The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGPAC_2005_03_07CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA March 7, 2005 7:00-9:00 p.m. 7:00 I. Call to Order OASIS Senior Center 5th and Marguerite 7:05 II. Approval of Minutes December 13, 2004 7:15 III. Other Land Use Alternatives 8:45 IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items 8:50 V. Public Comments Public Comments are invited on items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Committee -- Speakers are asked to limit comments to 5 minutes. Before speaking, please state your name and city of residence for the record. • • n U CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, December 13, 2004, at the OASIS Senior Center. Members Present: Roger Alford Ronald Baers Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Gus Chabre John Corrough Laura Dietz Grace Dove Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Members Absent: Patrick Bartolic Elizabeth Bonn Lila Crespin Staff Present: Louise Greeley Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Phillip Lugar Florence Felton Tom Hyans (sick leave) Barbara Lyon Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Members of the Public Present: Alan Beek Carol Hoffman I. Call to Order William Lusk Marie Marston Jim Navai Charles Remley Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) Larry Root John Saunders Merrilee Madrigal Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order and introduced new members to the group II. Approval of Minutes • Philip Bettencourt asked that the minutes reflect the city of residency for anyone speaking during the public comment period. The minutes for the August 23, 2004 meeting were approved as submitted. III. Topic/Discussion Paper— Community Character Woodie Tescher reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on Community Character, and asked Committee Members for comments about the slides during the presentation. Lucille Kuehn pointed out that on newer homes there is no space to sit or be outside, older homes have yards. Louise Greeley added the setback was better on the older home shown in the slide. Gus Chabre added that the new homes tend to take the light away from existing homes. Tom Webber pointed out the older homes look more approachable. Nancy Gardner added that you can find the front door in older homes; it's not behind a bunch of walls. • Jim Naval added that more green space makes a more relaxing, friendly environment. Ron Yeo pointed out the one story versus three story scale. Ron Baers noted that a lot of the older neighborhoods have access for cars in the alley; therefore the front of the house does not have a garage and driveway. Mike Ishikawa pointed out the biggest problem will be defining what each village desires, what fits in one village will not work citywide. Roger Alford noted that when larger homes are added to some areas, they destroy privacy for the neighbors. When asked about the difference in another set of pictures, Ms. Kuehn pointed out there were cars on the street on one example, none on the other. Nancy Gardner pointed out the loss of charm. Mr. Navai pointed out the density increases. Mr. Tescher indicated the density change is a perception; bigger size does not necessarily change the density. • Laura Dietz suggested a change in demographics has led to differences, for example in the flower streets of Corona del Mar there seniors who have lived there most of their 2 adult lives in these homes; however when younger owners move in, they want to • maximize the value of property by building a larger house. Mr. Yeo noted that when defining village character many issues need to be addressed, R1 versus R2 & R3 and the relationship to commercial are a few. Gordon Glass pointed out that another factor is affluence, you used to build only what you needed, now two people may live in a 6,000-8,000 square foot home. Traffic is also impacted since a household may have 3 to 4 cars. Ms. Kuehn refuted Ms. Dietz's comments by pointing out that in Laguna Beach the land values are as high as Newport Beach, however they don't have the large scale homes because of the design review restrictions in place. She added that it would be wrong to segregate older people from the young people. Mike Johnson shared an example of how economics work with these houses; a young couple with one child purchased a 20 year old duplex for $2.4 million then refurbished it into a single family home with garage space for 4 cars. Philip Bettencourt added that properties in the coastal zone will build all they can so that they don't have to go through the process of getting approvals again. The • restrictive regulatory process is a factor as well as economics. Charles Remley pointed out that in his neighborhood there are lots and half lots next to one another, so a small house on a half lot could be surrounded by huge houses. Don Krotee noted that some property owners define the front of their property with fencing and others develop a house with two stories right at the front setback. Kim Jansma pointed out that two story homes in the Bayshores area tried to keep a lower profile at the street to give a more approachable appearance rather than the straight up two story homes. Mr. Yeo pointed out that in Corona del Mar there seems to be a trend to build little patios on the street side of the property using up the setback area. Mr. Glass stated that in the 1960's Bayshores neighbors suggested to the Board that second floors be set back an additional 10 feet; it was voted down. Jan Vandersloot added that the loss of open space includes more than just the ground floor; the large homes occupy the total volume of space. He also asked why the term mansionization is not being used in the document any longer. Mr. Tescher responded that using "larger homes" was more accurate and non -offensive. Ms. Wood added that • a former member of the committee was offended by the term so it was switched. 3 Mike Ishikawa pointed out that one of the homes pictured was on Kings Road and • suggested it fit in there, but would not in other areas of the city. It is hard to comment on these pictures without knowing where they are located because one size does not fit all areas. John Corrough added that another factor is the topography of an area, putting a large home on land with a grade will have a larger impact than the one on flat land. He added that one set of solutions will not fit all areas. Ms. Jansma pointed out the lack of greenery on the pictures shown which might be due to view issues; she added that in some areas there are regulations regarding what can be planted so views are not blocked. Ms. Kuehn stated she finds the architecture in Newport Coast boring, with similar style and mass. She asked if there was some way to provide more variety and less mass now that the area has been annexed into the City. Ms Wood stated that when the area was annexed, the City entered into an agreement with the Irvine Company to accept the County development regulations and not change them. Bill Kelly asked how we can make changes to regulations in our city which is built out. Mr. Tescher responded that if changes were enacted it would affect people choosing to remodel or rebuild their homes. • Mr. Vandersloot asked what lot coverage restriction exists right now. Ms. Temple indicated the City did not have one standard for residential