Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/2001CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley- Commissioner Kranzley was excused. Commissioner Kiser was excused following deliberation of the second item. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Daniel Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of June 7.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian, and voted on, to approve the amended minutes of June 7, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley Abstain: Gifford Public Comments: None Postina of the Aaendo: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 15, 2001. L Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 SUBJECT: Draft Housing Element Review and discussion of proposed draft Housing Element. Commissioner Tucker asked to hear testimony and then ask a few questions about the main issues in this area. Public comment was opened. James Quigg of Costa Mesa spoke as a member of the Sierra Club noting that the Club is adamantly opposed to any development on the Banning Ranch. He stated that he had talked to Ron Tibets from the County and that primarily that location is within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. The caveat being that the privately owned property, exclusive of the School district and Transit Authority, is a small piece of property. If that is the item that is being referenced to in the reading materials, they have alluded to 292 residential units going on that property, I guess the City of Newport has the right to do so. Otherwise, they overstep their jurisdiction. Public comment was closed. • Commissioner Tucker then asked staff for an overview of the issues. This meeting is held to receive public input, of which we have gotten very little, and to review a draft of the requested revisions. Tell us what we are supposed to be seeing. Ms. Wood noted that the Housing Element is the one Element of the General Plan that there are a number of state regulations on. There are guidelines that have been promulgated by the staff of the State Housing and Community Development Department that we need to comply with. We need to update the General Plan every five years and we need to have the State HCD certify the Element as complying with State Law. Those regulations require a lot of detail, a lot of information and so probably the first two-thirds of the Element are really just a lot of Census information, information on trends of development, how much housing development we have seen. We are using the 1990 Census data because that is what everyone agreed to when the extension was done because of the State budget situation. We thought about using some of our new 2000 census data as it is starting to come in, but then we would have different sources and mismatched data. The really important things to see out of the data and analysis is to try to find out what Newport Beach's real housing needs are, especially in the special housing needs populations. We think that the information we have shows that our senior citizens are the ones we should be concentrating on the most. When we get into the quantified housing objectives, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) those are the numbers that State Law requires that the Council of governments, which in our case is SCAG, to produce. They take into account 40 1 employment projections, vacancy rates, amount of vacant land remaining, the INDEX Item No. 1 Continued to date uncertain City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 capacity of that remaining vacant land and they assign a certain new construction need for each community. That is broken down by income group and the idea is to make sure that the responsibility for providing housing for all income groups is shared among all communities within the State. The law requires that we use those numbers as our quantified objectives unless we wish to challenge them and develop our own, which is a very complicated process. We think these numbers are fair and reasonable for Newport Beach. Our staff has been involved in the regional population and employment projections for a long time so that we feel comfortable that these really do reflect what we expect to happen in Newport Beach. It would be important for the Commission to look at the sites that we have identified for future housing development. One of the other requirements is that you must identify sites that can accommodate all of the needs shown in your RHNA numbers. We have shown three sites including the Banning Ranch and the gentleman who spoke is correct that the majority of that site is still unincorporated County area, some of it is within the City limits, but it is within our Planning Area and we are supposed to plan for that area as part of our General Plan. We think it is appropriate to show that site. With those three sites, Banning Ranch, Avocado /MacArthur and Lower Bayview Landing we believe that we can accommodate the units that are projected for us. For the next update of the Element in five years, hopefully our need numbers will be lower because that • is the trend we are seeing as we are approaching build out. Whatever the need is, I think we are going to have more of a challenge to find sites for those units and we will probably be looking more at the infill and redevelopment area. Our estimate from a review of the development and General Plan potential is that we have approximately 1,100 units that could be produced in that fashion. We would like the Commission to look at those three sites and tell us if you think that is the direction we should be going. The Housing Plan includes our goals, policies and programs to get there. Cities are not required to actually produce affordable housing, but we are supposed to adopt policies and programs that will facilitate the development of housing as shown in our Regional Housing Needs Assessment. We have kept the some programs that the existing Housing Element has had. We have done some simplification to eliminate the sliding scale, but kept the overall goal that on average over the next five years, 20% of the units produced should be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. The biggest change is adding the option of contributing a fee in lieu of actually producing affordable housing for people who are developing market rate housing. This is something we have actually done for a couple of developments in the past, but it is not provided for in our Housing Element. We think it is a good option for us to provide, particularly for smaller developments. That will make it easier and more feasible for the developer and easier for City staff to monitor the affordable units that we have in the future. If you just have two or three units here and there, then the job becomes harder for u. But we did not want that option to be available to very large housing developers because then the City would be in the position of holding a large of sum of in -lieu fees and be responsible for producing the INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 housing and that is not the business that we are in. The last change in policy was to require that affordable units have covenants that require the affordability be maintained for 30 years. In the earlier days of developing affordable housing in Newport Beach, some of those covenants were only ten years. With time and experience, they got longer so that our actual standard recently has been 30 years, but we wanted to write that into the Element. The consultants who prepared the Element for us from Hogle Ireland, Mike Thiele and Albert Armijo, are here to answer questions particularly on data sources. Commissioner Gifford asked about the Avocado /MacArthur site. It says here it would require a zone change to add multiple family residential use. But, to allow the proposed construction of 56 residential units, is there a particular parcel there or set of parcels that is being contemplated in this site? Ms. Wood answered that it is north of San Miguel, between Avocado and MacArthur. We do not mean the Newport Village site. Ms. Temple added that looking at the map following page 44, there is a depiction of the property in question that is now vacant. The building would be based on 20 units per acre, which is the standard multi - family density. Commissioner McDaniel noted that he is a numbers person. He said that in looking at these documents with several different sources moving through this data that sometimes the similar numbers are quoted differently. Continuing, he noted that he has tried to track that, and I think it is our duty to point out a few of these things. Page 5 - the chart states that there are 271 units per year added from 1990 to 2000. Looking at those numbers, I get 269.25. The figure for 1990 is a two-year number and you don't know which one to divide by. The data isn't bad, and the conclusions are close enough as for as I can see, but it does concern me when I look at other conclusions that someone might make at looking at these charts. Page 12, we talk about vacancy at 10.1 in 1980 and 11.5 in 1990; try to define what vacancy is, I am not sure we have a handle on that. In other words, when a person owns a piece of property here, but also has a piece of property in Lake Tahoe and spends 6 months here and 6 months there, is that really a vacancy or not? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I just don't think we have a good handle on that. I looked at things like page 17 where it talks about the population in Newport beach in the year 2000 as 76, 772 and then on the next page we show a population of 75,627. 