Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/31/2006Planning Commission Minutes 01312006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes January 31, 2006 Adjourned Meeting - 3:00 p.m. Page 1 of 10 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnOl- 31- 06gp.htm 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Elwood Tescher, City consultant from EIP PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on 01/24/2006. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Review of Draft Land Use Element ITEM NO. 1 General Plan Review of Draft Housing, Noise, and Harbor and Bay Elements. Review Mariners Update Mile chapter of the Draft Land Use Element. Continue to next Chairperson Toerge noted that there are four topics under this agenda item. The available mtng rder of discussion will be on the Housing Element, Noise Element, Mariner's Mile policy and drafts then the Harbor and Bay goals and policies. Elwood Tescher, City consultant, noted the Housing Element deliberation is different from the others in the following: • The structure is different because we are required by State Law to have certain analyses, etc . and certain kinds of programmatic actions imbedded into the Element itself that are not necessarily on the same kind of level o detail or direction as the other elements. • It is the only Element in the General Plan that has to be transmitted to the http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnOl- 31- 06gp.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01312006 State for review and certification, which means approval by the of Housing and Community Development. . The timeframe of the Housing Element is also different. All the elements in the General Plan are imbedded in long term direction years). The Housing Element is specifically for a 5 year time frame 1 the policies may be pervasive over a longer period of time. . The program actions are implemented by the City over a 5 year time frame. . The trigger for updates by the local community are performed and follow sequence of actions at the State level through the determination of housin< and growth rates which are then transferred down to the regiona governmental agency (SCAG), which then goes through the process o allocating and working with Cities with numbers to be incorporated withir their housing elements of the total number of housing units or fair share o the regional growth demand that the City is required to accommodate ove that period of time for that 5 year planning program. . If we were on the 5 year cycle, we would be making some radically diffe changes to this plan. The most recent update certified by the State 3 -4 y ago. The timeframe of the existing Housing Element approved and ado the time frame would be 2005; however, because there have been de funding activities at the State level, the next requirement for the City's up will be the year 2008. So we are not yet to that stage because we do have the numbers or have any knowledge of what the numbers will be will be allocated to the City in terms of its fair share. . What you have tonight, is a revision of the element that was certified by State. Discussions by the GPAC and staff is lets keep this document in i it is a certified element but it needs fine tuning to reflect fundamE changes in the other elements of the General Plan. . Those fundamental changes are new opportunities that you did not have the earlier General Plan. These are the opportunities that are bei discussed in the airport area, the West Newport Mesa area and indeed sot potential conversion in the Cannery Village and others. . The next time there is a revision at the state level I anticipate that capacity analysis is much greater and you are likely to see the regi agencies saying that because you have this additional capacity, you're share' number will increase substantially as well. irperson Toerge noted that is because we have capacity? What if the does not get voted in? Tescher, answered that based upon the numbers you are at now, I wot e that projection. If you were constrain and say the total capacity will only rased by a lower number, the regional number will also be reduced. It will enced by the final general state of the General Plan is after the voter electi will occur in November. However, one of the criterion that the State looks one of the issues of negotiations with the City is what capacity is out there time the Housing Element is being updated. We have maintained t http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn0l - 31- 06gp.htm Page 2of10 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01312006 Page 3 of 10 damental and we will have to take this Element to the State for certification ich can become a very prolonged and ugly process therefore, the intent is tc ;p it pretty much intact and fine tune it and make it match the Land Use !ment. Should the Land Use change by a vote, then this Element would have tc Inge to reflect what occurs. He then referenced" M . Noted Table 35 Remaining RHNA Allocation. The period of time has k updated from the current element. He then explained and discussed exhibit. 72 Noted Table 36 Housing_ Goals. 