development. Some areas do not use FARs at all, instead lot coverage, setbacks & height limits apply. In other areas floor area is based on a proportion related to lot size without setbacks, as opposed to the lot size itself. In some older areas, it varies from block to block; such as the Island where a front and rear setback can vary 20 feet for the same 30 x 80 foot lot. Overall the average lot coverage is in the 70-75% range. Ms. Jansma asked about houses in Newport Heights where many are built in a "lJ" shape leaving open space in the middle; how would that count in terms of lot coverage? Ms. Temple pointed out there is no open space requirement in Newport Heights. Mr. Krotee asked what percentage of communities have design guidelines or design review? Ms. Temple indicated the City is not involved in administering any design guidelines so she did not have an answer to the question. Mr. Baers suggested it would be large percentage under design review by CC&Rs. Ms. Kuehn stated that Irvine Terrace has CC&Rs and rigorously enforces them. Mr. Glass pointed out that in the past the City had undergone downsizing. Ms. Temple explained that in the early `70s several changes were made. For example, height . restrictions were lowered, FARs were established based on buildable area of the lot, and parking requirements were addressed. Iv • Mr. Tescher then focused the discussion on the questions at the end of the paper. He asked, "Does this issue about the changing scale and size pose an issue in Newport Beach?" Tom Webber suggested we define what larger means before we can answer the question. He added that changing the existing regulations to restrict the buildable size of a home will lower the value of the property and he asked the group to keep that in mind during discussions. He also pointed out that larger homes may help get cars back in garages because there is more storage area available in the house. Bob Hendrickson said he didn't think larger homes were an issue throughout the City because many of the neighborhoods have considerable controls. Ms. Kuehn pointed out that according to our tax bills, the value of the property is in the land, not the structure. If we can get this across to people, they might not accuse us of restricting their property rights. Mr. Krotee pointed out that when Mark Broduer did his presentation, he told us that property values continued to climb in all the communities he worked with. • Ms. Gardner pointed out that this issue did come up during the visioning process as well as in our discussions. It was the most contentious item covered during the summit and something we need to address. C� Bill Lusk stated he thought it might not be as much about the size as the appropriateness and taste. Ms. Jansma agreed and asked if there were examples of communities where restrictions had been imposed and property values had been maintained. Ms. Kuehn pointed out the examples in the discussion paper, Encinitas, Del Mar, San Marino. Ms. Gardner added Carmel. Ms. Wood added Laguna Beach. Mr. Tescher recommended that everyone take a 'look at San Marino's website because they have had a lot of success and approved some interesting stuff. Mr. Glass pointed out that if our job is to address issues that came out of the visioning process, 2/3 are worried about this issue. However, he added that this could change when those people have built out to the current limit. Mr. Johnson pointed out that in the Lido Sands Community owner -occupied versus absentee owners has turned around, and with more owner -occupied they need more space because they live there full-time. 5 Mr. Tescher asked for areas where this is an issue. Responses were: Flower Streets of • Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Penninsula Point, Newport Heights, the entire Peninsula, Newport Shores, Westcliff/Mariners, Cliff Haven, Dover Shores, Santa Ana Heights. Grace Dove pointed out that many of these areas are covered by CC&Rs and maybe consideration should be given to codifying some of them regarding height. Ms. Boice agreed. Mr. Tescher then asked if the areas suggested had comparable lot sizes. Ms. Temple stated the Corona del Mar and Balboa Island lots are 30 feet wide, Newport Heights are 50 foot wide lots, the Peninsula has 25-30 foot lots, Peninsula Point has 40-50 foot lots, Westcliff and Dover are probably 6,000-7,500 square foot lots. Mr. Tescher then moved on asking if the issue was just size or if the issue includes architectural design and character. Mr. Naval indicated design was more important to him, the use of color, material, glass, scale, etc. Mr. Lugar added that it needs to be appropriate to the area. Mr. Bettencourt added another controversy is view taken from another property owner. Mr. Chabre added loss of open space, air and light for neighbors if you build to • maximum height. Mr. Glass agreed and added that in a City of small lots and side setbacks, a large house next door can cut out your light and privacy, so size is still an issue. Ms. Boice agreed stating that in Eastbluff the loss of privacy, light and view is the issue there. Mr. Yeo pointed out that design is hard to legislate and in Corona del Mar the diversity makes it great. Ms. Dietz thinks it's a combination of size and design that creates the issue. Mr. Remley stated he thinks the people who don't employ an architect and build a box create the complaints. Mr. Vandersloot asked if we could recommend implementation of vertical setbacks. Mr. Tescher then moved on to the question "Is it too late?" - "Should the City do anything?" Ms. Gardner stated it's not too late, we have to try to protect what we have and encourage people to build more sensibly. Mr. Corrough believes it is too late in his area. Ms. Dietz asked about case law where government has tightened regulations in developed/pre-existing communities. Mr. Tescher pointed to examples in the document. Ms. Wood added that there is still a great economic value/use to the property and we would not take that away or diminish it to cause legal problems. 2 • Ms. Dove pointed out that there is no incentive to preserve existing homes; for example waiving permit fees. 0 Mr. Johnson stated he thought we were leaving out the Coastal Commission requirements in the discussion. In response to Mr. Tescher's question about the term "sensibly larger," Ms. Gardner explained that in Corona del Mar some houses look like they should be in Newport Coast; they may be very nice houses but they don't fit the character. Mr. Tescher asked if that would require some kind of design review. Ms. Gardner stated she wouldn't have a problem with that, although maybe not as stringent as Laguna Beach. Mr. Yeo added if a design review process was implemented, it needs to be structured with specific guidelines. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out that we already have to deal with the Coastal Commission, EQAC, Planning Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board, so creating another governmental entity is too much. Mr. Tescher asked if adding an open space requirement per lot would be a possible strategy. Mr. Vandersloot suggested starting with a reduced FAR. Ms. Kuehn urged careful presentation of these changes, focusing on the benefits to residents. IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Ms. Wood indicated that the Land Use Alternatives had been reviewed by GPUC and the Planning Commission, and are on the City Council Study Session tomorrow (December 14a') for their review. If no major changes are made by Council, the consultants will begin the model runs and environmental analysis which is expected to take approximately 8 weeks. V. Public Comments Allan Beek spoke to the Committee about the process, the need to keep it flexible and not try to dictate taste. He also told the group about changes Corona del Mar had tried to make 25 years ago. Merrilee Madrigal of Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of leaving Banning Ranch open space. 