1 guess I am not too worried about this, but I look at some of these things and realize that there are different sources that these numbers come from. I did not find that the conclusions were distorted because of some of these. I just think that there are probably other conclusions based on a data that you might want to look for and find. Commissioner Tucker then asked about the timing for providing for the housing • that is identified as need housing, is that something that needs to be supposedly A INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 in place over the next five years? Ms. Wood answered, yes. When we update again in five years, one of the things we have to do is report on our progress in implementing this Housing Element just as this one is talking about our progress in implementing the last. Of course, the more we have been able to accomplish, the closer we are to our goals, the better it looks to HCD when they're doing their certification review. There are no clear -cut consequences to the City if we do not meet our goals. HCD might comment that the programs are not adequate and ask that we be more creative or more specific in programs. If the Element is not certified, the City has the option of self - certifying. The council must make findings that the City believes that the Element does meet the requirements of the State Law despite what the HCD staff recommends. There is some risk in that because the City might be a more likely target for a lawsuit from an affordable housing advocacy group who thinks that because it is not certified by the State, it might not be adequate. We have been sued in the past and what we have done in the course of working through that litigation was to start to get more housing developed and improve the Housing Element. The State Low does not say that the City is required to produce affordable housing; the City is required to have a plan that facilitates that happening. Commissioner Tucker noted the three sites designated to take care of the need. Banning Ranch obviously has some issues because we have still not seen the project or an environmental document. Avocado /MacArthur area, which to me is going to need a lot of retaining walls to get the 56 units or some height. Bayview Landing, which is a nice piece of property, have we talked to any of the property owners about our goals for their property? Ms. Wood answered that the City is working with The Irvine Company, that owns the Lower Bayview Landing site and we are working to develop a project for seniors that is affordable on that site. That site is a very realistic site. The potential developer of Banning Ranch has just last week responded to the City's Request for Proposals for senior affordable housing projects. In our discussions with them in the early planning for the development, we have always talked about the potential for affordable housing as part of that development. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood explained that the procedure for helping the developers could happen in a number of ways. For a larger market rate housing development, we would require some percent of the total number of market rate units to be provided as affordable units. We are saying an average of 20% over the next five years. We might say we want 20% of your total number of units to be affordable. The developer can produce those units as part of his project and that was done earlier in some of our apartment projects; some percent of those units were developed as affordable, side by side with the market rate ones. Or, they can develop an affordable project somewhere else in the City to meet that requirement. If it is a smaller project, they can opt to pay the in -lieu fee. 1101 Commissioner Tucker asked for a description on how the deal with the Lower INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 Bayview Landing would work. The Irvine Company, I am assuming, has no other big housing developments in the City and has a piece of property and you have identified it as a location for affordable housing. How does that actually come into production as affordable senior housing? Ms. Wood answered in that case, it is the City's position that The Irvine Company has an obligation to produce approximately 120 affordable units because when we did the CIOSA Agreement they developed market rate housing without providing affordable units. In other cases, the developer might come to the City and request some of our in -lieu funds to assist with acquiring the Avocado /MacArthur site or they might go to the State and apply for tax credits to develop affordable housing, they might get low interest loans for affordable housing from the State Housing Finance Agency or they might obtain financing through the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department. Commissioner Tucker noted that we have collected a lot of money from the One Ford Road Project (a little over 2 million dollars). At what point do we have an obligation to spend some of that money? Ms. Wood answered the sooner the better and that was the reason the City issued the request for proposals for senior affordable housing. Commissioner Tucker, referring to page 48, noted the reference of the City having identified areas with potential for redevelopment and /or intensification of under - utilized residential properties (in- fill). There is a Figure 4 that shows generally areas that might have some additional housing capacity. Are the properties that have been identified presently general planned for that intensification, or do we have to go through a General Plan Amendment? Ms. Temple answered that those numbers represent areas that are currently either general planed and zoned for multi - family residential or for residential /commercial mixed use. The growth numbers, a total of approximately 1100 units, we find within the various multi - family residential areas scattered around Newport Beach and the commercial areas which include residential mixed use. They are all entitled currently and it would be a matter of building out to what the zoning would allow. Commissioner Agajanian referring to pages 70, 71 and 72 lists over the past five years where the City has allocated its affordable housing, or actually housing assistance money. I don't see anything that helps housing per se. I can see how we have helped some programs that do help some housing, but it seems to me that the bulk of the money was with the removal of architectural barriers in 1996- 1997 with $308,000 and neighborhood revitalization in 1997 - 1998 with $304,750 and public facilities in 1999 -2000 with $339,902. These contributions seem to be substantially administrative types of assistance. Is there anything we do to actually create the seed or push forward any kind of other affordable housing assistance? 174 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 Ms. Wood answered that in going further back, the City did allocate the bulk of our Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to assisting the development of affordable housing projects. We assisted with purchase of the land and with the interest rates on a number of projects. Then there was a shift in the time period that is shown in this Element as we started to focus more on the removal of architectural barriers, making public facilities compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is an eligible use of these funds. We also started focusing on our revitalization effort for the Balboa Peninsula. The CDBG funds are not limited to housing. They must be used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. On the Peninsula is the only neighborhood in the City where we have a concentration of lower income households, so that we are able to use our CDBG funds on public improvements and revitalization strategy with greater latitude than we could in any other part of the City. The only other funds that the City has to assist with affordable housing is our in -lieu fund that was contributed to by the One Ford Road project and the Sail House project. Those cities that have redevelopment agencies are required to set aside 207o of their funds to develop affordable housing, but without an agency we do not have that resource. One of the expenditures of the CDBG, the funding to the Fair Housing Council, is a requirement of the grant. Commissioner Agajanian asked when we seek the in -lieu fees, why is the City leaning upon new development to help contribute towards affordable housing when the City itself outside of its CDBG money is not contributing anything for its existing needs? It seems that new development is the only source of monies outside of CDBG for housing, is that correct? Ms. Wood answered that is true locally, but that there are other County, State and Federal Programs that developers of affordable housing can access. The focus on new construction to satisfy the need is because of the way the State law is written. If we were to use some of our 2 million dollars of in -lieu fees to help rehabilitate housing units and then apply an affordability covenant on them for some period of time, that would not count towards satisfying our need as shown in the housing needs assessment numbers. Commissioner Agajanian referring to Goal 3, Policy 3.1 noted that, .....to mitigate potential governmental constraints to housing production and affordability by increasing the City of Newport Beach role in facilitating construction of moderate and upper income ownership housing.....' Why are we supporting upper income housing? Is there any other group