Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/1982 (2)�MMISJIUIVtKS ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers x TIME: 2:00 p.m. ? m m DATE: August 19, 1982 y City of Newport Beach All Present. •xx STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director - Robert P. Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia L. Temple, Senior Planner - Donald Webb, City Engineer Nancy M. Alvidrez, Steno Clerk SUBJECT: Data Analysis of West Newport Study Area (Public Hearing) 1* I I I I Analysis of existing and permitted land uses in the West Newport Study Area. LOCATION: Properties generally bounded by West Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard, 16th Street and Newport Crest /Banning. ZONE: M -1 -A, A -P -H, C -2, R -3 and Unclassified INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach - •xx Mr. Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, stated that this matter was first suggested by the City Council in December of 1981. The Council requested that Planning _ Department Staff review the specific area plan priorities with the Planning Commission and report back to the City Council with recommendations. in February of 1982 the Planning Commission requested time estimates for compilation of basic data with respect to projected and permitted land uses in all specific plan areas. In March of 1982 these time estimates were presented to the Commission and tentative priorities established. On June 10, 1982, the Planning Commission reviewed the land use survey for.the West Newport Study . m. CD • • August 19, 1982 Z] Area, then set the notification given West Newport area. item for public hearing with full to the residents and owners in the Mr. Hewicker, Planning Director, pointed out that some of the development figures are rather high and cautioned anyone using them that they are based on zoning district intensity limits and do not take in to consideration the physical constraints on the development of these properties. He stated that the City has not attempted to quantify what the actual development potential of the area is. Mr. Hewicker also pointed out that the figures in the Traffic Model are figures that the Planning Department Staff provided for input to the Model and not figures taken out of the Model. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that at the time Staff was trying to put the Traffic Model information together the trends of development in various areas of the City were utilized to arrive at a realistic projection. Mr. Dick Clucas, resident of 4403 Seashore and President of West Newport Beach Association, stated that the traffic circulation system revolves around the capability of Pacific Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard to handle the in and out traffic that comes to and from that area. Mr. Clucas recommended that the residential area in the West Newport Triangle be retained as a residential area. He stated that there is a substantial density of offices and hospitals in that area, including the Hughes property which is being substantially expanded. The Park Lido Medical Facility has been approved for substantial expansion and offices are also approved for Heritage Bank on the corner of Superior and Placentia. He stated that the traffic impact caused by an office facility is approximately twice that of a manufacturing use. Mr. Clucas stated that the alternative of specifically permitting office uses in the M -1 -A area should be eliminated and replaced as a light industrial area which does not create the traffic impact of offices. Therefore, Mr. Clucas recommended that no more than the 0.5 per buildable acre be used which would allow less density and create less traffic problems. - 2 - MINUTES INDEX m m c n n m a 7 7 fm + Vl 3 • August 19, 1982 MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Balalis stated that the residential area that Mr. Clucas referred to is planned for 20 units to the acre. He stated that at the time this area was annexed by the City, the people did not want to join the City unless they retained the same buildable rights they had with the County. He added that the City has a moral obligation to retain the permitted 20 units to, the acre at this location. Mr. Hewicker stated that the City annexed the property with the uses and the intensities generally. permitted by the County. Otherwise, the Board of supervisors would not have allowed the annexation to take place and the area would still be a county island. This also applies to the commercial and industrial areas of the Triangle. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Hewicker stated that when the commercial and office development were annexed, a maximum intensity of 1.0 was included in the General Plan Amendment, which is a lower floor area ratio than other areas of the City, and this did not meet with any opposition. He also stated that the County Triangle is currently zoned Unclassified. Commissioner Balalis asked if this commitment would ever preclude the City from changing the intensity of development. Mr. Hewicker stated that the commitment is between the City and the individual property owners who had great reluctance when the City annexed the County Triangle. He stated that any changes in intensity which would be considered should be reviewed with the annexation agreements in mind. In response to a question .posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Hewicker, stated that the City has the right to study and review the entire area, including the County Triangle area. Commissioner Allen stated that the property in the County Triangle is currently zoned Unclassified. She expressed her concern that changing the M -1 -A District would also affect other M -1 -A areas within the City. Mr. Hewicker stated that the floor area ratios could be • added to the M -1 -A designation, such as M- 1 -A -0.5 or M -1 -A -0.35, for specific pieces of property in the City. In this way, changing one M -1 -A District in the - 3 - Z MINUTES August 19, 1982 n w F . City of Newport Beach INDEX City would not necessarily be changing the other M -1 -A Districts. Additionally, there are only two areas zoned M -1 -A,, the area currently under discussion and the Campus Drive area. Commissioner Winburn asked when a parking structure becomes a part of the calculated structural area on a piece of property. Mr. Hewicker stated that commercial zones, industrial zones and even some of the . multi - family zones do not include parking as a part of the floor area ratio. He stated that there have been discussions of including parking structures as a part of the floor area ratio because they increase the intensity of the use on the site. However, he stated that parking structures are not a visual impedement if they are subterranean. He stated that he has also heard discussions that surface parking also be included. Chairman King stated that subterranean parking allows • for an increase in the bulk above the surface. Therefore, an amendment to require inclusion of parking areas in floor area ratio calculations should include subterranean parking structures. Commissioner. Balalis stated that the City has not had too many underground parking facilities in the past. Developments are required to provide one parking space for every 250 square feet, which in the past automatically affected the floor area ratio because surface parking was provided. Ms. Louise Greeley, from the Board of Newport Crest Homeowners Association, stated that the Association supports Mr. Clucas' recommendation that no more than a floor area ratio of 0.5 be seriously considered. She expressed her concern that high -rise parking structures create visual pollution. She further expressed her concerns relating to the granting of variances for lesser setbacks and greater heights. Ms. Jan DeBay, resident of Seashore Drive and Officer of the West Newport Beach Association expressed her concern that developers are squeezing the absolute maximum densities on their properties. She stated that • this creates inadequate traffic circulation and impacts the community as a whole. - 4 - August 19, 1982 lSLl MINUTES Beach Mr. Hewicker stated that the General Plan and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance are used to evaluate proposed projects relative to traffic and circulation system impacts. Thus, when a new project comes in they are required not only to look at the existing development on the ground but the committed projects that have already been approved and the various years when they_ will be coming on line. The one thing that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does not include, of course, are commercial projects of less than 10,000 square feet and residential projects of less than 10 dwelling units. Additionally, Mr. Hewicker pointed out that in respect to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, he believes there should be either a change in the ordinance or a change in the Council Policy which administers the implementation of the ordinance relative to the fact that once a project is approved by the Planning Commission and /or the City Council it is then considered forever as a committed project. Chairman King recommended that Mr. Hewicker's suggestion be further studied. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Hewicker stated that when an applicant obtains a variance, modification, use permit, or tentative map, they are required under law to exercise that right to develop within a specific time period. If they do not exercise that right, they loose that right. However, he stated that once a project has gone through the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, it is on the books forever. Commissioner Balalis stated that if a project was approved and passed through the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, he couldn't perceive how it could be kept on the books once that project's primary approval of a use permit or tentative map expires. Mr. Hewicker replied by stating that there might not be a use permit or tentative map involved. For example, a 15,000 square foot office building where there is no discretionary approval required, except a traffic study, can stay on. the list of approved projects. If it has another discretionary approval, i.e. a use • permit, the approval would lapse in terms of the use permit but not lapse in terms of the traffic phasing study. Mr. Hewicker further stated that an amendment - 5 - � r c m ^ m August 19, 1982 lSLl MINUTES Beach Mr. Hewicker stated that the General Plan and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance are used to evaluate proposed projects relative to traffic and circulation system impacts. Thus, when a new project comes in they are required not only to look at the