7 n u Newport Beach General Plan D I S C U S S 1 0 N P A P E R For GPAC Review and Comments - March 7, 2005 EIP Associates INTRODUCTION A number of areas have been identified by City of Newport Beach staff in addition to those previously discussed by the GPAC as exhibiting conditions that may warrant revisions to the current General Plan land use designation or development standards. Generally, these are small in area and do not suggest the breadth of land use changes that were considered for the targeted study areas. This discussion paper describes the existing conditions, key planning issues, and possible land use and policy approaches to address these issues for 13 areas of the City for the GPAC's consideration. These areas are shown in the following figures, and the location numbers in the text below correspond to the ones in the figure. Please review these and be prepared to make recommendations regarding the preferred approach at the March 7, 2005 meeting. As you may be unfamiliar with a number of the sites, you are encouraged to visit them prior to the meeting to facilitate your understanding of the existing uses and issues. PLANNING SUBAREAS 1. Lido Isle Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Area is predominantly developed for single-family residential units. ■ It was subdivided originally for 30 foot wide lots; however, properties were sold by the foot rather than the parcel boundary. This resulted -in a diversity of actual development, with many instances of housing that spans multiple lots (e.g., two units built on three lots). ■ Under the existing General Plan, theoretical buildout of the original subdivision would result in the construction of as many as 300 additional units. ■ Using typical trip generation factors for single family residential this could result in 3,000 to 3,600 additional vehicle trips per day on the Via Lido bridge. Poligy Option Required lot merger program, to be consistent with existing development. This would prohibit an increase in the number of residential units that may be constructed. ✓i t. ay^ ■ l iaa �j ( / •tee! /�\ \ ^t \\ �\\♦\\`♦ti�� s. < \_ t }[ \ ,\ # �tsr, '®�a#:aver .. _� :�\j♦\ /�'\\\ .♦/ ♦\♦♦♦J ht ;'t ', \��t 'A.. al'a # .,� � �aa�aa 7� �rpb,.// C/♦ \\Jr\ � !`\ C�; Y �t # ♦� q„ asa fi g i / 0if \ �\ \`♦ \\ j ♦ � 1 . y` �`" ♦ ' 4% # NEWPORT \ 2 G .^:�■ SHORES ■ (— ''/�♦' r Q; I �I/ r, ,� \ , r �7"��. 1 i -�- -? ;SANTAANA ✓,r i i C \\�•C / i(v .2t(r� rJ ��,~'As� A`��\� rrr\♦ �♦�� '\y��;�"\. •`-- RIVER JETTY •�,r, ry�.: i• /i ,/ �` \ %/ / �j`� j/ ,�/ -1 \ ♦% J� \ : f/� �? �fI NORTHr/ STAR BEACH j .\ r \s: V ri % � // ♦/ v � �, = LINDA ISLE)�� a LIDO ISLE �r-;`�Je=<<,�• ..�r�� ,��,, ^gyp COLLINS \ ISLAND "�4,-.;,7 ;•, yy-r:. ,i r., \♦ BAY ISLAND NEWPORT--•'� 1 /'^ �:� (j i ^� i ` PIER 2� BALBOA ISLAND FIGURE 1 Not to Scale -N�- Other Land Use Alternatives 1079"0 Source: EIP Associates, 2005 City of Newport Beach ' 5pR i 2� syS�°li 4 �P °Yo 6 C NORTH J4i STAR BEACH � GJ �P 0 spy sT 3 C 0 o z 0 a WEST COAST 7 _ NEWPORT Y DUNE �P 74 N O LINDA �NpP O ISLE SV�p FIGURE 2 Not to Scale — Other Land Use Alternatives KLP 10794-00 Source: EIP Associates, 2005 City of NewportBeach .? �O FR / qo R • UPPER NEWPORT BAY 9 ,4 4 , 0� 8/Silly V � O� E ti em u� FIGURE 3 Not to Scale • -N- Other Land Use Alternatives 10794-00 Source: EIP Associates, 2005 Clly of Newport Beach ^ 11 [�J �o o� PC, M`G J� pR SPN BIG p 13 CANYON AC RESERVIOR i i v09pG2 y? �s J� U' Q FIGURE 4 Not to Scale —N� Other Land Use Alternatives _ — 1o7e4-oo Source: EIP Associates, 2006 City of Newport Beach • "° ` "' ' 0 0 ER Implications ■ Maintains and does not worsen existing level of impacts on traffic, parking, infrastructure and service demands, and general community character. This would reduce the potential degradation of the traffic level of service at the Lido Isle bridge that is projected to result from the theoretical buildout of the existing General Plan. ■ Eliminates the possibility for additional housing units in the area. 2. Balboa Peninsula, West Newport, and Balboa Island"R-2" Districts Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Area contains a mix of single family and duplex housing units. In recent years, there has been a trend to replace duplexes with single family detached units, due to land and housing values. Visioning Process neighborhood workshops revealed that the community is largely supportive, as this would likely result in higher rates of owner occupancy. Policy Option ■ Re -designate "R-2" areas as "R-1" with an overlay zone that allows accessory second units by right, where these would be limited in size to be consistent with the "small beach rental' character. Implications ■ Depending on the scale of replacement, this would reduce impacts on traffic, parking, infrastructure and service demands. ■ At the same time, it will likely continue to enhance property values and provide more opportunities for housing ownership. ■ Small second units are unlikely to exacerbate infrastructure demands, as there would be no net increase in total housing units from existing conditions. ■ Small second units would result in lower parking demands than the existing "R- 2" designation. Question* ■ Should the `R-2" area of Beacon Bay also be re -designated as recommended above? This tidelands area was allowed to be developed for permanent residential, which are leased to their residents. `R-2" development may not be permitted under the tidelands lease. 2 t� • • GPAG DISCUSSION PAPER OTHER LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 3. Multi -Family Residential Area Bounded by Irvine Avenue,15th Street, St. Andrews Road, and Coral Place Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Designated for "multi -family" and developed with a mix of housing units, including older apartments, small lot units, and single family detached units. The area is transitioning, with the replacement of higher densities with small lot residential and detached units. Rental units are changing to condominiums. Policy Options ■ If the objective is to retain the area for multi -family development and opportunities for affordable units, may need to establish a required minimum density or establish a policy to preclude an overall reduction in the area's total number of housing units from existing; or ■ Alternatively, the area may be re -designated for single family residential. Implications ■ Maintaining higher densities would provide opportunity to assure capacity for more affordable units. ■ Reduction of densities would provide more opportunities for home ownership, while reducing capacity for affordable units. 