we can find that has any need here other than upper income seniors? Mrs. Wood answered because that is approximately half of our need. We probably do have some need for large families and single headed households families, but our analysis from looking at the numbers was that the group that has the greatest need was the senior citizens. • Continuing, Commissioner Agajanian referring to Housing Program 5.1.6, the INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 policy that reads, 'consistent with development standards in multiple - family and commercial areas, the City of Newport Beach shall continue to permit emergency shelters and transitional housing....' Does the current zoning allow this in multi family areas? Ms. Temple answered that for most transitional housing and emergency shelters, many of which are considered group homes, under the state law the City is preempted from controlling them in any case. The City does have a wide variety of group homes that are considered transitional housing, particularly in the Balboa Peninsula, West Newport area. There is a tremendous number of substance abuse recovery operations going on. We also have some troubled teen shelters scattered in commercial districts. The state law preempts the City from regulating them. Following a brief discussion, it was decided that the words, multiple family, would be replaced by residential in that section to be consistent with the intent. Commissioner McDaniel asked what substandard condition is and what the requirement is to deal with it? Ms. Wood noted that there is not a specific requirement to deal with that. If in the process of going through the analysis of all these needs you saw that you had • a large number of substandard units, then perhaps one of your programs would be to focus your resources on rehabilitation as opposed to new construction or in addition to new construction. As to the definition of a substandard unit, I would ask one of the consultants for that information. Albert Armijo of Hogle Ireland noted that there are various components to the definition of substandard units. One of them being, the State has chosen in the jurisdictions to focus on units that are more than 30 years old. The State has also chosen to examine complaints, for instance issues raised by renters, homeowners of things that are dilapidated with the building in which they are living or in a neighborhood or something that they drive through on their way to work. The important thing to note is that there is not a strict definition of what makes a unit substandard. The State is involved with impressions, age and certainly any changes after a natural occurrence such as an earthquake. When we examined potential areas of the City, it was the older areas of the City that are undergoing a lot of development, particularly in the peninsula area and Balboa island. Chairperson Selich noted that from reading this, the City has accumulated around 2.5 million dollars in housing money. One of things I am curious about is why are we focusing so much on building new projects rather then taking the money we have accumulated and creating some kind of endowment and using income off it to subsidize units to an affordable level, particularly since we have such a high percentage of rental units in town already. I think there are something like 7,000 units and some 40% of the housing is rental units right now. . Staff seemed to indicate that the State requires it because of the needs 0 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 assessment, I wonder how that works. Is it a function of how you do your needs assessment? What happens if you have a City that is completely built out and there is no place to build any additional units? The only way you can provide any affordable housing is to go back and to deal with existing units. Ms. Wood answered that we do not do the needs assessment; we are given the numbers by SCAG through a method that is approved by State HCD. It is only the production of new units that counts against that need when you go to do your review of progress in the next Housing Element update. I know some cities that are built out and have indicated that they would satisfy their new construction need by second units on existing lots. So, they were able to identify the correct number there. The State is essentially forcing cities to build new rentals even if they are built out. You could as a city have a policy that you would take the in -lieu fees or redevelopment monies or whatever resources you had and use them to assist existing rental stock. You can demonstrate that you had assisted so many households over the course of the five years, but you still would not have produced units. We also need to remember that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment addresses not just the lower income group, but upper income groups. At Commissioner inquiry, Ms. Wood added the needs are based on population and employment projections. So as long as that continues to grow, the need in the region will grow and that is distributed. I do not know how they distribute it by income. Commissioner Gifford noted that certain parts of the total need like the segment of middle to upper income, we do not have a real issue with if we would not meet that goal. If the assessment showed we had lowered the need, then in terms of the new construction to meet that goal, the goal could theoretically be zero. Is that correct? Ms. Wood answered that over time it could work out. Chairperson Selich asked if we could subsidize, how much would we have to subsidize per unit, say for the moment there were no restrictions? Ms. Temple added that the purpose of the Housing Element and the goal of the State is the production of housing, it is not necessarily the assistance of individuals. There are other programs that are designed to do rental subsidy and other forms of assistance to individuals who are in need of financial assistance. I think that if you look at the reason for a housing element, it is to assure that there is sufficient housing to sustain the State of California. Chairperson Selich noted that he understands but that he is focusing on the affordable component of the housing element and not the housing production aspect of it. Going back to my basic concern, is that we are focusing completely on finding new sites to build new housing, which is not easy to do just given the sites that have been selected. We have already got 7,000 rental units INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 in town that could be subsidized to provide the affordable housing. It seems like we are forcing a square peg in a round hole. Ms. Wood answered that we could come back with some analysis on this, and take a look at what the rent limits should be for the lower income categories that we should be serving and the average rents for the various size units and therefore how for we could get with our in -lieu fund of 2.5 million. We can also talk to the HCD staff about this as we work with them on the review of the draft. Albert Armijo stated that what we could do is compare the fair average market rent for various sizes of apartments to what the affordability or what an area -wide affordability index would be. We could see what the difference would be for the subsidization of those units. Chairperson Selich added just to give us an idea if we endowed 2.5 million dollars, how many units could be subsidize with that? He then asked staff when this would be coming back for review. Ms. Wood answered that it would be at least 45 days because that is the period of time HCD has to review the draft. It depends on what their comments are and how many revisions we need to make. Commissioner Gifford asked to also look at if we flex the range for in -lieu fees to be collected on new development. How much, based on what kind of new development you think is coming through could be added to that fund over the next five years? Commissioner McDaniel noted that the City is charged with having affordable housing, not to subsidize housing so that it now becomes affordable. I am concerned and I am worried that we may be using funds that may or may not dry up at some point. Have we made the mark? Subsidized housing is a 30 -year project. Commissioner Gifford then asked about the annexation of Newport Coast and how that would relate to this issue. Ms. Wood answered that these numbers are above and beyond what occurs on the Coast. SUBJECT: Glabman Residence (PA2001 -063) 2315 Pacific Drive • Variance No. 2001 -002 • Modification Permit No. 2001 -060 Request for a variance to permit an addition to an existing single family residence of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24 -foot height limit, ranging from approximately 2 feet to 11.4 feet. The proposal includes a • 10 INDEX Item No. 2 Use Permit No. 3684 Continued to 07/19/2001 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 modification request to permit encroachments of a garage into the front and side yard setbacks (5 feet into the required 17.5400t front yard setback and 4 feet into the required 4 -foot side yard setback along the northerly property line). Senior Planner Jim Campbell presented three pieces of correspondence received that day. He then gave an overview of the staff report noting the following during a slide presentation: • Addition is approximately 1,385 square feet. • Existing project is and will remain three levels. • Addition is comprised of a garage reconfiguration, a front porch addition, a laundry room addition to the upper level and a master bedroom addition