existing development on the ground but the committed projects that have already been approved and the various years when they_ will be coming on line. The one thing that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does not include, of course, are commercial projects of less than 10,000 square feet and residential projects of less than 10 dwelling units. Additionally, Mr. Hewicker pointed out that in respect to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, he believes there should be either a change in the ordinance or a change in the Council Policy which administers the implementation of the ordinance relative to the fact that once a project is approved by the Planning Commission and /or the City Council it is then considered forever as a committed project. Chairman King recommended that Mr. Hewicker's suggestion be further studied. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Hewicker stated that when an applicant obtains a variance, modification, use permit, or tentative map, they are required under law to exercise that right to develop within a specific time period. If they do not exercise that right, they loose that right. However, he stated that once a project has gone through the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, it is on the books forever. Commissioner Balalis stated that if a project was approved and passed through the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, he couldn't perceive how it could be kept on the books once that project's primary approval of a use permit or tentative map expires. Mr. Hewicker replied by stating that there might not be a use permit or tentative map involved. For example, a 15,000 square foot office building where there is no discretionary approval required, except a traffic study, can stay on. the list of approved projects. If it has another discretionary approval, i.e. a use • permit, the approval would lapse in terms of the use permit but not lapse in terms of the traffic phasing study. Mr. Hewicker further stated that an amendment - 5 - August 19, 1982 MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance establishing a time limit on approval should be considered. Commissioner Allen stated that in the situation of Park Lido, where only a traffic study was approved, the approval has no time limit on it. Conceivably,. the property owner of Park Lido now has a traffic study, approval to allow development of a building at a given size for a certain number of square feet forever. We could consider a time limit on traffic study's similar to those on a tentative tract map or on a use permit so we wouldn't have to carry things on the books forever as committed projects. Commissioner Allen further stated that another problem of the ordinance is that the more committed projects there are, the easier it is to pass the ordinance because the easier it is to get under the 1% impact at an intersection. Commissioner Balalis stated that the City has looked for ways to provide housing for its elder citizens and • persons of various incomes. He suggested. that the industrial areas around the Production Place area could be modified and identified for this type of housing. He asked Mrs. Greeley if this would be acceptable to her neighborhood? Mrs. Greeley replied by saying that one of the things that was recommended very vigorously on the Banning Property was a housing mix so that a certain portion of it could be developed at a greater density to provide affordable housing. Mr. Hewicker stated that in order to provide some degree of affordability, it takes a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Balalis stated that there are already properties that are zoned 20 units to the acre, but those properties by no means are considered affordable. You can't just say that today you're going to rezone the property to 20 units to the acre and expect it to be affordable. There are areas in the Triangle right now that 2 years ago were affordable, but the moment that they thought they could sell them for condominiums at 20 units to the acre, prices went up. Certainly 20 . to 22 units to the acre is appropriate if you are going to have two bedrooms or 21� bedrooms, but if you are talking about smaller units such as 450 or 500 square feet for elderly then 30 units to the acre may be feasible. ti W F n m 9 c a August 19, 1982 MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance establishing a time limit on approval should be considered. Commissioner Allen stated that in the situation of Park Lido, where only a traffic study was approved, the approval has no time limit on it. Conceivably,. the property owner of Park Lido now has a traffic study, approval to allow development of a building at a given size for a certain number of square feet forever. We could consider a time limit on traffic study's similar to those on a tentative tract map or on a use permit so we wouldn't have to carry things on the books forever as committed projects. Commissioner Allen further stated that another problem of the ordinance is that the more committed projects there are, the easier it is to pass the ordinance because the easier it is to get under the 1% impact at an intersection. Commissioner Balalis stated that the City has looked for ways to provide housing for its elder citizens and • persons of various incomes. He suggested. that the industrial areas around the Production