4. Multi -Family Residential Area Bounded by Westcliff Drive, Rutland Road (southern frontage), Mariners Drive, and Buckingham Lane Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Designated for "multi -family" and predominately developed with older apartments, though not as well maintained as the preceding sub -area. ■ The area is transitioning, with the replacement of higher densities to detached units. Policy Options If the objective is to retain the are opportunities for affordable units, may density or establish a policy to preclude number of housing units from existing. a for multi -family development and need to establish a required minimum an overall reduction in the area's total ■ Alternatively, the area may be re -designated for single family residential. Implications ■ Maintaining higher densities would provide opportunity to assure capacity for more affordable units. ■ Reduction of densities would provide more opportunities for home ownership, while reducing capacity for affordable units. 3 11 GPAC DISCUSSION PAPER OTHER LAND USE ALTERNATIVES • 5. Santa Ana Heights., Properties Abutting Mesa Drive Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Designated for "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial' uses. ■ The area has.been re -developing largely for medical -related uses. Policy Question • If the objective is to allow medical -related uses with other commercial uses, there is no need to modify the land use designation. ■ May want to add policies that pro -actively encourage medical -related uses in the area. Implications ■ Neutral in comparison with existing designation. 6. Westcliff Drive Southern Frontage west of Irvine Drive, and Dover Drive Northern Frontage south of Westcliff Drive Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Designated for "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial' uses. • ■ Area contains a diverse mix of uses including small professional offices, medical offices, financial institutions, specialty and boutique retail, restaurants, and similar uses. The mix serves both local residents and the greater region. ■ Some properties on Dover Drive are underdeveloped and offer opportunities for intensification. ■ Some redevelopment has been occurring. ■ Some conflicts with adjoining multi -family housing, where apartment tenants and visitors park in the commercial areas. • PolicyOptions ■ Should a portion of the area be designated exclusively for retail commercial or should the current mix be encouraged (retaining the existing designation)? ■ In particular, should properties on Westcliff Drive be re -designated as "Regional and Service-RSC"? ■ Should properties on Dover be encouraged to redevelop for offices (retaining the APF designation)? Implications ■ Re -designation of a portion of the area for retail commercial would contribute to a more cohesive pattern of land uses. 4 GPAC DISCUSSION PAPER OTHER LAND USE ALTERNATIVES • 7. •Coast Highway Bayfront Properties Southwest of the Bridge Emoting Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Designated for "Recreational and Marine Commercial" uses. ■ Area contains restaurant, museum, and other low -intensity commercial uses. It is likely that the water front location would warrant higher value and more intense development. ■ Permitted development intensity: floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.3 (equivalent to a one story building with surface parking). Policy Options ■ Provide for higher density development, increasing the permitted FAR. Implications ■ Enhanced economic activity. ■ Possible increases of local and Coast Highway traffic. S. Area Bounded by Jamboree Road, Camelback Street, and Bison Avenue Existing Conditions and Planning Issues (same as preceding sub -area • ■ Designated for "General Industrial" and "Government, Education, and Institution" uses. ■ Area contains a diverse mix of uses including churches, mini -storage facilities, SCE substation, Post Office, Irvine Company corporation yard, Comcast, synagogue, church, and Calty (Toyota design facility). ■ Many properties are considered as underutilized and offer opportunities for re- use and/or intensification. Policy Question ■ Should underutilized properties be redeveloped for such uses as churches that have outgrown their existing location or residential? If churches, should the City have a policy to concentrate churches in this location? 9. Cal Trans Property Bounded by the Corona del Mar/73 Freeway, Jamboree Road, Macarthur Boulevard, and University Drive Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Vacant property, remnant from freeway construction. ■ The property does not have a General Plan or zoning land use designation. • 5 • Policy Options ■ Designate for retail and/or service commercial uses that would capitalize upon freeway visibility and adjacency. Implications ■ Enhanced economic activity and revenue for the City. ■ Increased local traffic. 10.Remnant Property Adjoining the Corona del Mar/73 Freeway, North of Bison Avenue Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Vacant property owned by the Irvine Company, a remnant from immediately abutting residential developments located to the west and functions as drainage corridor. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Undesignated." ■ Topography and configuration limit its suitability for development. Policy Options ■ Re -designate as "open space." • Implications ■ Preserves open space and local drainage. • 11.Community-Serving Commercial Centers Located Throughout City (Multiple Sites) Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Retail and Service Commercial' with a permitted development intensity of an FAR of 0.35. ■ Generally developed with a mix of community and local serving commercial uses including grocery stores, drug stores, small clothing stores, restaurants, and similar uses. ■ Largely, buildings are set back from the street frontages, with one or two story buildings, surface parldng, and extensive landscaping, and provide little or no direct access to adjoining neighborhoods or districts. ■ Most are economically stable. Policy Questions ■ Should changes be considered for any site such as increased development densities (generally, this would necessitate the inclusion of structured or G \o GPAC DISCUSSION PAPER OTHER LAND USE ALTERNATIVES • subterranean parking); and/or a broader mix of uses, including housing, which would be designed and scaled to be compatible with adjoining land uses. Implications ■ Increased densities would contribute additional revenue to the City and may increase local traffic. ■ Integration of housing may increase the customer base to support local retail and may reduce the site's peak hour trips to be generated in comparison to an all commercial option. 12.Child Care Facility on North Side of San Miguel Drive, East of San Joaquin Hills Road, and West of West Newport Hills Drive Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Single parcel developed with a vacant building formerly used as a child care facility (now vacant), abutting multi -family residential uses. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Government, Educational, and Institutional." Policy Options ■ Allow conversion for multi -family residential uses, consistent with adjoining uses, • and re -designate as "Multi -Family Residential." Implications ■ Provides additional opportunities for affordable housing. ■ Site size would limit increases in additional local traffic. 