2006- 20,08. The Newport Coast nur have been added in as well and he explained and discussed the exhibit. Ir. Tescher noted the Housing Element being considered is a technical revil nd the other revisions on the goals and policies are minor. Other changes are ie programs as some of them have been implemented, certain programs m ave been deleted due to lack of funding. This is an update of the programs tt ;flect the policies in the plan. Thinner versions of the document are reflections ;PAC editions. There are underlines and strike outs indicating tho anges /editions. rperson Toerge noted: . Page 5 - date of February 7th should be changed to January 31, 2006. Discussion of the RHNA calculations seems a circular argument. It se the regional share is not something that is easily calculated or projected is somewhat dependent of what capacity we have as opposed to va land. He noted his concern of how to realistically identify what our re demand is without tipping our hands that we might have some capacity we don't have any raw or vacant land other than Banning Ranch. Wood noted the Land Use Plan considers not only affordable housing fy the regional housing goals it also recognizes market demand, a planni use in now is what is thought to be a better way with mixing employment a ential close to one another hopefully to reduce driving or at least reduce tral estion. On the Peninsula we are looking at some areas where t nercial is not healthy because it is too stretched out. There are a number ins for it. irperson Toerge noted his concern that it will create a 20% increase in th fiber of housing units over a 20 year period. I agree there are some areas i City that would benefit from the mixed use but the whole idea of the airpo i causes me concern that it is way in excess of what we know now to be or anal housing requirements. http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn01- 31- 06gp.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01312006 Tescher noted these are important discussions. Part of the offset is housing of other uses in a number of places such as commercial uses. It has a bene market support for housing and not commercial as a better land use strate I it is a longer term perspective of the net gain. Those communities that a lating housing elements and are constrained with the State about land u acity because they are in theory a 100% built out city. When the member HDCD did a survey of the city, they saw a lot of asphalt parking lots nmercial centers that in their opinion could be better utilized for housing witt community around a big mall. The State has basically been in a stage lotiation with that community to increase their general plan land use capacity se areas where they don't have the capacity today. The State and communiti aware of the market conditions pressuring for conversion. The discussion t statewide there is a housing shortage and if the market supports a conversic re is then some pressure for the local communities to make that happen. T to is pressuring the communities that don't have the capacity to find ways ate the capacity. Just defaulting to what the capacity was previously, the stat ), without adding additional housing capacity, I would suspect that the next tir t Newport Beach is updating its General Plan there would be questioning abc there other areas that are underutilized where you could create sor Iitional capacity. ,lussion continued on getting a General Plan that meets the needs for the will be approved, the RHNA numbers with in -fill housing, trends and rea how Banning Ranch should be used as the preferred use is for open s housing and problems with developing housing in the airport area. Wood noted there is nothing in the State Law the states the City has t uce those units using its own resources. We must identify adequate sites t mmodate those units; we must have programs to facilitate the development c units and then when we do the next Housing Element we have to give ress report and tell the State what we have done and how much we hav i able to accomplish and what were the obstacles if we haven't met the goals. 1r. Tescher spoke on bills that are being considered or would have imposed ieasures on cities through no transportation funds for public improvements if the state chooses. There is a look at looking at a significant re -write of the Housing :Iement laws as well as CEQA. The CEQA aspect is expediting or exempting 00% from such things as mixed use projects, housing that are affordable units, tc. The State is considering such things as a penalty based system based on the conomy and housing market versus incentives. ,mmissioner Tucker noted that our efforts up to this point have been to outlir greatest number of units. I don't feel the compulsion to approve the numb it we have studied. I question what are requirements are and what has not be( ;cussed is we are going to have additional housing units from the State and tl estion is where are you going to put this additional housing? It is going to ha, go somewhere. It is amazing to hear that the more you provide, the more yc N required to provide. An impetus for us is to better plan the City and certainly ;e care of State mandates where we have the opportunity to plan in advani ;tead of having a situation we had previously where the town is basica veloped and the State says too bad, figure out where you are going to put it. nk the whole issue of the number of housing units is on the table. When the E mes back, we will take a hard look. Table 30 on page 46 says 1000 -1300 un Page 4 of 10 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PhiAgendas /2006 /nm01- 31- 06gp.