Place area could be modified and identified for this type of housing. He asked Mrs. Greeley if this would be acceptable to her neighborhood? Mrs. Greeley replied by saying that one of the things that was recommended very vigorously on the Banning Property was a housing mix so that a certain portion of it could be developed at a greater density to provide affordable housing. Mr. Hewicker stated that in order to provide some degree of affordability, it takes a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Balalis stated that there are already properties that are zoned 20 units to the acre, but those properties by no means are considered affordable. You can't just say that today you're going to rezone the property to 20 units to the acre and expect it to be affordable. There are areas in the Triangle right now that 2 years ago were affordable, but the moment that they thought they could sell them for condominiums at 20 units to the acre, prices went up. Certainly 20 . to 22 units to the acre is appropriate if you are going to have two bedrooms or 21� bedrooms, but if you are talking about smaller units such as 450 or 500 square feet for elderly then 30 units to the acre may be feasible. X MINUTES August 19, 1982 of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Clucas stated that there is a substantially lower traffic pattern for a senior citizen facility than there is for regular residences. if that were the case, it would make that kind of a unit much more acceptable in terms of higher density than something else. Mr. Clucas further stated that he thinks that because of the substantially different traffic pattern., for senior citizen housing this would be an acceptable alternative for the area surrounding the emergency facilities of Hoag Hospital. Commissioner Allen stated that a 600 square foot senior citizen unit occupied by one or two people is considered a dwelling unit and is calculated as a dwelling unit per acre basis. She stated that a 3 bedroom condominium is also calculated on the dwelling unit per acre basis, yet the two types do not have the same traffic patterns. Commission Allen asked Mr. Clucas if the people who • live in the west Newport area are concerned about things like the size, the bulk of the building, the traffic it generates, and the number of occupants that it has, or do you think that we are so 'entrenched in the dwelling unit per acre, that we are always going to be talking numbers? Mr. Clucas stated that his guess would be that the people of that area are primarily concerned with the traffic that is generated by a unit. He believes that the people in his area are: 1) concerned with traffic, 2) concerned with the visual impact in the area, 3) concerned with the air quality, and 4) concerned with the use of the airport. Commissioner Balalis asked .Mr. Clucas if the City should increase densities in some areas and also asked if the M -1 -A owners should have the opportunity to convert their properties to office space. He stated that the City is faced with providing some type of alternative housing. He suggested that Mr. Clucas respond to those questions at the next meeting on this issue. Commissioner Balalis stated that both senior citizen housing as well as other types of housing should be considered. • ! ( I I I I I Chairman King stated that the staff report has tried to I demonstrate that the zoning will permit certain numbers of units to be built, given certain situations. He - 7 - MINUTES August 19, 1982 � r c m W m a H City of Newport Beach 0 INDEX stated that the Planning Commission will attempt to come up with zoning which will be more realistic in terms of what a certain area can handle. He stated that it is possible to build affordable or entry level housing within the City and that with the input of the citizens and the assistance of Staff, the Commission will achieve this goal. Sandy Wilford, resident of 14 Balboa Coves, speaking for Bill McLaughlin, addressed the Commission regarding what used to be the Jimmy Cagney property. He stated that if this property is developed by Hoag Hospital, the traffic may then empty onto Hospital Road, which will only increase the traffic in the area. He stated that even though this parcel is not in the study area it will have a peripheral impact on the traffic in the Hospital Road area, and should be taken into consideration. Planning Director Hewicker stated that CalTrans East site is currently leased by the City and then • subleased, and is designated as Open Space on the City's General Plan. It is zoned Unclassified because of the possibility that Hoag Hospital could purchase the site from the State. Commissioner Allen said that as we look at the possibility of a 0.5 density, there is. a significant difference between the traffic generated by a light industrial area and the traffic generated by an office. The difference between 13 -14 trips vs. 7 trips is almost twice as much. Commissioner Balalis stated that in an industrial area you basically have about a 258 land coverage, whereas in an office area you can start at O.5.because of the two story concept. There being no additional public comments Chairman King closed the public hearing asking that another public hearing on this item be put on the calendar for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 7, 1982. • 11111111 Meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m.