13.Property West of Big Canyon Reservoir, North of Pacific View Drive Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Developed with church and senior affordable housing. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Government, Educational, and Institutional." Policy Options ■ Re -designate as "Multi -Family Residential" to reflect existing uses on the site, protecting the seniors affordable housing. Implications ■ Maintains commitment for affordable housing. • 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2005 Meeting Schedule (as of 3/3/05) OASIS Senior Center 5`" and Marguerite 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. March 7 April 25 May 9 May 23 • June 13 June 27 July 11 July 25 August 8 August 22 September 12 September 26 October 10 October 24 November 7 November 21 December 12 • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Roger Alford Elizabeth Bonn 1862 Tustin 1607 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 949-645-3199 Phone: 949-723-5437 Work: 949-833-2815 Work: 714-427-3900 Fax: 949-833-2876 Fax: 714-427-5449 E-Mail: roger@hbla.com E-Mail: elliottbonn@sbcglobal.net Ronald Baers Gus Chabre 4611 Teller Avenue 1130 E. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa, CA 92661 Cell Phone: 949-413-4373 Phone: 949-675-6433 E-Mail: baerspudr@aol.com Fax: 949-675-3152 E-Mail: gchabre@adelphia.net Patrick Bartolic 620 Iris Ave. John Corrough P.O. Box 1043 1004 South Bayfront Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Balboa Island, 92662 Phone: 949-463-6328 Phone: 949-673-8927 Fax: 949-640-2990 Work: 949-673-8077 E-Mail: pbart4re0aol.com Fax: 949-673-8027 E-Mail: jorrough@aol.com Philip Bettencourt 10 Sugar Pine Road Lila Crespin Newport Coast, 92657 707 Begonia Phone: 949-874-4443 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Work: 949-720-0970 Phone: 949-673-2721 Fax: 949-721-9921 Fax: 949-673-2721 E-Mail: Pbbcourt@cox.net E-Mail: lilacrespin sbcglobal.net Carol Boice Laura Dietz 2945 Catalpa Street 325 Cameo Shores Road Newport Beach, 92660 Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-759-0809 Phone: 949-721-8035 E-Mail: wboice@adelphia.net Fax: 949-721-1357 E-Mail: coloma1848@adelphia.net Grace Dove Bob Hendrickson • 117 15th Street 1815 Newport Hills Drive East Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, 92660 Phone:949-675-1573 Phone: 949-759-1202 Work: 949-923-2246 Work: 949-721-9747 Fax: 949-675-6861 Fax: 949-759-1204 E-Mail: doveperch(a)sbccilobal.net E-Mail: rahendrickson@cox. net • Is Florence Felton 230 Lille Lane #201 Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-646-6192 E-Mail: florence.felton(@mindspring.com Nancy Gardner (Co -Chair) 323 Jasmine Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-673-0706 E-Mail: gaardnerncy@aol.com Gordon Glass 2024 Avenida Chico Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-644-1954 Fax: 949-644-1584 E-Mail: cihamlgOaol.com Louise Greeley 16 Swift Court Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-631-1475 Fax: 949-645-0065 E-Mail: louisesci pacbel1.net Ledge Hale 17 Monterey Pine Drive Newport Coast, 92657 Phone: 949-640-6733 E-Mail: lahale(a)cox.net Tom Ians 21719 Street Newport Beach, 92663 Phone 949-673-0333 Work: 949-673-3777 Fax: 949-673-0377 E-Mail: tomhyans(abadelphia.net Mike Ishikawa 438 Riverside Ave. Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-650-3996 Work: 949-293-1976 Fax: 949-548-5435 (call first) E-Mail: mnishikawa(a)adelphia.net Kim Jansma 615 St. James Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 949-650-2418 Work: 310-794-8922 E-Mail: ,jansma@humnet.ucla.edu Mike Johnson 5803 Seashore Drive Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-642-3125 Fax: 949-642-5369 E-Mail: delandmike(a)earthlink.net Updated 1/6/2005 Bill Kelly Marie Marston 409 E. Edgewater 331 Lugonia St. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 949-673-0128 Phone: 949-645-1203 Work: •949-861-1107 Work: 714-438-1095 Fax: 949-673-9575 E-Mail: immarston@adelphia.net E-Mail: balboabeacon(@yahoo.com aim Naval Donald Krotee 1201 Kings Rd. 2916 Clay Street Newport Beach, 92663 Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-650-5077 Phone: 949-646-6030 Fax: 949-650-5080 Work: 714-547-7621 E-Mail: rasht0(cbaol.com Fax: 714-647-0193 E-Mail: dkrotee krotee.com Catherine O'Hara 1937 Port Albans Place Lucille Kuehn Newport Beach, 92660 1831 Seadrift Dr. Phone: 949-640-7433 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 E-Mail: oharas5 pacbell.net Phone: 949-673-0685 Fax: 949-675-6986 Charles Remley E-Mail: Lucycdm aol.com 101 E. Balboa Blvd. • Newport Beach, CA 92661 Phillip Lugar (Co -Chair) Phone: 949-673-8770 511 Cancha Newport Beach, 92660 Larry Root Phone: 949-640-0225 1210 Polaris Dr. Work: 949-477-1565 Newport Beach, 92660-5724 E-Mail: phillip.lugar ge.com Phone: 949-548-9474 Fax: 949-650-5299 William Lusk E-Mail: rootisaadelphia.net 2 Rue Chantilly Newport Beach, 92660 Sohn Saunders Phone: 949=640-2767 4525A MacArthur Blvd. Cell Phone: 714-335-0440 Newport Beach, 92660 Fax: 949-640-2884 Work: 949-251-0444 E-Mail: williamdlusk@aol.com Fax: 949-251-0888 E-Mail: iohn@saunderspropertyco.com Barbara Lyon 427 San Bernardino Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 949-631-3907 Work: 949-378-1357 E-Mail: barbarablyon sbcglobal.net 3 Updated V6/2005 • Hall Seely 2833 Carob Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-644-0278 Work: 949-955-3575 Fax: 949-759-1304 E-Mail: hseely(cbseelylaw.com • Tan Vandersloot 2221 E. 16th Street Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-548-6326 Work: 714-848-0770 Fax: 714-848-6643 E-Mail: jonv3(a)aol.com Tom Webber 121 Apolena Ave. Newport Beach, 92662-1213 Phone: 949423-6006 Fax: home #-call first E-Mail: rtwebber(c earthlink.net Ron Yeo 604 Iris Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-644-7896 Work: 949-644-8111 Fax: 949-644-0449 E-Mail: ron ronyeo.com Raymond Zartler 1970 Port Provence Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone:949-759-9341 Fax: 949-644-7639 E-Mail: zartco@sbcglobal.net CITY STAFF: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Work: 949-644-3222 Fax: 949-644-3020 E-Mail: SWood@ci y.newport-beach.ca.us Patty Temple, Planning Director Work: 949-644-3228 Fax: 949-644-3229 E-Mail: PTemple(&city.newport-beach.ca.us Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Work: 949-644-3238 Fax: 949-644-3229 E-Mail: TCampbeIMcity.newport-beach.ca.us Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Work: 949-644-3000 Fax: 949-644-3020 E-Mail: DebbieL@city.newport-beach.ca.us 4 Updated 1/6/2005 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE is Monday, March 7, 2005 Roger Alford Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn Gus Chabre John Corrough Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Grace Dove • Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Louise Greeley Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Philip Lugar William Lusk • Barbara Lyon 1 n LJ Marie Marston Jim Navai Catherine O'Hara Charles Remley Larry Root John Saunders Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler PA • GENERAL PLAN ADASORY COMMITTEE Monday, March 7, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS FjttPW 6��iC S r � a� oo ss� e'- iCJvB 5'LGG 3 �C Cuh/,9, h S, I Cclm GENERAL PLAN ADASORY COMMITTEE Monday, March ,7, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE 1-1 L E-MAIL ADDRESS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, March 