Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/30/2005"Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 30, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 19 " file:// N: IApps1WEBDATAIIntemet \PlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - All Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Mr. Elwood Tescher, consultant, EIP Associates Carleton Waters, consultant, Urban Crossroads PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on August 26, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of August 16,2005. ITEM N 1 Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item to September 8, Continued to 2005. 09/08/2005 Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: Review of General Plan Update Land Use Recommendations and ITEM NO. 2 Selection of Preferred land Use Plan /Project for Environmental Impact Report Discussion Item " file:// N: IApps1WEBDATAIIntemet \PlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 2 of 19 r. Elwood Tescher reviewed the staff /GPAC recommendations for the West ighway. imissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the open space above the library ;ado. He noted the City Council has committed to this as open space but he wo specific square footages inserted, or something, so that is not cut back in npt to accommodate other uses. nissioner Eaton asked how the 600 units will be allocated to the traffic there are twelve different traffic zones in this area. . Tescher answered that in the planning traffic modeling, regardless of the inte ies the allocation of where the uses are permitted, the traffic model takes itroid of all the uses within the outer boundaries and allocates them to the peript surrounding network. The retail /entertainment use will be allocated to the Fas and Center square footage; the office uses will be allocated to those areas 'rently have office entitlement; and the housing will be located possibly to rtheast of the area. ier Hawkins asked for a statement on the methodology for the and evaluation of the alternatives. Tescher stated that as you go through the process and the public hearings the be the environmental impact report that will enable you to understand the vario acts of the various land use options under consideration not only from traffic B :r factors that must be addressed. As you are making these recommendatior ed upon the EIR and additional public input, when you make a recommendatii iin the context you can opt for something that is of a lesser impact than what tl found but it is much more difficult to go to the other area. So, for example ead of 600 units, it was your recommendation at the time that we triple the housii s in the area, and that had not been considered in the EIR, you would have se the EIR and go back for a public review process. So we do err and caution t higher side to work back from. imissioner Eaton asked if the lower intensities will be reflected in the EIR and those alternatives be generated, and who will decide upon them? Will the tr lei be run only on the preferred land use plan or will it be also be run on Tescher answered that by State Law, an EIR has to consider a project that res lesser impacts than indeed the primary project as being considered and evalue the EIR. Where the alternatives are less, than those will be considered a part of R. We have not yet defined the alternatives, we will be doing that next w lowing these discussions. These alternatives will not be going back to GPAC. Carleton Waters, consultant from Urban Crossroads, answered that we are rune traffic model for the current General Plan and the preferred alternative. The to reserved one model run based on the decision making process to address ifications between the alternatives and the preferred. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 3 of 19 Tescher added all of the trip generation resources and tabulations of all natives to date will be included. immissioner Tucker noted that what we ultimately pick could be a lesser intensity an what we study in the EIR. We have gone through the study areas. Who is goinc look at the specific choices for specific properties and when are they going to do it? e expressed that doing it at the last minute in two meetings is not going to be hk oice. We have a long time now before we have to make those decisions and ggest that we, or somebody, look at given areas now. i. Wood answered that staff and the consultant team have started talking at iting the Land Use Element itself. We should be able to have some of that to oner. Another goal of this General Plan update is to back away from some of rcel by parcel specificity that our current General Plan has because it is unusual not what the State Planning Law calls for, and so we are exploring ways where n express these General Plan entitlements in a more general way instead of spei signations to parcels. missioner Tucker noted that landowners are going to need to understand wha can, and can not do with their property out of the effort that we are going through. ig an area and applying entitlement, we need to discuss how that will work an( is no reason it can't be happening now. Who will be involved, GPAC or the ling Commission, ultimately the City Council, whomever, we need to start now. imissioner Henn noted the Economic Development Committee pointed out ti e were defects in the calculations in the economic impact of retail /commercial Fashion Island area that resulted in a substantial understatement of the benefit in terms of revenues to the City. s. Wood answered that we use a city -wide fiscal impact model. There is a gen >sumption that for all retail commercial zoned property we use a standard separa 40% service commercial and 60% retail commercial. That same break down )plied in Fashion Island that shows a lower sales tax return than what you would you had more