to the rear of the home with an open deck. • The addition at the back of the home would exceed the 24 -foot height limitation. • Main level deck is to be expanded. • Basement excavation will increase the floor area of the lower level. • The entire roof will be reconstructed. • Upper level deck extension exceeds the height limit. • Encroachments into the height limit are not particularly visible from Pacific Drive because the existing house blocks these areas. • There is a 5 -foot encroachment of the comer of the garage as well as a is 5 -foot encroachment of a portion of the front yard setback. • Side yard setback area is at zero. • Angled garage with two doors to be reconfigured into a two -door garage opening facing off Pacific Drive. • Locations of caissons to be used for support. Commissioner McDaniel clarified that if the lot next door at 2319 was built out to where it could be, the side view would be eliminated. Staff concurred. Commissioner Kiser asked if any of the increased portions of the roof would be visible from Pacific Drive; will they be higher with the multiple design changes in the roof? Mr. Campbell answered that basically the entire roof of the structure will need to be removed and the new roof will run perpendicular to the street. The peaks of the roof will be approximately 2 feet higher than existing but would comply with the 24 -foot height limitation. The new master bedroom addition roof ridge will run parallel to the bluff, but the reconstructed roof over the front portion of the house will run perpendicular to the street. The posted exhibit on the wall shows the renderings. Chairperson Selich noted that the project is not going any lower down the bluffs other than the caissons for support. Mr. Campbell answered that two of the caissons are within the existing • developed area and three of the caissons will be down the slope of the existing 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 footing that is there now. The house is not substantially going further down the hill than it is now. Staff believes that it is consistent with the General Plan policy to minimize alterations of coastal bluffs. Continuing, Chairperson Selich asked about the history of the existing two garages adjacent to each other with zero setbacks, when they were done and how it has been handled over the years. I assume that the zero setback was allowed a long time ago and that the recent remodel let it continue as such. Ms. Temple answered that we could go back to research this information, but unless the remodel was in the area of the non - conformity, the Code does not require it to be made conforming unless there is actual alterations in that area. My suspicion is that the subsequent remodel that probably happened, simply avoided that area in order to maintain the existing non - conformity. I do not know that for a fact. We can get the information if this item is continued. Chairperson Selich then asked how we ended up with 12 feet of right -of -way that was vacated and there is 10 feet in other areas, isn't the right -of -way line parallel to the sidewalk? Ms. Temple noted that when the abandonment and associated zone changes to Pacific Drive were done after the more precise surveying and engineering, • the actual amount of right -of -way abandonment for each lot did vary a range of approximately 3 to 4 feet depending on which lot as the street is curved. Commissioner Gifford noted that she did not have a submission letter from the applicant justifying the required findings for the variance in her packet. I understand it has been submitted and I would like to have an opportunity to review that. Staff answered that it was inadvertently left off the attachment list and presented it for review. Public comment was opened. Tom Burger, Irvine Ave, Santa Ana Heights, architect for the project noted the following: • House was last remodeled in the '80's. • House has a small upper floor with small bedrooms, with no master suite. • Deck is set three feet below the main level and blocks the view out of the lower level. • Roof of the living room projects upwards and blocks the view out of the small upper floor bedrooms. • The applicant is aware of the concern of bluff development so the proposal preserves the bluffs. • A deck at each level is proposed that will provide the only outdoor space on this property, which is vertical cliff at the back of the house. • The living area of the house is actually 4,524 square feet. 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 • Applicants have met with neighbors to review the design and have received letters of support from some of them. • The lot has 6 feet of fall from the front to the center and then about 40 feet to Boyside Drive. • The combined topography and irregular shape clearly distinguishes this lot from others in the vicinity in the same zoning. We feel this creates a hardship. • The objective is to keep the remodel within the existing footprint to preserve the bluff and actually preserve as much of the house as we can. • Modifications in the front are due to the angular relationship of the property line relative to the street. • We are taking away the zero setback (approximately 10 feet) and replacing it with a corner that would touch at one point. The majority of the existing encroachment in the front would be moved back behind where the garage is now. • The encroachment will be reduced as well as the presence of the house on Pacific Drive. • A small covered porch in the front is to be added and will extend towards the garage, it will remain open and not enclose any floor area. • The height variances occur in the back half of the lot where the grade drops down steeply. • Some of the new addition will be positioned toward Pacific Drive and is • within the setback and the height limit. • The decks will extend beyond the current footprint in the back of the house and will be supported by the new caissons. • The highest point of the variance is at the glass railing of the upper level deck. • The roof is sloped to lend a craftsman style architecture. • We feel this is a unique situation created by the combination of the trapezoidal shape of the lot, the shallow depth and the 45 feet drop off that occurs at an angle to the building site. Commissioner Tucker noted a letter received stating that the new roof would block a large portion of the harbor view from his home and would detract from the property value. What kind of impact do you have on his view? Mr. Burger answered that he has not seen the view from his home. He noted that both the new home and existing home have horizontal ridges that are perpendicular to the view. Maybe that view is the small corridor between this home and the one next door. We could do a different roof design and make it higher, it would still be within the height limit. Commissioner Gifford asked if any exterior remodel had happened since 1984. She was answered that the applicants bought the home a year ago and to the best of knowledge, it does not appear to have been remodeled. • At Commission inquiry, Mr. Burger noted: 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 All of the neighbors had been invited to view the proposed plans by the applicants. The garage will continue to sit on the property line. No mitigation is proposed. Chairperson Selich, referring to the floor plan, noted that it seems you could slide the garage over 4 feet and adhere to the setbacks and do some reconfiguration of the entry, powder room, elevator shaft and storage room behind the dining room and still have functionally the same house. What is your reaction to that? Mr. Burger agreed that on paper it would be easy to do. In the context of trying to keep as many of the existing walls where they are to minimize the amount of demolition that is required to get into this construction project, that would become very difficult to shift the garage wall. What we plan on doing is removing the roof and the upper floor down to the floor level. Once that garage is moved, which is a load- bearing wall for the upper floor, you can't really keep those floorjoists either. Once you get into that, it starts to escalate into a much larger reconstruction job. Chairperson Selich asked why a piece of steel could not be placed across to support the upper levels? The only major structural impediment is that load- . bearing wall along the left side of the garage. The rest of it in terms of the entry becomes more a function of design as opposed to construction costs. Mr. Burger answered there are many ways, move the foundation, put a piece of steel in, etc. The applicants want an adequate house to enjoy with a spacious garage. Shifting the garage over is all within the realm of possibility. Barbara Corbett, 2316 Pacific Drive noted she is opposed to the height variance part of the application. She stated that the current house is extremely huge from the street. Mr. Burger was invited to come to her home, which he did, to see what the impact of the height difference would be. Her neighbor, Betty at 2312 Pacific Drive gave a letter, which she then read. The letter noted that the house is high due to a remodel 15 years ago. By leaving one garage wall standing from the original small house, a wall shared by the garage at 2305, their remodel was approved and is the tall structure seen today. The remodel changed the appearance of the bluff and decreased property values on our side of Pacific Drive due to the loss of view. If the height of the house remains the same, I will not object to the variance. In closing, she noted that the letters of support have come from the homeowners on the bluff side of the street, those on the other side all object. She asked that the applicant re- design the project. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Corbett stated she realizes that the house could be built higher on the street side and have more of an impact, without a variance. However, it would be "un- neighborly" and she would find it Is offensive. 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 Steven Nash, 2319 Pacific Drive noted his support of the application. He noted that he also intends to remodel his project in the future. Bill Edwards, at 3334 East Coast Highway, assistant architect for the project noted the following: • The applicants have an opportunity to build 5 five feet higher than is currently designed. • The potential shift in the garage; re- location would be an extremely dramatic change in the existing design and place the front entry going into the dining room. • The expansion of the living space includes no expansion down the slope. • No impacts to neighbors across the street. • This is a fine compliment to the trend of improving existing properties on Pacific Drive. Jim Glabman, 2315 Pacific Drive stated that he has shown the plans to his neighbors. The topography and shape of the lot causes severe problems. To build in the upper level would require us to go beyond the height limits. If the garage were moved, it would eliminate the entryway into our home, as the house is narrow at that side. One thing impacts another and would ruin the • front of the house. Our main purpose is to park two cars in the garage, which can't be done now. Several of the neighbors have expressed their support for our project, including neighbors on the other side of the street. The new house will be attractive and will have an elevator accessing on all three floors. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich noted his concern of the project is the continuation of the zero setback situations on the garage. It is something we would not permit today. Ms. Temple stated that modifications have been approved to allow re- construction of old garages that have encroached to the point of zero setbacks. Usually it had to do with the size or shape of the lot, or access difficulties. Oftentimes it occurs on the Balboa Peninsula on the "T" alleys where it is difficult to get in and out on a 10 -foot alley. By leaving the garage in its existing position, it helped to solve some of those problems; we have approved modifications to retain old non - conformities. Chairperson Selich noted that the house next door is probably going to be torn down or at least substantially modified at some point in time as it is an older structure. At that time, there would be an opportunity to bring these two yard setbacks into conformity. I guess I disagree with the statements that were made by the architects on the effects of moving the garage. There is always a design solution and ways to do angle entries and reconfigure the elevator shaft • and storage area behind the dining room. I am not convinced it is a design 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 impossibility so I guess it is a matter of whether we think enough is gained by moving the garage over and maintaining setbacks in the normal manner to have them do a redesign on that portion of the project. Other than that, I thought the project was reasonably designed. The one thing I have been concerned about is the bluff alteration aspect and this is one of those examples of looking at the profile of the lot, if they elected to tear the house down and start over, they could do a lot of bluff alteration and not have to come in for any kind of variance at all. They could do something substantially more massive and detrimental than what is being proposed. I think the project is positive from that standpoint. As for as the view blockage, I don't see where it will block any more than what is permitted under the existing height regulations. It appears to be 5 -6 feet below the maximum, the only oblique area is next to the neighbor next door and he stated he is planning on remodeling. Commissioner McDaniel, noting that he had visited the site, stated the proposed changes fix a lot of problems that exist on the property. The proposal enhances the ability for the applicant to use the property and the minimal changes saves the bluff and minimizes encroachment into the height. The applicant has been thoughtful in his re- design. I can't see where the changes would impact the views. I am pleased with the design and the application at this point. Commissioner Kiser noted his agreement with the previous statements. He added that as pointed out in the staff report, there is as much encroachment being removed on existing structures as there is being created by the new proposal. Concerning bluff preservation, if we were to force the roof down another two feet and the applicant re- designed, they could choose to come considerably further down the bluff and create a home that would not be a benefit to anyone's view, public or private. The only problem I have is the zero setback on the one side. As difficult as it might be to re- design, I am sure that things could be done with some creative solutions. I would have a real problem approving a zero setback on a garage when recognizing it looks terrible. The redesign could potentially open up a small view corridor or sense of a view between the homes at least when the home next door is re- designed as well. I am in support of the application, but steps should be taken to recapture that side yard setback. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the application with the removal of the zero side yard setback. Commissioner Tucker noted he questions if there was going to be any view blockage. The applicant is not building completely to the max of what the Zoning Code allows. It merits a variance because the property falls off a cliff. As far as the garage setback, we don't usually get involved with the modification issues. I am not terribly troubled by this situation as it is replacing an existing situation and making a better design solution overall. I wonder how • many feet of setback off the property line would we be talking about; is it 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 complete compliance? We need to give some guidance as to what we are looking for. I would support the variance based upon the plans that were drawn. Commissioner Gifford noted her support of the application as the analysis of the trade -offs is fair. I think however, that we have a property that has been non- conforming and that status is granted in the recognition that as a property ages, that non - conforming feature will eventually be eliminated. Given the nature of the neighborhood and the possibility of alternative design solutions, the side yard setback should be brought back into conformance for the whole length of the property. We do see a lot of modifications, but not necessarily in conjunction with additional modifications and variances. I am in favor of having the side yard setback conform. Chairperson Selich re- opened the public comment and asked the applicant if he would be willing to go for a continuance on this matter and study a re- design of the garage element. Mr. Berger asked if it is possible to approve the height variance separate from the modification: He was told that it is a total package. Continuing, he stated he could meet with the owners to discuss options and come back at a later date. • Chairperson Selich noted he would like to see the 4 -foot setback. We would like to see the best effort on it. It may be it can't be designed that way, I don't know. It is not our job to do the design work; it is your job to present us the designs. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to continue this item to July 19th Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajonion, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kronzley SUBJECT: Amendments to the Annexation and Development Agreement for The Newport Coast Approve the Newport Coast Annexation and Development Agreement as proposed to be amended and forward Annexation and Development Agreement to City Council. Commissioner Kiser excused himself from the meeting. • Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager noted proposed modifications to the 17 INDEX Item No. 3 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 Development Agreement. • Page 13 - Section (a) under Changes and Amendment 4.4 should have been deleted because any modification proposed by The Irvine Company to the City will be accepted by the City unless it meets the following four tests. With probably very few exceptions if (a) were left in, any proposal would be considered inconsistent with the Land Use Element. That is what would be modified by the proposed amendment. • On 4.4 (b) the word 'materially' is to be left in. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Agajanian asked what the role of the Planning Commission is relative to this agreement. My understanding is that this agreement leaves all land use decisions in the hands of the County with their pre - approved standards. We have no capacity to review. Why is it coming before us? Mr. Kiff answered that is correct. We understand from the City Attorney that all development agreements have to come before the Planning Commission. It is a policy decision on the City Council's part to say the annexation area would remain and processed as is today just as if we did not annex it except for the • actual provision of services. Commissioner Agajanian, referring to page 4 item K, are we confirming that the Council has found that this Agreement is in the best public interest of the City and its residents? Mr. Kiff answered that the Council has already adopted Section K in the initial adoption of this Development Agreement, as this is just an amendment. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to recommend to City Council approval of the Newport Coast Annexation and Development Agreement as proposed to be amended by staff. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley Excused: Kiser SUBJECT: Subdivision Code Update: Code Amendment No. 2001 - 002(PA 2001 -087) City- initiated amendment to revise the City's Subdivision Code (Title 19 of the Municipal Code) and to make related changes to Title 20 (Zoning Code), and • Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Property). 18 INDEX Item No. 4 (PA 2001 -087) Continued to 07/19/2001 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 Commissioner Tucker stated that he looked at the Deviation from Design Standards on hand - written page 55 in the staff report. He noted that we have a town where parts of the jurisdiction have been sub - divided in the 1990's and the 1890's. We have a wide variety of circumstances of how our subdivisions came about. There are occasions where people come in and take blocks of properties and redevelop them. Sometimes the old subdivision and new standards collide. I wanted to make sure that the deviation from design standards was sufficiently forgiving so that it is not impossible to meet the findings that were necessary if we found a project meritorious. The first finding states the requested deviation is necessary in order to create a land plan that is sensitive to environmental or physical constraints on or adjacent to the project site. It might not be necessary, but the key is, it shouldn't be less sensitive to the environmental or physical constraints on or adjacent to the project site. That gives the latitude of not having to come up with a finding that is hard to justify. If the finding is that it will not create a land plan that is less sensitive to the environment or similar type of wording, that would be something I would like to see. The rest of the findings seem like they are kind of doable if there is a project that is worthwhile. The other question I had was item 5 that says the resulting subdivision will not be incompatible with the pattern of surrounding development. It might refer to • the pattern of the surrounding subdivisions or lots. I am not sure development is the right word because one is referring to subdivision; the other is referring to development. In this context it means what actually got built. Commissioner Tucker asked the following: • How does the review of a parcel map differ from a review of a tract map under this ordinance? • 1 can understand the desire to have a tract map and have it go through the Planning Commission for a residential project because that map determines the intensity of the development. When you have a commercial project, it is not the map that determines the intensity of development it is the site plan. Would you see any problem in allowing a parcel map to be the vehicle of choice if you had a commercial project with eight lots? • The deviation from design standards takes care of a situation where, if we had the findings, would satisfy a shortcoming of lot sizes? Larry Lawrence, consultant working on this project for the City approached the podium and answered the following: • The most important thing is the parcel maps go to the Modifications Committee. Findings for approval are substantially the same. In fact, that often happens with weird shaped lots in commercial centers where the anchor gets its own lot. The Map Act recognizes that and allows parcel maps of greater than four lots for non - residential. You could change this and still be consistent with the Map Act. 0 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 Commissioner Agajanion stated that he had contacted staff during his review of the Code. The only remaining item he asked the Commission to consider was under Section 19.24.010 A -2. It talks about altering the minimum width from 60 feet to 56 feet of right -of -way and reduce the pavement width from 40 to 36 feet. I don't have a problem with the reduction of the pavement width, but I would like to retain that original 60 -foot right -of -way. The reason is that we do not have many subdivisions coming through and we always need more rather than less. Why not just stay with what we have and deal with these as they come before us on a case -by -case basis. Under item 4 regarding street grades. I would like to stay with the 7 percent, given the few subdivisions we have then we can change it to 10 percent on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Rich Edmonston stated that the typical local street right -of -way that we use and that most other agencies use provides for a 10 -foot parkway on either side of the curb. The current city design criteria allows for a 36 foot wide street and 56 foot right -of -way on single - loaded streets where there is development on one side, short cul -de -sacs and the term loop streets. The trend has been towards narrower streets and this would match the standard that we apply to private streets. In fact, it may go a bit further because sometimes in the private streets thee is only a sidewalk on one side and the total width for roadway purposes would be less than the 56 feet. Staff was comfortable maintaining • the 10 -foot parkway widths along with the narrower streets. As far as the grades, staff did not have a particular problem. Again most of the subdivisions in recent years have been private gated communities, which can have different standards. In the hillside areas, there are existing streets that exceed the 7% because of the topography. We weren't particularly concerned about these given that the steep area of the City to be concerned about in the future probably is Newport Coast and as long as the development is done on County standards, these would not apply anyway. Mr. Lawrence added that the County standard is 10% on grade and of course in Laguna would go up to 20%. Commissioner McDaniel pointed out that on page 90, the conditions required for merger (19.68.040), to be adjacent to a contiguous lot must mean that you have three pieces of property. You can't be between one lot, so if this is something to be done on a lot, it is one of the two contiguous lots. Mr. Lawrence noted that the word contiguous is redundant and should be removed. Commissioner McDaniel asked how the figure $20,705 was derived. Ms. Temple answered that this is the current number in the Code. Upon pointing that out, we probably need to add another provision. Essentially we did update that number several years ago and provided a cost of living factor • that every year it goes up based on the Consumer Price Index or some 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 construction index. many years. With any construction merger conditions In 1994 we had a low number of $10,000 and had been for inflation that became a smaller and smaller proportion of budget therefore throwing the requirement for required on relatively modest commercial remodels. The City adjusted the number and added the indexing so that it would keep up with inflation so that it would be something of a substantial change to a commercial structure before a merger was required. Chairperson Selich asked if this had been submitted to the BIA for comments, and was answered yes. He noted he is interested in getting a detailed analysis of this as it really goes to the heart of the building industry. The Subdivision Code is interesting because most of it deals with subdivisions of large open spaces of land, which in reality outside of the Banning Ranch, we are not going to have any of. The real subdivision issues that we are going to be facing in the future is dealing with the older areas of the City that have already been subdivided and we have a plethora of problems whether it's a situation being able to go back and subdivide to the original lot configuration or another situation where you want to do the opposite and make someone combine the properties or consider combining properties. Or, you get into situations where the older properties have been split off at different periods of times and where people own partial lots. If you go into the existing Code and opinions I have read from the City Attorney's office you can have a lawfully conveyed site, • which means it is a legal site, but it is not a legal building site. We get into a lot of conflicting situations and I guess it is my feeling that I don't feel we have gone far enough with this subdivision ordinance in dealing with the older part of the City and the fact that that is more likely where we are going to be facing our subdivision questions. I guess as an example of what Commissioner Tucker talked about, on that whole set of findings on page 55, 1 think that somehow in there we need to recognize somehow that the City has this underlying pattern. We need to be able to deal with the underlying subdivision pattern in making our findings and decisions. I would like to see lot line adjustment provisions brought into the Subdivision Code. Right now it appears that they are all scattered around in the Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance. It seems to me it would be easier if we had all the lot line provisions in the Subdivision Code to see what they