7, 2005, at the OASIS Senior Center. Members Present: Roger Alford Ronald Baers Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn John Corrough Grace Dove Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Members Absent: Patrick Bartolic Gus Chabre Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Staff Present: Louise Greeley Bob Hendrickson Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Phillip Lugar Marie Marston Ledge Hale Tom Hyans (sick leave) Lucille Kuehn William Lusk Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Members of the Public Present: Philip Arst Allan Beek Laura Curran I. Call to Order Brandon Johnson Carol Martin James Quigg Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order. Jim Naval Charles Remley John Saunders Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler Barbara Lyon Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) Larry Root Hall Seely Peggy Spaulding Sharon Wright • II. Approval of Minutes Don Krotee asked that the tape from the December 13th meeting be reviewed, he felt comments he had made were omitted from the minutes. (NOTE; Staff reviewed the tape and comments were found on page 5 of the minutes.) The minutes for the December 13, 2004 meeting were approved as submitted. III. Other Land Use Alternatives Woodie Tescher reviewed the Other Land Use Alternatives Discussion Paper. The group discussed and voted on policy options for each section of the paper. 1. Lido Isle Gordon Glass asked if adding 300 properties was a real possibility. Ms. Temple responded that it might be difficult, but not impossible. John Saunders commented on adding additional restrictions such as design guidelines and felt that the committee should hear from homeowners who have had problems getting their improvements approved under current restrictions and suggested maybe we could recommend removing restrictions instead of adding more. Philip Bettencourt asked about the environmental baseline. Ms. Wood indicated our • environmental baseline is the higher number which is in the current general plan. Charles Remiey asked if current regulations would allow a homeowner who currently has a house on three lots to tear it down and rebuild two or three houses. Mr. Tescher stated the legal answer is yes. Ms. Gardner asked if there were any representatives from Lido Island on the committee. No one responded. Mr. Webber asked if this policy question would be asked for other areas in the City, such as Balboa Island. Mr. Tescher indicated right now it only pertained to Lido Isle. Mr. Tescher then called for a poll, asking for those in favor of limiting the number of units on Lido Isle to the existing development - a majority voted in favor. Mr. Glass asked if this policy had been approved by the City Attorney to make sure .the City had the ability to take this action. Mr. Tescher indicated that it had not, but we would do that. Mr. Webber asked Mr: Tescher to poll the group also for those opposed on the question. When Mr. Tescher asked for hands for those opposed or those who wished to abstain no one raised their hand. Mr. Bettencourt stated he would feel better if we had input from Lido Isle residents or Community Association on this issue. • Mr. Glass also wanted to make sure that proposals being endorsed are actually doable. 2 • Mr. Saunders suggested we look at reducing trips instead of looking at the maximum. Mr. Tescher explained that under CEQA we were required to examine the worst case condition. Ron Baers asked if it was possible to get an opinion from the Association. Ms. Wood indicated that during this process we will have a public workshop which will include this issue; she also recalled the issue being raised in one of the Neighborhood Workshops during the Visioning Process. Ron Yeo recommended not waiting until the public hearing, and instead suggested notifying the Association to get their comment. Jim Naval stated he thought this committee's job was to listen and make recommendations about each issue, without getting caught up in laws and policies. Don Krotee asked where the ideas in the discussion paper came from. Ms. Wood indicated Ms. Temple had been talking about this issue for 9 years. Mr. Webber asked why this policy was not being looked at for other parts of the city. Ms. Temple stated she thought the only other area with a similar trend was on Balboa Island, she offered to do more research to check. Mr. Remley felt that most of the older homes that were built on split lots have been torn down and rebuilt. • 2. Balboa Peninsula, West Newport, and Balboa Island R-2 Districts Mr. Yeo asked if an existing duplex unit wanted to add another 200 sq. ft. to a 1,000 sq. ft. unit, could they do that. Mr. Tescher answered no, existing units would be grandfathered in but expansion of a unit exceeding the standard would be precluded. Mike Johnson asked if an R-2 burns down, under these rules could another R-2 be rebuilt or would it be prohibited? Ms. Temple explained under those circumstances they may be able to rebuild the non -conforming structure. Mr. Bettencourt asked if this would preclude a condominium because the ancillary unit would be too small. Ms. Wood indicated a small one would be allowed, whether it would be marketable is another question. Grace Dove stated she thought this was downzoning and eliminating affordable housing in these areas and she asked if the Coastal Commission would allow this type change. Mr. Tescher thought the ancillary units might be more affordable than 2 full size units on the site. Ms. Wood added that some of the older duplexes might be affordable; however the newer ones are not affordable. Mr. Glass asked if there had been a survey of the area to determine the ramifications of this change based on owner occupied, owner occupied with rental of second unit and absentee landlords. Ms. Wood indicated that residents at the District 2 Neighborhood Workshop indicated they wanted to promote more home ownership. It was felt that • where there are 2 units of equivalent size they are more likely to be short term rentals versus owner occupied units. 3 Mr. Johnson asked if a unit in his neighborhood recently converted from a duplex to a • single family residence could it convert back to a duplex under current circumstances. Ms. Temple responded that it could be done if they met the development standards, which would include parking requirements. Allan Beek asked that the Beacon Bay single family homes still be allowed to have servant or guest quarters incorporated into the houses. Laura Curran stated that if the restrictions were approved owners would think twice before redeveloping their properties, she also thought that more analysis should be done because of the difference in lot sizes and character between Corona del Mar and Balboa Island. Mr. Tescher called for the poll asking all those who support the policy option —16 were in favor. 6 opposed. Mr. Tescher also addressed the Beacon Bay area and asked if that area should be redesignated R-1 which reflects the current development there — the vote was unanimous in favor. 