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01312006 Page 5 of 10 five areas on the Balboa Peninsula is a lot of housing units in that area. How at going to work, that is an area that has congestion. I wonder about We swport Mesa units as well. He noted that all the documents will have to I anged once the Commission looks at the numbers per area. He continued different uses, traffic generations and RHNA requirements. Ir. Tescher noted the numbers in this document are based on theoretil iaximum capacities. What that infers is Banning Ranch is vacant now but col e possible capacity. Balboa Peninsula is the math was generated by being rea where mixed use could be considered. Because we are doing the wor ase EIR number it is taking that cumulative acres and multiplying it by a density at a yield of housing units with the assumption of 100% of the area changes. ny rebuilding or recycling in an area over a 20 year time frame the reality is 10( f the area will not convert. That same issue can be applied to some of the ott reas that are not raw land or not just replacements of parking lots but where the a need to make that capacity happen to actually convert, remove or demo u nd replace. Part of the number game dilemma gets into how one communicat pith the public of the reality of numbers and the scale. He then gave examples. rnmissioner Tucker stated we will have a situation where we will be picking , count and it may end up taking away flexibility and probably not going to en( with a plan as good as it could have been. While we may have th< ironmental facts that say it fits with our Circulation Element, our level o ices have identified mitigation measures that need to perform at at aptable level of service. We don't have the land and we have to figure out i is an allocation for an area, who gets to do what with what particular property? is that going to be decided because ultimately the property owners will look a and ask what does this mean? Discussion continued on how the mechanic., policies could happen, density trading programs, lawsuits, etc. missioner Henn noted the ability to sue has to due to whether or not the a certified Housing Element but not to whether it is executed against. uered correct. missioner Tucker then brought up and discussed the concept of afforda ;ing. He noted personal investment involvement and re- zoning issues with ;rtunity for public benefits program and providing affordable housing and w City of Irvine requires and lack of requirements State wide in terms 'ibution numbers from the different jurisdictions. He also discussed irements compared to other jurisdiction communities; land costs, creel idy issues, deed restrictions, special financing. Ns. Wood added market rate fill in moderate, providing housing in the community ental restrictions over time, working with developers on in -lieu fees anc ntroduction of different percentage requirements depending on which income leve s being met so that the cost of the subsidy unit remains the same. continued. >sioner Henn discussed specificity in the General Plan as it relates to th He noted the City Council should provide ordinances that execute o nent against affordable housing because they can change tho: yes as the requirements change in order to hit the targets that the City http: / /www. city .newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn01- 31- 06gp.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01312006 to hit. He discussed examples and noted that more flexibility is better. nmissioner Tucker added that he would like to have a minimum floor and sor ourage language and see the City not put itself in.a position where it does r e that flexibility. The requirement part is problematic and the implementi nance is the best place to have this detail but since this is the only element General Plan that somebody else gets to look at other than the City Council have to satisfy that accord. continued on what the City should /could be mandated to provided. Tucker asked what will be voted on? Wood answered that it is only the land use quantities that are required unde Charter to go to a vote. It is the City Council's decision as to what they put or ballot and they are free to put more on the ballet if they choose what to. What us doing, as the refinements occur then the Housing Element would need tc amended in order to maintain internal consistency with the General Plan. Th( is for affordable is only in the Housing Element and is not something that will bE ,ad on by the people. nmissioner Tucker asked if something is put on the ballot does that mean it ca be amended in the future? He was answered yes other than by vote. ;. Wood noted that taking the specific requirement out of the Housing Eleme d I don't believe that HCD would re- certify the element if we did not have that. i not saying it has to be 20 %, which is what we have now. I assume we will I much better shape with potential capacities than we were last time so the 3ht be a possibility to reduce it. That policy in the housing Element is suppos( be the framework for the ordinance. It is constructed now in the General PIC d we are working on an ordinance to implement that which talks about differe rcents on a sliding scale. Discussion continued on sliding scale, fairness, logi )gram assistance, deed restrictions, production, subsidy, and funding. mmissioner Tucker proposed having the percentage changed to 15% with using Element requiring that an implementing ordinance be prepared. icy would provide incentives or credits against the requirements. This would a credit against the requirement. However you want to describe it. awing discussion it was determined to have staff come back with language nge the number using a calculation that uses the 25 year old General Plan a amount of units that are approved to develop a number average of affordal sing units based upon a percentage that yields an annual average number s that is not higher than our current requirement. Toerge noted that the Housing Element will be done in 2008. Wood noted her concern is that having a goal of x affordable housing units ar in this Housing Element period. How would staff know how many afford, its to require of Developer A and Developer B, etc.? Henn noted his proposal of the concept of a Page 6 of 10 http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn0l- 31- 06gp.