all are. That is a lot of what we deal with, moving these lot lines around particularly in the older residential areas of town where houses are torn down and people buy property and they have lots, partial lots and the people next door to them have the same situation. The Section on lot line adjustments is virtually one paragraph on page 94 that refers you to the Zoning Code. We need to have criteria and it doesn't seem we are addressing it enough in the policy format here. Commissioner Tucker stated he thought the deviation from design standards was kind of a "cure all" clause and it will address a lot of these issues. It probably does not address the lot line issues, that is a point well taken because it is not a subdivision. Although the re- orientation we treat as a subdivision or a lot line adjustment if new lots are being created. • 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 Chairperson Selich stated if we wanted to restore the underlying subdivision pattern, you would have to make only one finding that says it is in the public interest to restore the underlying subdivision pattern and not have to go through all these other things. Somehow, it just doesn't seem that we recognize that is there. Commissioner Tucker asked about a situation where you didn't want to recognize the underlying subdivision pattern and you like the resubdivision, then you just wouldn't make that finding. You wouldn't feel more comfortable having a bunch of findings to not make? It would just be on that issue alone? Part of it is discretion, part of it is a hurdle. Future deliberators, the question is should they have a sterner test before they go back to it rather than just favoring one project and the fewer findings you have to make then the more of an opportunity to decide for one developer and one project for whatever reason that guy gets approved. At least with these other findings, if they take the findings pattern as seriously as we have taken them, they will wonder if they can really make those findings. Chairperson Selich responded that I am almost thinking that it is easier, and would be comfortable making the finding to go back to the original subdivision pattern based on one criterion. But I would not necessarily feel the same way to not go back to the existing subdivision pattern. There would be a higher • burden of proof or higher criteria to go away from the underlying subdivision pattern as opposed to going back to it. We really have three situations; one where the underlying lots have been abandoned and someone wants to restore it; one where we may as part of some type of review determine that it is better to go and remove the underlying lots; and then there may be one where the applicant himself wants to go back and restore the lots. Commissioner Gifford asked if findings 4 - 7 would take away any flexibility. If you just take away the standard of necessary, are any of these taking away any flexibility? Chairperson Selich responded that I don't have that strong an opinion that you only do one criteria, but I do feel that somehow we ought to have a statement in here that we are recognizing the fact that the City was previously subdivided into certain patterns. If would certainly make it easier to go back and deal with situations like the one out on Peninsula Point that we dealt with a couple of years ago. Commissioner Gifford asked if we could add another finding that says it didn't result in anything smaller than the original subdivision pattern; to just get that thought into there? Commissioner Tucker stated that might defeat the purpose if the original subdivision pattern was bigger lots and areas are coming on for smaller development. A commercial lot that goes to residential would be an example • or former school sites. 22 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 Chairperson Selich - suggested taking that example because the Old Corona del Mar elementary site was re- subdivided into 30 foot wide lots. Ms. Temple stated the lots still existed. It was two complete blocks and the primary subdivision was really the abandonment of the intervening street so that the internal four lots within that subdivision are all 45 feet wide because they gained half of the right -of -way. They are all 30 except the four in the middle. I would like to make some clarifications on where we might be making some changes for the Commission. Ms. Temple noted that Commissioner Gifford suggested that one of the standards be that the lots be no smaller than the original subdivision, that particular proposal brought an old case to mind over in Corona del Mar where a property owner owned a whole 30 foot lot and a 25 foot portion of the adjoining lot. He wanted to adjust the line to create two equal lots at slightly less than 32 feet. It was that particular proposal, which was very controversial, that brought about some of the legal opinions. Adding a provision like that would be on point to that kind of circumstance which has arisen in the past as opposed to a different circumstance where you may have portions of lots where the division results in the minimum lot size or larger and that is a different circumstance. I think those are the kinds of directions that will help us make • adjustments to this or other provisions of the chapter. Chairperson Selich noted that, outside of the deviation proposal, we have done nothing to deal with the minimum lot sizes. We still refer to the minimum lot size in the code so if it is 5,000 in R -2 it stays 5,000 in R -2, so the only way to deal with this is through the deviation procedure. Ms. Temple stated that is correct, or to reduce the standard, which is also possible and can be done in both the Subdivision Code and the Zoning Code. It might also help us with the Housing Element. Chairperson Selich asked if it would be practical to take the older areas of the city and actually set up a different minimum lot size in those areas and just come right out and recognize that they are different. Theoretically what the Code is doing is to force all those areas to go to 5,000 square foot lots. Why not call a spade a spade and call them out as 30 -foot minimum lots in those areas? Ms. Temple stated she believes we can. We would have to look structurally how we would do that, whether we would have different subdivision districts. I am sure we can adopt different standards for different areas of town. One thing that you do address is that then, none of those lots are considered substandard with the Code. Chairperson Selich stated I am still concerned that we allow the City to impose new conditions on any extension approval. Some cities do it and some don't. • There is so much involved with the Tentative Map approval and once you get 23 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 in and then come in for an extension, you should not be subject to a lot of new conditions being added on to your projects. Regarding street grades that Commissioner Agajanian mentioned, I feel comfortable with the County standard of 10 %, that is pretty much the way the rest of the world does it. On Page 25, the definition of remainder parcel, are we clear in our Code here or elsewhere that a remainder parcel that is not included in the boundary tract map is not necessarily a legal or buildable parcel? On page 27, separate maps for physically separated parcels, why are we requiring a separate map for properties that are physically separated? Mr. Lawrence explained that it is for a separation by other properties, whereas for an ownership that crosses an arterial existing street it is legitimate practice to include that in one tentative map. If they are separated by intervening property it is difficult to make that one tentative map. If you have a ten -foot strip it's one thing, if you have a half -mile, it is another thing. I will go back to the Map Act and ensure there is nothing in there about that in case you may want to delete it. Chairperson Selich asked if we are not requiring any NPDES studies to be submitted with the tentative maps? I thought there was a new law that went into effect recently that required that to be done. Are we requiring NPDES . studies with tentative maps? Mr. Lawrence responded I am not sure that needs to be put into the Code. That is often in the application materials themselves. It and many other things are required, but we do not have it in the Code. Mr. Edmonston answered that the whole water quality issue appears to be getting tighter and tighter. The one concern about putting that into the Subdivision Code is that it may change before the code gets adopted. Commissioner Tucker noted the regional boards are adopting a waste discharge order but then direct the other local agencies within its jurisdiction to adopt conforming legislation. We will probably be ordered to do that within a time frame, that is what they have done in San Diego County. Chairperson Selich pointed to page 41, imposition of new conditions, it says that it needs review by the City Attorney. Has it been reviewed and what was the outcome? Ms. Temple answered that no, it has not been reviewed yet. Chairperson Selich stated that on page 47 1 would be in favor of the staff's recommendation on the 56 -foot right -of -way. Page 50 on lot design, what provisions do we have for flag lots, if any? • Ms. Temple answered that our Zoning Code requires minimum lot widths, not 24 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 minimum frontage widths. So if it would average at the minimum lot width, it would be considered a conforming lot even if it were in a flag configuration. I