retail. We believe that in Fashion Island there probably is more t )% retail as opposed to service and that will be run again when we run the ft ipact model on whatever the preferred land use is. Tescher added that they are updating the fiscal impact model concurrent with is model. comment was opened. comment was closed. Eaton asked if a conference center could be considered in this Wood answered that a study had been done several years ago. The conclusion study was that a conference center needs so much subsidy, and in our case c ;Is are doing well enough, that there wasn't the return for the City to be providi kind of subsidy. That idea was more for Council deliberation rather than a st " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/3012005 Page 4 of 19 was made by Commissioner Tucker to recommend the additional feet retail, no change from the existing entitlement for office, housing lent by 600 dwellings, and increase entitlement by 65 rooms for hotel. loner Hawkins noted that overnight lodging could encompass the conver and, none of this address the open space issue raised at the start of n. The open space issue should be incorporated here. issioner Tucker noted that his motion does not contemplate changes on and does not want to get into each parcel in that context tonight. It is up to I to determine if a convention center is needed. nmissioner Hawkins noted he could not support the motion because of the lack open space designation for the parcel north of the library. Tescher reviewed the staff /GPAC recommendations for Corona del Mar. immissioner Eaton asked what the difference is between the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .5 and the existing. Is. Temple answered that both the existing and the proposed FAR is 0.5. GPAC iscussion was on the reconstruction of non - conforming buildings that exceed 0.5. A pecific provision is included in this document about reconstruction in certain . Tescher noted the GPAC recommendation was for the re- building based upon a tural disaster that would also allow the possibility for someone to upgrade, improve renovate their building. GPAC recommends the option to re -build to the same Boice, resident, noted: Corona del Mar is comprised of buildings that were built in the 40's and 50's and when an effort has been made to replace with a newer building they run into the burden of maintaining the 0.5 FAR. The end result is that the same buildings will be there forever. In a new building that is reconfigured for retail space, you can't do it the way it exists now unless you have a fire or an earthquake. What we would like to do is to have the ability for those who wish to replace their buildings have 1.0 FAR. Removing residential for parking spaces at today's cost would come to about $200,000 a parking space. >. Temple noted that the City has historically carried the standing development as sumed to continue without being taken down. Changing the reinstatement of non - nforming buildings upon demolition in addition to destruction or natural disaster out control of the owner will not have any implications to the impacts to the traffic and culation system. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Intemet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 5 of 19 c Schuline, resident and business owner, stated that as an owner of several ings in Corona del Mar, he can not knock his buildings down and replace them modern buildings due to the current restrictions. He stated that his options are limited. in Blom, resident and business owner, stated that people have put in underground king and parking on rooftops. In order to do something this expensive, you have to able to build on a 1.0 ratio in order to make it worthwhile. Following a brief - ussion he suggested a parking district for Corona del Mar when people come to City for a variance for parking, charge them for it. Put that money into the parking Act so then the City would have money to buy a piece of property for parking rather n just giving a parking spot that will not be used because it is inconvenient to the isumer. At Commission inquiry, he noted that people should be allowed to build the ne size square footage structure as presently on the property. comment was closed. mmissioner McDaniel noted his concern is not the fact that we give the ability to re- Id at 100% of the size that they have, it is what are they going to use it for? One Iding now that is an old building that has two people parked during the day; then it is i down and has a use of 20 people an hour. How do you allow for that without )wing individually what is going to go in there? I support the fact of charging a fee parking spaces, but I don't know what that number would be. I would like to see rona del Mar be re- vitalized on a regular basis, but there are issues in terms of king that we are not going to solve easily. irperson Toerge noted that there hasn't been a time when anyone from the munity has support parking waivers in the Corona del Mar community. The mercial property owners would, but there is no support from the residential munity. When parking has been waived it is based on the specific merits of the not of the structure, particularly in conjunction with use limitations that are ;hed to that particular use. In the case of those restaurants, the operation hours anted the waiver. The suggestion that we allow buildings to remain at 0.5 .rage is in contrast to what we hear when applicants come before us. The ussion of parking nodes throughout the community and the creation of some in -lies to help create their own parking is a great idea but so far, nobody has come up a plan that is workable. It is a linear commercial district and allowing someone to four blocks away will not solve the problem, that would be the parking of last rt. An in -lieu fee will only work if there are