitlement had been transferred to The Irvine Company property, the Planned Community rules governing that property prohibit conversions between residential and nonresidential entitlements there. In addition, it should be noted that the Greenlight implementing guidelines of Council Policy A- 18 (see bottom of page 14-16 of the staff report) very clearly say that in assessing the impact of newly authorized development limits on the Greenlight count, a decrease in nonresidential development limits (such as hotel rooms) cannot be used to offset an increase in residential. Although Planning Division staff continues to insist no General Plan amendment affecting Newport Center occurred in 2012 other than a nonresidential addition to the allowable floor area for the Newport Beach Country Club (for example, with their Attachment B – Statistical Area L1 Tracking Table to the present staff report), the fact that the Director has added 79 dwelling units to the voter-approved 450 is a clear indication that in her mind the 2006 General Plan limit has changed. In most people’s mind a change in a document is an amendment. And to suggest that a little word play would allow the addition of 79 units to the General Plan limit to not count April 26, 2016, Council Item 14 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 towards the Charter-mandated Greenlight totals seems mere sophistry. But a strict reading could imply that the word ―amendment‖ has to be used. For that reason I support SPON’s recommendation that to remove the past trickery the present Council, before proceeding with the proposals that are the subject of the present agenda item, needs to initiate a formal cleanup amendment to bring the published General Plan limits for residential development in Newport Center into alignment with what past Councils have approved. That said, I believe the present Council faces a thornier problem with regard to the nonresidential limits. In that case, past Councils have approved proposals and entered into development agreements that not only go above the published General Plan limits, but that are already above what the General Plan could be amended to reflect without voter approval per our City Charter. In addition to its efforts to ignore the technical issues discussed above, I also believe that Planning staff, in their effort to be ―neutral,‖ does a disservice to the public by not mentioning a key point about General Plan amendments that the City Manager makes to those who receive his Insider’s Guide. The 2006 General Plan was presented to voters and proclaimed by the Council to be a carefully thought out plan for development in the City over the next 20 years. The plan introduced new limits that allowed the City to change, but changing the plan itself was supposed to be approached with caution. As the City Manager points out, although property owners have a right to request deviations from the plan, they have no ―property right‖ to expect those requests to be granted. Especially just ten years into the twenty-year plan, it is difficult to see why what we were told was a good plan needs to be changed. Indeed, just two years ago, with Measure Y, voters resoundingly rejected a proposal to add 500 more residential units to the limit for the Newport Center statistical area, even in return for a possible reduction in future development in the Newport Coast resort area. The Council therefore has ample reason to believe that approving either of the amendments that are the subject of this agenda item would be contrary to the wishes of many voters. Finally, this may be a small point, but as the staff report indicates, Council Policy K-1 allows GPA requests to be initiated not just by the Council, but also by property owners, provided all owners agree. From the information that has been presented to the public (for example in the April 7, 2016, Planning Commission staff report), the GPA request for the ―Museum House‖ has been initiated by Related California Urban Housing, LLC. Rather than an owner, that company gives the impression of being a speculative developer interested in buying the property if, and only if, they can obtain new entitlements for one of the Orange County Museum of Art’s two parcels, inconsistent with the current plan for that site. It is not clear that initiation by them is consistent with Policy K-1. Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 14 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 14