think it would be helpful to specify and call it out separately as it is a different kind of a configuration. We have many flag lots in Big Canyon. Chairperson Selich noted that on page 72 fees for interim classroom facilities, it says that the procedures shall be in accordance with Chapters 4.7 and 4.9 of the Subdivision Map Act. I could not find those sections, can you tell us what those say? Mr. Lawrence answered that it should have said Government Code instead of Subdivision Map Act. It's the enabling provision that the cities and school districts cooperate in doing. Chairperson Selich asked if there is some reason why we have to say that the School District may impose school fees? That is not really in our jurisdiction. Mr. Lawrence answered that it is there to make it more user friendly to the inexperienced subdivider who thinks he has all the fees from the City and that there also fees from other agencies. It is not necessary to have that in there. Chairperson Selich referred to page 89, what is the significance of August 2, • 1943? We have never done a lot merger, correct? Ms. Temple answered that is when we adopted 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots. Not to my knowledge have we done a lot merger. Public comment was opened. Phil Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive, noted the following: • Encouraged by the deviation criteria although it sets a fairly high order for consistency. • To the extent that the Ordinance discourages a subdivision event, it is not necessarily in the City's interest or the public's interest. That event assures an environmental study and requirement for a determination; makes properties eligible for affordable housing exactions; makes properties eligible for a park fee exaction; sets up opportunities for infrastructure exactions in connection with a tract map that may not otherwise occur; and provides expanded opportunities for property dedication. • Among the rest of the growing county, there is an extraordinarily number of high quality smaller lot, smaller home subdivisions that would stand a test of evaluation. • The BIA office has told me that they have not had adequate time to look at the ordinance and they're continuing to do so now. • The BIA discourages specific development standards being included in a subdivision ordinance with all the cumbersomeness of amending an • ordinance, and like to see design standards included in design manuals 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 like the Public Works manual. To the extend that the appeal of a subdivision tract map is allowed to a single vote for a council member to call up for review, we have opposed that in every City we have been into because it trivializes the work of the Commission. The eligibility of credit on privately maintained open spaces, particularly open spaces that may be available for the public, all of the planning studies for the Banning Ranch have included an extensive, elaborate and expensive public trail network along the bluff face. It appears to us that the standard for criteria for crediting any of those improvements against the park improvements is limited to 0 to 20%. It appears to be inconsistent with what we read in the staff report. If further limits the discretion of the decision making body to make intelligent judgments on the value of the facilities, we think there are far more constituents and visitors interested in the vistas from bluff top trails than we do for people roasting wienies in the park. You would prohibit the subdivider from getting the credit for a facility that may be a private facility that reduces pressure on taxpayer owned facilities. The criterion does not identify trails as an eligible facility of credit. I think it should be up to 5017o discretionary eligibility. Commissioner Gifford stated she recalls when the site of Newport North was developed, there are public trails in there but it is a gated community and there is no sense of public access. Would we need to put something in to make sure that public access is not an illusion or would the fact that you have to make an application and it is not a right be considered? Mr. Bettencourt responded that you would have to make an application. If it was a County subdivision, you would file a Park Implementation Plan showing your proposed credit eligibilities. Legitimately, you could draw a different standard as the ordinance purports to do already between recreational facilities exclusively for the use of the residents versus those that are being provided by the subdivider that are public property. Commissioner Tucker asked how this process is going to work. Is staff going to work on these comments and then come back to us to sort through? If it is going to be that way, then I would like to see them in writing pointing me to specific sections and giving the rationale. In order for me to make decisions on recommendations, I need to see something in writing. Chairperson Selich then asked Mr. Bettencourt to supply any and all comments in writing as he is speaking for at least three different entities (Banning Ranch, Weeda project, BIA). We need specific ideas and solutions. Mr. Bettencourt agreed. Ms. Temple noted that coming from a point of allowing no open space credit • currently, we do know that the County allows credit up to 50%. We thought 26 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 adding some credit was fair, so we went part of the way there. It is more a philosophic call than a working call. The basis for staff's hesitation has to do With our overall deficits in active parkland. It is an ongoing problem for the City, for the recreation programs citywide and as you note, Banning Ranch being the last big subdivision to come through it also provides the last significant opportunity for the City to achieve a significant active parkland to support those activities. It is that concern that led staff to a lower rather than higher credit number. The City's principal goal is to achieve another 12 -15 acre community recreational facility of a nature like Bonita Creek Park. That is not part of the proposal but at our current 5 acres per 1,000 rate, a 50% dedication in a single location would actually accomplish that goal. However, it wouldn't in addition to that accomplish the goal of Sunset Ridge Park /CalTrans West. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to continue this matter to the second meeting in July. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanion, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser, Kranzley ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: • a) City Council Follow -up - Mrs. Wood noted that at the City Council meeting of June 12th, there was an amendment to Title 5 of the Municipal Code, an urgency ordinance to allow temporary electrical generators for businesses to help them with the expected black outs during the summer; the Senior Housing in the GEIF District was approved on the first reading; the Harbor and Bay Element was adopted; and Use Permit revocation for the BUZZ Restaurant was referred to a hearing officer to conduct the appeal hearing. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairperson Selich reported that there was a debate on whether they should be making a recommendation on the economic development of the Koll project. In the end they made a recommendation that found that the project has substantial financial impacts for the City. C) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - In response to Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the outdoor dining at Crabby Kenny's is proposed at the front wall of the restaurant within the dining restaurant and have only access from the inside of the restaurant. The only concern is that it is going to make the inside of the restaurant noisier from the traffic on Newport Boulevard. d) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future • 27 INDEX Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 agenda for action and staff report - none. e) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Mrs. Wood noted that the committee approved the outline for the key choices document, that is the document to be used to educate the public about what the issues are. Staff and the consultant can now get going on producing that document. We need to have more discussion on what the key choice issue questions will be. The committee approved the request for qualifications for the other technical study we want to get started for the fiscal and economic study. Status report on Planning Commission requests - In response to Commissioner Gifford's inquiry, Sharon Wood stated that PROP has recommended the removal of the ficus trees on Main Street and a new tree designation of 'Coral Gum' will go the PB and R Commission on July 3(d. There is a concern as to how well the trees will establish themselves if we use a larger size, and larger sizes may not be available. g) Project status - there are no items for the July 5th meeting so there is no reason to have a meeting. Commissioner Tucker will be gone for both the 9th and the 23rd of August. It is suggested to have a meeting on August 16th instead. The issue will be decided on at the next meeting July 19th. • There was a brief discussion on the Newport Fish House regarding the Use Permit. h) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Tucker asked to be excused from the month of August meetings. xx� ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 p.m. STEVEN KISER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 28 INDEX Adjournment