locations spread out along the arterial would be reasonably workable. t Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted a substantial number of the buildings are m- conforming, both as it relates to floor area and as to lack of code required parking. the FAR was increased to 1.0 there would be traffic implications, whereas the origina commendation would not. followed on the policy of non - conforming buildings. missioner Tucker recommended to stay with the development capacities of 0.5 per the existing General Plan and the right in event of fire or other natural disa; r our Municipal Code as opposed to the General Plan to re -build in those " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Eaton asked about the parking issues of this policy. Hawkins agreed with Mr. Bloom's comments regarding in -lieu parking Tescher stated the GPAC policies recommended for parking were for the shared lities as identified in the staff report with the caveat that the ground level is used for Hawkins asked about the impact of incorporating the GPAC >ns. Mr. Tescher answered it was neutral. issioner Tucker noted that if we added up to 1.0 FAR, which in many cases be what is existing, that we would end up with traffic ramifications. Tescher explained that it is neutral from the standpoint of the additional square age. Referring to the exhibit, the existing General Plan, which has the .5 FAR, ws on the sites with sites that are developed with less than with the .5 FAR acity. Today there is a square footage increase of about 125,000 square feet iin the area with some additional office square footage as well. Staff and GPAC i recommended the same consequences. The charts already include the )erties that are built at higher than the 0.5 FAR as the base. nissioner Tucker noted that some of them are not built to what the General Plan s and some of them are built to over what the General Plan allows. If all of them the right to go to a higher number, isn't Patty's position right? Wood noted the recommendation was not to allow every property to go to 1.0 just those that exceed the .5 now could re -build at whatever non - conforming leve are at. The reason that would not have any implications on traffic or ronmentally above the existing General Plan, is because our past practice has i to assume that existing non - conforming levels of development will remain on the md. This is in addition to a natural disaster, if someone wanted to re- develop their erty they could demolish what is existing and re -build at the same intensity. iissioner McDaniel stated we are assuming that if a property is rebuilt to the size it was that the use will remain the same. If the use changes that could e parking. s. Wood answered then they would have to meet the code required parking for iatever the new use was. We are not talking about giving breaks for parking, all this saying is that one could re -build the building. on was made by Commissioner Eaton to recommend as GPAC recommended the revised wording acknowledging that does not address parking problems. nissioner Henn clarified we are recommending the 0.5 FAR plus the policy re- recommended by GPAC. maker of the motion agreed. Eaton, Hawkins, Page 6 of 19 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Tucker Tescher gave a staff report overview of the basic recommendations from the nissioner Eaton asked about the area designated by the 65 dBA CNEL boundary Mr. Tescher, referring to the exhibit, pointed it out. nissioner Eaton asked about the residential units. Mr. Tescher referred to the on page 77and the staff report on handwritten page 50. Eaton asked how the replacement would be managed. Tescher answered the calculations were based upon these properties for these fictions indicated as a permissible use and replacement as well as in the northwest ier of MacArthur and Jamboree. He affirmed that the additions would be on the property as the scale of the buildings was a primary factor with one and two story dings today. The scale of the Sutton Place hotel or some other buildings would not essarily change. It is being looked at as a unit, and if the replacement happens on irking lot, that will have to be replaced and integrated into the creation of those ;r pedestrian linkages, architectural and landscape relationships. imissioner Eaton asked about the reduction of densities, what was the reduction is it the same throughout? Tescher answered the intention and discussion was that this was intended to be rage density over the entire site with approximately 50 units per acre. He noted there may be a variable height achieved within the area, but we are not going to cifv where. ;r Eaton asked about the two 65 dBA CNEL lines, what are the of managing them? Harp answered that there has been some discussion regarding the liability ;ociated with overruling the Airport Land Use Commission's decision. There is an nunity applied to the proprietor of the airport if the City elected to overrule the mmission's decision. However, there is no statutory liability imposed upon the City overruling those decisions and no case law supporting imposing any liability on the Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the City has overruled the Airport Land e Commission for a child day care facility on Bristol Street. missioner Tucker discussed the dates for the settlement agreement and the Bss of overriding. Somebody is obligated with what goes on as to their impacts on and people. Discussion followed on possible potential liability and agreements. ntinuing, he brought up the issue of the Conexant site and discussed those options. a manufacturing use, it does not seem to be adaptable to an office use. If that nufacturing use went away, what kind of plans do we have if that building is no Page 7 of 19 " file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005\mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 