3. Multi -Family Residential Area Bounded by Irvine Avenue, 15t" Street, St. Andrews Road and Coral Place. Ms. Jansma spoke as a resident of the area and supported the trend toward single family homes to reduce the density of the area. • Jan Vandersloot agreed stating we should do whatever possible to reduce traffic and density. Mr. Yeo asked what the area was currently zoned. Mr. Tescher responded multi -family residential. Mr. Saunders also supports single family housing. Mr. Glass pointed out that condos would encourage home ownership and be more affordable, he also stated he wasn't sure if all the traffic is generated by the people who live in the area. Lucille Kuehn was not able to attend the meeting, however asked Ms. Wood to encourage the committee to think about affordable housing when considering these policies, she feels that it is needed in the community as well as greater diversity. Mike Ishikawa doesn't think the infrastructure in the area is set up for affordable or multi -family housing unless the traffic issues are addressed. Mr. Tescher called for a poll asking for those in favor of keeping the area as multi- family — 8 voted. When asked for those who would recommend going to single family — 13 voted in favor. 4. Multi -Family Residential Area Bounded by Westcliff Drive, Rutland Road (southern frontage), Mariners Drive and Buckingham Lane . Mr. Johnson thought the area should be considered for senior citizens. a] Mr. Hendrickson suggested considering density bonuses in this area to encourage • affordability. Ms. Jansma agreed pointing out the area had easy access and could handle higher density. Mr. Baers thought one of the attributes of the area is the mix of housing types. Mr. Vandersloot stated he would argue for lower density because of the high traffic at Irvine and 17th Street. Brandon Johnson stated that multi -family units are more valuable than single family homes and if the area was rezoned the apartment buildings would never be refurbished. Mr. Tescher called for a poll asking for those in favor of retaining the multi -family designation — 20 voted. When asked for those in favor of single family designation — 3 voted'. S. Santa Ana Heights: Properties Abutting Mesa Drive Ms. Gardner pointed out that medical offices require more parking and generate more trips. Ms. Temple confirmed that and indicated medical office generates more in the character of retail which is 3-4 times higher than conventional office and requires more parking. • Mr. Glass indicated he drove this area and didn't find any medical offices. Ms. Temple indicated there have been inquiries about locating there. Ms. Wood stated there was at least one application in the works for medical office there. Mr. Yeo asked if they were allowed there now. Ms. Temple stated they were allowed but no there is no policy to encourage. Mr. Krotee asked if there was a benefit for the City having a general plan designation to welcome medical uses. Mr. Tescher stated the policy would be an economic strategy to bring more medical related uses to the city. Ms. Dove asked if there was any economic benefit to medical offices. Ms. Wood thought it might be better to discourage medical in this area and encourage it closer to Hoag Hospital. Ms. Gardner indicated that's what had been recommended. Ms. Jansma was concerned about increased trips between this area and the hospital which would heavily impact Irvine Avenue. • Mr. Hendrickson thought this was the worst place to locate medical offices. Mr. Tescher called for a poll asking for anyone who would support emphasizing medical office in the area — no one voted in favor. W7 6. Westcliff Drive Southern Frontage West of Irvine Drive, and Dover • Drive Northern Frontage South of Westcliff Drive Mr. Saunders suggested dividing the area into 2 sections, top along Westcliff and bottom along Dover with Sea Gull extending up to divide. He recommended the Dover portion transition into multi -family residential. Mr. Glass stated these properties along Dover were not very deep and it would be very difficult for residential, placing the units between a very busy street and apartments. Mr. Hendrickson suggested higher density medical facilities. Ms. Gardner stated the area provides enough variety and flexibility to meet the needs of the owners and residents; so she doesn't see a need to change the designation. Mr. Vandersloot thought a multi -family or senior affordable housing would work well in this area. Phil Arst indicated studies show that office buildings lose money for the city; medical offices are worse and create more traffic; multi -family residential units cost the city more in services than they produce in property taxes. Laura Curran suggested considering mixed use with medical on one floor and residential lofts or condominiums above. Mr. Tescher called for a poll about the properties along Westcliff. The first question • was asking for those in favor of keeping it administrative professional office — 4 voted. The next question was to make it 100% retail — no votes. The last question was for those in favor of mixed use —18 voted. Ms. Jansma stated she was concerned about increasing the density with mixed use development because of the traffic at Irvine and 17th Street. Mr. Tescher reminded everyone that the results from tonight's discussion will be used to fine tune the traffic analysis; however it has been found that mixed use reduces trips by 18-20% below commercial or office. Mr. Hendrickson asked for clarification on the term mixed use, is the committee being asked to vote on a mix of uses or is it residential above another use. Mr. Tescher explained we were currently talking about vertical mixed use, residential above. Mr. Tescher then called for a poll on the Dover area. First he called for those in favor of keeping the designation administrative professional office — 6 voted. Next he called for those in favor of multi -family residential — 4 voted. Next was changing the designation to vertical mixed use —13 voted. Mr. Glass pointed out that because of the size of the properties here we need to be careful to make recommendations that will work. 7. Coast Highway Bayfront Properties Southwest of the Bridge • Ms. Gardner asked Mr. Corrough for his opinion about whether this change would help bring marine related uses to the area. 11 Mr. Corrough indicated he had been working with the Nautical Museum's long range plan and they have had to pull back some activities based on resident input from Linda Isle. He also thought that the site cannot handle an intensification of usage and added that access was very difficult now. Mr. Yeo stated he understood that the owner wants to convert the area to residential housing. Mr. Glass pointed out that the committee is charged with looking into the character of the city and that area is one of the few places that is a window to the bay. Mr. Corrough added it was one of the few places you can see tall ships, people building boats and kids learning about the water. Mr. Yeo added there is an alternative to preserve the museum as an educational museum. Mr. Tescher asked if there was anyone in the group that would suggest intensification of this property — no one responded. 