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01312006 Page 7 of 10 rement that based upon the authorization of additional housing units in t wed General Plan would yield an average annual amount not in excess the current Housing Element has worked out to be. All I am suggesting is a percentage that based on the approved General Plan is not a me msome requirement than we currently have, I am not sure what the mE i work out to be. imissioner Tucker noted that would be based on what the HCD is used ng. I would like to know what other communities are doing. He # tested staff to find out what other jurisdictions are doing and to defer sion on this until the Commission has more data. irperson Toerge agreed. 'nissioner Hawkins asked if the Commission has the flexibility to reduce based upon some sort of field survey of other jurisdictions? Wood suggested deferring this part and move on to reviewing the remainder :ies and programs. Element Tescher noted he would work on getting some information back to Eaton: . Page 18, the dates of possible date changes, is that correct? Staff will back. . Page 22, why wasn't the 2000 census numbers used? Ms. Ter answered that the State Department of Finance requires the City to ups its housing levels and population projections every January 1st. That is most regularly updated source of information and is based on actual built permits. . Why wasn't Mariner's Mile not included in the materials? Staff answered will be added. Tescher: 1 changes in the policies from the earlier documents. Some of the progra e been modified slightly to reflect current situations. GPAC had no changes. 7 policies are the same. A program change based on previous discue sing the percentage would be reflected in this section. Program 2.1.3 moved to Policy 3.1 regarding the adequacies of the site. The only ch; by GPAC added in 2.2.5 West Newport highway, and ad a potential Ioc; http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn01- 31- 06gp.httn 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01312006 Page 8 of 10 {For affordable units. Hawkins suggested adding to 2.2.5, add Mariner's Mile. Wood suggested leaving Banning Ranch in this section. The Commission 3 adequate residential sites. Policies are the same. GPAC added 3.1.3 sted housing affordable to all income groups in 3.1 and remove The Commission agreed. Tescher noted the other change by the Advisory Committee was to clarify the sity bonus as required by State Law in 3.1.2. The locations sited and renced to as potential will be consistent with the Land Use Element. 4 for the affordability of existing units. No changes to this section by 5 opportunities for special needs population. No changes to this section L r housing programs as well as program monitoring. No changes to this section GPAC. 7 ive and responsive housing programs and policies. No changes to this n by GPAC. ioner Hawkins, referring to 7.1 .1, remove, information to the City The Commission agreed. comment was opened and closed. ommissioner Tucker, referring to page 71, asked if the numbers listed were pposed to add up to something? Wood noted this allocation is the equivalency provision so that someone who ided very low income housing only needs to provide 11.5% whereas, if you are ting your requirement with moderate income you have a higher requirement of It balances out to everyone having the same burden and ties back to the This should be better left to the ordinance and not in the Element. The emission agreed. http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn01- 31- 06gp.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01312006 Page 9 of 10 Noise Element I I Tescher noted: . Page 2 - Table 1 refers to representative noise levels with rock bands havi the highest decibel noise levels. . Page 3 - Table 2 refers to standards to noise land use compatibility upon the State. . Page 10 and 11 - these tables show how the City has interpreted the r compatibility matrix and noise standards. No changes have been made. . Updated noise contour maps have been distributed. He explained t. represent noise based on highway actual volumes with trip counts; and fui noise contours based on projection of trips. He continued his explanation. missioner Eaton asked . Page 3, Table 2 - he asked if schools, libraries, churches, hospitals nursing homes are noise sensitive uses and if so, he questioned the vo of 70 dBA. Mr. Tescher answered they will verify the information. . Page 10, Table 3 - it is saying residential is normally compatible up to 71 CNEL, is this correct? Mr. Tescher answered they will verify the information. . Page 5 - the text on airport operations needs to be updated. Staff agreed. . Page 11 - asked about the use of Leq noise level. Staff answered that City's Noise Ordinance variously uses dB and Leq. Toerge asked: . Page 4, include yachts with boats in the transportation noise description in the first paragraph. Staff agreed. . Under aircraft operations - call out banner toting airplanes as well. Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and None None None to http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /nm0l- 31- 06gp.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01312006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn0l- 31- 06gp.htm Page 10 of 10 06/23/2008