8 of 19 a manufacturing use? Tescher answered that the recommendation is to allow the site to be converted to :e, retail, or housing. The number of housing units is not incorporated and was not ulated separately. We have asked that this be looked at as one of the Ihborhood village concepts. Discussion continued on trip generation rates. nissioner Tucker noted he would like to see the housing in there. The airport may not end up being trip neutral at the end. The airport area has a lot less tr< ems as opposed to along Coast Highway and that would be the better place to housing, to keep the traffic numbers down. sioner Cole noted this is one of the few areas that had wide support for growth the Visioning Process. He noted his concem of office development there as Tescher explained the option of office or residential. He noted that for the EIR >oses the existing General Plan is being assessed as well that would allow only the soner Eaton noted that there should be caps on trips relative to the existing Plan trips. He discussed intersection levels of service. He added that al should not be allowed in the Campus Tract. Hawkins asked about the implications of the Roma study? Wood noted the first priority was for Roma to help with the number of dwelling > that might be reasonable. They are doing refinements of how much density can it at various sites and are starting to develop policies. Some of the policies they Id draft could end up in the General Plan Land Use Element and help with sions on appropriate locations within the airport area for residential development, connectivity so that we can be creating a real mixed use district. There are some testions for parks, different recreation needs and size of the projects that may be ing forth. Some of these policies may end up in the Zoning Code. nmissioner Hawkins noted that to the extent that the City needs to make decisions arding the project description for the EIR in connection with the Land Use Element, have sufficient information from them that we can move forward and not risk a blem down the road. agreed. comment was opened. n Saunders, citizen and member of the General Plan Advisory Committee, noted following: • Recognizes the City needs more housing. • The Birch Street area is an undeveloped area. • The General Plan should not be an additional constraint to development that might be desired over the next twenty years. • The area noted within the decibel boundary is not suitable for housing. The " file: / /N:\Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 9 of 19 Development Standards should be the constraint upon this area, rather than the General Plan. • He then explained the methodology used for recommendations on development capacity allowing flexibility. • The Birch Tract was included for flexibility as over half of it is in the area that is suitable for housing. • Encourages the Commission to not be overly restrictive particularly in the Birch /Campus Tract areas. • GPAC recommends that areas B and C be combined to allow housing. mmissioner Tucker asked if there is a difference in terms of the traffic study where TAZ's are and the intersections are that we designate which of these properties are which use? Should we pick a volume of housing to study and figure out where that Lime is going to go? That way, Roma Consulting will have more of an opportunity to ne their plan. Waters answered that the traffic generated from this basic area will be d over a broad area, the specific locations will have a minor affect on r It is more important to identify a quantity of potential residential use. imissioner Tucker noted his concern of a situation where the trips from Conexant understated because it is being treated as an industrial use when it isn't under the itional concept. For the EIR purposes I would like to figure out the number of units should go on that property. )mmissioner Hawkins noted that there needs to be a methodology to determine the amber of housing units in this area. My understanding of the 3,300 residential aximum it was trip neutral, that was the basis. If that is the case, we can allow sidential so long as over the existing General Plan it doesn't increase the trips. That a methodology on which we can proceed and I would like to propose that. >erson Toerge, referencing the bar chart, asked if the potential 1,000 units that replace the Conexant site are included? Tescher answered the additional estimated 1,000 would reduce the chart for the istrial as that is the current designation on site. "hairperson Tucker suggested that for the EIR we support staffs recommendation w he expanded 1,000 units that might result from the Conexant site and reduce the ndustrial. This would add to the EIR study and allow us more flexibility in evaluating and uses. Henn asked for clarification on the 3,300 number on parcel C, how was arrived at? Tescher explained the calculation. Eaton asked about residential in the Campus tract. Wood noted that in the long term for policies in the General Plan, this is not an -opriate place for residential so close to the airport. We also need to continue to ide places for retail uses in support of all the other uses there including the airport, " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 10 of 19 new residential and office that exists today. For purposes of numbers in the EIR, if we ust go with the 3,300 or the 4,300, that will not make much difference at this point. We ill deal with the policy issue later on after the EIR. traw vote: Adding the 1,000 units to the Conexant without the cap: Chairperson Toerge, yes Commissioner McDaniel, yes Commissioner Henn, yes Commissioner Cole, yes Commissioner Hawkins, we need a cap Commissioner Eaton, we need a cap Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to do the development capacity adding the