8. Area Bounded by Jamboree Road, Camelback Street and Bison Avenue Mr. Hendrickson thought there would be room for one of the existing churches to expand but didn't think there would be room for additional facilities. Mr. Yeo asked what was considered underutilized on the property. Ms. Wood didn't • think The Irvine Company would need to retain the corporation yard. Ms. Temple added the mini storage at one time was considered an interim use and that the corporation yard and Comcast were underutilized. Mr. Glass asked if the land that the post office is located on is government owned or privately owned and leased to the government. Ms. Wood indicated the latter. Ms. Boice stated she lives rin the area and on Sundays parking spills over into the Bison Center, so it doesn't appear they have enough parking for the two churches there now. Mr. Glass suggested letting the market decide. Mr. Tescher called for a poll asking if anyone would be in favor of encouraging the clustering of churches in this area —1 voted. 9. CalTrans Property Bounded by the Corona del Mar/73 Freeway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and University Drive Ms. Boice asked for clarification of the area because the San Diego Creek was not shown as well as catch basins and gullies and the roads are raised in the area. Ms. Wood indicated that the area is about 5 acres that does have some flat area at the bottom; the biological study showed there -wasn't anything valuable there so there are no environmental concerns. • Mr. Glass asked if it was CalTrans property or does the City have control over it. Ms. Wood indicated that CalTrans owns the property but we can plan it. 7 Ms. Boice asked about access to the property. Ms. Wood indicated access would be off • MacArthur. Mr. Vandersloot made a motion to keep this area open space as well as area #10. Mr. Corrough thought access to the area would be too difficult and maybe unsafe and agreed it should be left open space. Ms. Gardner called for a vote on the motion — unanimously in favor of open space. 10. Remnant Properly Adjoining the Corona del Mar/73 Freeway, North of Bison Avenue Mr. Tescher indicated there was no need to discuss 10 — no one objected. 11. Community -Serving Commercial Centers Located Throughout City (multiple sites) Ms. Wood explained that during the certification of our housing element, the State Department of Housing and Community Development suggested looking at strip shopping centers as other cities in the county had been doing. Mr. Ishikawa asked if we could consider mixed use. Mr. Tescher indicated we could. Roger Alford asked if this question changes decisions made previously by the subcommittees. Mr. Tescher indicated this question pertained to areas not discussed • previously. Ms. Gardner asked if this designation would help in terms of identifying potential sites for affordable housing requirements. Ms. Wood indicated that this change should only be made if we intend to implement it and if it makes sense for land use purposes. Mr. Saunders thought the policy should cover all retail centers, including the ones already looked at, or we should pick and choose each site. Mr. Vandersloot thought this policy would create more density in the city which is contrary to what people want. Mr. Remley talked about a market in Balboa Village that is closing after 50 years and the rumor is that family housing will be replacing it. Mr. Tescher called for a poll and asked for those in favor of this universal consideration of alternative uses at other commercial centers —1 voted. Mr. Saunders suggested having staff identify locations suitable for this change and then we could discuss each individually. Mr. Tescher indicated that this task would be too difficult, generally these areas are doing well and would be difficult to separate out those warranting consideration. Mr. Bettencourt thought it would be interesting to look at the trip making characteristics in a hypothetical model. iMr. Henderickson felt that there are other areas of the city where affordable housing could be part of a redevelopment rather than redevelop these retail sites. • Ms. Greeley asked about the affordable housing requirement and if we have commitments for the development. Ms. Wood responded that the numbers were assigned by SCAG and currently no development plans are in the works. 12. Child Care Facility on North Side of San Miguel Drive, East of San Joaquin Hills Road, and West of West Newport Hills Drive Mr. Glass indicated that speeds on San Miguel are very high and access is limited to signalized intersections; he felt the logical thing would be to let the Baywood owners add another building to the complex with access from within the complex. Mr. Hendrickson agreed that multi -family made sense with the condition that there be no access from San Miguel; this would eliminate a very dangerous traffic issue. Mr. Saunders pointed out that allowing multi -family creates tremendous value for The Irvine Company. Brandon Johnson stated he spoke with someone at The Irvine Company in charge of the property and that the school was going to transfer their long-term lease but The Irvine Company bought them out with the intention of turning it into multi -family residential. Mr. Tescher called for a poll asking for all those in favor of multi -family, with the restrictions discussed — 18 voted. Then he called for those in favor of the current • designation of government, educational, institutional — no one voted. Mr. Vandersloot asked if affordable housing could be required there. Ms. Wood indicated not in the land use element, but maybe in the housing element. Mr. Henderickson asked about current regulations/fees for affordable housing. Ms. Wood stated developers are required to pay a fee or provide the units on site. Mr. Krotee asked about the size of the parcel. Mr. Tescher indicated it was less than an acre. 13. Property West of Big Canyon Reservoir, North of Pacific View Drive Mr. Hendrickson asked if the multi -family designation allowed for condominiums as well as apartments. Mr. Tescher answered yes. Mr. Tescher called for a poll asking for all those in favor to re -designate multi -family residential where existing multi -family is today — unanimous vote in favor. IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Mr. Tescher indicated that at the next three meetings (April 25, May 2 and May 9) we will be reviewing the results from the environmental, fiscal and traffic models. Next there will be a public workshop. After reviewing all the information we will start • selecting the preferred plans, which will then go to the Planning Commission and City Council. 0 • Mr. Glass asked for a summary of the changes the Council had made after their review of the land use alternatives. V. Public Comments Allan Beek talked about affordable housing and indicated he felt in a beach community the only way to make housing affordable was to subsidize the development. Brandon Johnson of Corona del Mar spoke about the Costa Mesa revitalization plan stating the need for this plan came from the affordable 'housing which had increased the crime rate and decreased the property values. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that people of his generation will be excluded from buying property in the city if housing is limited to single family homes. Phil Arst spoke about the affordable housing requirements in the housing element and thought that instead of saying affordable housing could go here, areas should be designated where housing could actually be built. Laura Curran of Corona del Mar thought we should consider looking at the Koll property area for housing because the large towers being built in Irvine will bring in desirable residents that could move to Newport Beach if the housing was built here. James Quigg of Costa Mesa spoke in favor of open space for Banning Ranch. 0 •