residential maximum of 4,300 units and we will decide where those go later, without a rip cap for the purposes of the EIR. Mr. Tescher clamed that we are adding 1,000 residential units within the entire boundary of the entire area, some of which may occur within the Campus tract area and that the trip cap would be applied to sub -area B on the map only. The maker of the motion replied that it applies to everything that it would have applied to except for the 1,000 unit Conexant without a trip cap. All I am trying to do is the development ca aci recommendation with a little tweak. Ayes: Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: I Eaton, Hawkins Ranch Tescher gave an overview of the recommendations contained in the staff report. Toerge asked if the property owner had been contacted. Wood answered that there have been discussions with the property owner and we ild like to keep the numbers noted in the recommendation (the Taylor Woodrow posal) to give us more flexibility to work with the property owner and make sure that study enough units in the EIR. comment was opened. Basey, representing the Banning Ranch property owners, noted: • There is extensive oil production operations that encumber much of the property that has resulted in a network of roads, well pads, pipelines and facilities, along with a mixture of degraded native and non - native vegetation. • About 85% of the land lies within the unincorporated Orange County territory although it lies within the City's sphere. • The current General Plan would allow up to 2,735 dwelling units, 285,600 square feet of office space, as well as industrial and commercial uses on the site. • A study was done several years ago to set forth a balanced plan for the re -use of the property. This plan when compared to the existing General Plan, represents a 36% reduction. It eliminated office and industrial uses. " file: / /N:1AppsIWEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas12005 \mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 11 of 19 • More than half the land will be permanent open space and will include habitat, recreation and preservation restorations. • Any proposed new land use on Banning Ranch can only be achieved after an extensive oil field abandonment, remediation and consolidation effort. • The property owners' plan for the site commits to undertaking that clean up and restoration effort as the first step towards reclaiming and re -use of the property. • We recommend that the Commission adopt staffs recommendation as we do to incorporate the 'Taylor Woodrow' option for analysis in the EIR. )mmissioner Hawkins asked about the commercial uses. Basey noted it would allow for up to 75,000 square feet of retail uses as well as dertake the complete restoration and clean up of the site. incy Gardner, Co -chair of GPAC, noted GPAC was very strong about the numbers. iblic comment was closed. )mmissioner Eaton noted: • The 'Taylor Woodrow' premise allows for the greater flexibility and has the land owner's support. • The Commission has never seen this plan. • I do not support development going down the bluffs, but I support the rest of the plan. • I favor staffs recommendation for the EIR purposes. )mmissioner Tucker noted that the Commission had seen this plan and had a study ssion on it some time ago. He noted the essence of the plan for the enlightenment the Commission. Dtion was made by Commissioner Tucker to support the staffs recommendation for D 1,765 housing units; 75,000 square feet for retail; and the 75 units for overnight commodations. )mmissioner Hawkins noted he would like to have the motion include the open space ,ue that is called out in the recommendation. He noted that the gateway area called a specific open space plan or trail that does not currently exist. The Banning Ranch much more vague and general about the open space issue. We talked about a river nt park that could be regarded as open space, I am not referring to quantity. That is same area, right? 3. Wood noted the Orange Coast River Park would be north of Banning Ranch and proponents of that park would like to include the wetlands from Banning Ranch. )mmissioner Hawkins noted his agreement with the residential numbers, but wants it include a remainder for open space, so that we recognize that preserve as it was portant to GPAC and residents. )mmissioner Tucker noted he would not change his motion as there is a fair amount that site that is submerged and there will be a lot of open space areas as there is no ier alternative. We should study this for the EIR now and at some point deal with it " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 12 of 19 when there is an actual project discussed. I am not sure anything will happen to this site. Commissioner Hawkins agreed that, because the earlier Taylor Woodrow plan had a substantial allocation of open s ace, he could support the motion. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Other Land Use Revisions: Lido Isle Mr. Tescher gave an overview of the other land use areas as contained in the staff report. Commissioner Eaton asked about development going back to original lot lines Ilowing a merger on Lido Isle. Ms. Temple noted that this has happened very seldom and peculiar circumstances have to come together to allow people to break lots back down to original 30 foot lots. The first is you must have a lot configuration that is whole lots and many of these lots are small fractions of lots. Sometimes you may even get more than two owners to get together in such a way that they are the appropriate underlying lots able to be reconfigured. This may have happened on the order of one maybe two a year at the most. She further stated that there is a tendency to bring more lots together on the water front to create a larger lot so that larger homes can be built. Chairperson Toerge asked if the existing development with current trips could be integrated as a comparison base line with the trip reduction so that we can see the difference? Will the EIR consider those 3,000 trips being there versus not being there. Ms. Wood answered this was one of the areas shown on the traffic study on the land use alternatives. Yes, that is part of the existing General Plan so it will be analyzed. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made b Commissioner Toerge to adopt staffs recommendation. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island and Beacon Bay Mr. Tescher noted that these are areas where the issue is R -2 designation where the rend has been going to R -1. As previously discussed, the recommendation was to re- designate these areas to R -1 to reflect the existing trend with the possibility of an overlay that would allow secondary units except for the Beacon Bay area. He continued giving an overview of the staff report. Ms. Temple noted that at a recent meeting with several members of each of the Balboa Island associations, there was a discussion on the complexity and property value implications of such a change. With the understanding that the City had the intention " file:// N: 1Apps1WEBDATA1InternetlPlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 13 of 19 iat if rezoned to R -1, there is an intent to add an overlay which would allow second welling units as an expressed permitted use, the group gave me a 20 to 2 indication f favorable. The community leaders did say that they could not fully represent the pinion of the greater Balboa Island community on this issue and so working with those vo associations, the City is working towards setting up a broader community outreach ieeting, date to be determined hopefully in the month of September or early October. that remains a concern, then we can go ahead and leave the two units per lot for the me being because we can accomplish this discussion where a supplemental analysis an be considered more acceptable to the community. ;ommissioner McDaniel noted that it will be very important to have other community utreach on this issue before a decision is made. ;ommissioner Eaton talked about the difference between the densities of R -1 and R- .5. How many of the R -2 lots in West Newport area are developed as duplexes? 7s. Temple noted this is not an uncommon FAR limit in our R -2 areas. The R -1 plus econd dwelling unit is that the conventional two- family mode on Balboa Island is erceived by the property owner to be a single family dwelling with a small apartment ver the garage. The statewide concept of second dwelling units in R -1 residential reas is really to provide for a small second unit that might serve a variety of purposes, otjust housing relatives, it could provide supplemental or more affordable housing to ther members of the community. State -wide housing advocates really advocate for iese kinds of units because of their potential for increased affordable housing. The -end on Balboa Island shows a total of 1,644 dwelling units and of these units, 1027 any one address or are single family. Fully 62% of the standing housing stock on the land is either single family or has a second unit so old it has never received an ddress. The remaining 617 dwelling units have more than one address, sometimes vo or three. There is a significant portion with a strong single family component. ;ommissioner McDaniel asked what the difference is between an R -1 with an overlay nd an R -1.5. Is. Temple answered it would allow the City, for the purpose of traffic, to project one nit per lot with some trend anticipation of people implementing second units. We rould actually be projecting fewer units. If we stay R -1.5 we will assume that every lot rill eventually have two houses on it. Is. Wood added there will likely be an ordinance implementing this and it would .strict the size of these second units so that they would be the traditional over the arage kind of unit rather than allowing for something bigger that would comfortably ouse another family. For purposes of the EIR we keep the two units in all these areas iith the exception of Beacon Bay where it simply can't happen because of the lease. ;ommissioner McDaniel noted this does not account for garages that have been onverted to living units. 'ublic comment was opened. ' ublic comment was closed. lotion was made by Commissioner Tucker that for purposes of the EIR we keep the "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 'F "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 14 of 19 o units in all these areas with the exception of Beacon Bay where it can't happen because of the lease. Ayes: I Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Area bounded by Irvine Avenue, 15th Street, St. Andrew's Road, and Coral Place. Mr. Tescher gave a brief overview. t Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that based upon aerials of this area that are everal years old there were at least 8 lots that had apartment buildings between 3 and 5 units that have been replaced with 2 free standing houses on a single parcel with a condominium approval. So they are functioning and sold as detached single family housing. The development proposals we get are following the same direction. We ould have to come up with some type of detached housing designation that would provide for this style of development unless we wanted to specifically address in our Subdivision Code subdivisions smaller size than conventional lots. That is why people o condo maps. If they can divide the lots legally they would do so because that is referable to them. Commissioner Tucker noted that there are a lot of big units in these areas. It looks like they were built in the last ten years. I wonder if this is something that we should switch or not in this area Chairperson Toerge asked if the current zoning generates more trips than the proposed zoning, and he was answered yes. Public comment was opened. Phillip Bettencourt, resident, asked if this affects the Masonic Lodge property on 15th Street? Ms. Temple answered we would not change the GEIF land use designation. When an institutional user disposes of their property the developer will deal with the City for a land use designation change. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to support staffs recommendation to re- designate for single family residential for the purposes of the EIR. Commissioner Tucker noted the recommendation would be for lower density. I would suggest to leave it as it is because they will be studying the higher one in the recommended land use plan not in the alternative, which is the existing General Plan. You can always go back and decide R -1. Maker of the motion agreed, to leave the designation as is. Ayes: I Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Southern frontage of Westcliff Drive, east of Irvine Avenue, and western frontage of Dover Drive, south of Westcliff Drive. Mr. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Intemet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/3012005 Page 15 of 19 Commission inquiry, Mr. Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads, noted: . The proposed changes are estimated to generate a slight reduction in traffic and allowing some residential uses to replace some of the higher intensity uses that are currently allowed. blic comment opened. blic comment closed. Mon was made by Commissioner Tucker to move the recommendation contained in � staff rannrt Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn property bounded by the Corona del Mar/73 Freeway, r Boulevard, and University Drive. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. e was a discussion on access to this site through a potential extension of Fairchild a potential for retail. ssioner McDaniel noted if this space is going to be used for retail, then we designate it as retail and not open space. Wood gave a brief report on their discussions with Cal Trans on this area. Tescher added that GPAC thought this may be some sort of habitat area and ass issues due to size of the boundary. Discussion followed on the exhibits. blic comment was opened. I Boice, resident, noted that when this area was brought to the attention of the C Committee it was voted open space. This area is in the path of the migratory als coming down from the inlet down to the habitat along San Diego Creek; also, were problems with access to this property. If Bayview Way is one of the major s to come in as access, that is blocked by the car wash at Fletcher Jones Motor it is a dead end. GPAC members drove along this area and they felt that this was not a good place for access due to the excessive speed of the drivers. ss the wildlife have changed their migratory pattern, I don't think this justifies a ge in designation of open space to commercial. I hope that you honor the GPAC, ,tal Commission and Fish and Game and keep this area open space. 5. Wood noted this is not the same site that Fletcher Jones Motor Cars had applied the Coastal Commission for their parking. The site we are talking about now is on opposite side of the 73 Freeway, whereas, what Fletcher Jones Motor Cars want( use was the space underneath the ramps. (Referencing the exhibit on the screen inted out what would be that area). comment was closed. McDaniel noted this should be retail. " file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 16 of 19 Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to designate this area retail for the purposes of the EIR. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Remnant property adjoining the Corona del Mar /73 Freeway, north of Bison Avenue. Mr. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to designate this area open space for the purposes of the EIR. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn North side of San Miguel Drive, east of San Joaquin Hills Road, and west of West Newport Hills Drive (former child care facility). Mr. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. Commissioner Eaton asked about the density and trip generations. Mr. Tescher answered that the density would be comparable to the adjoining multi- family residential which is 22 units per acre. Mr. Waters noted this would result in a small net reduction in traffic. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to designate this as multifamily Residential with no access from San Miguel for the purposes of the EIR. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Property West of Big Canyon Reservoir, north of Pacific View Drive. Mr. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to re- designate as multi - family residential desi nation for the purposes of the EIR. Ayes Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Citywide Entitlement Reductions. Mr. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report noting that this reflects the reality "file:HN:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 17 of 19 the build -out from the existing capacities to reflect what actually has been built on Fund. There is a reduction of housing units and commercial square feet in the rations noted. These properties are owned by the Irvine Company and reflect the entions of the company. >. Wood noted that if the General Plan is implemented, the entitlement will be luced. scussion followed on the numbers of trips generation. Mr. Waters added that it )uld be on the order of - 20,000. iblic comment was opened. iblic comment was closed. Dtion was made by Commissioner Tucker to recommend to the Council to reduce a residential /commercial entitlement that is shown on the staff report under Citywide ititlamant Rarluctinnc IBJECT: Review of General Plan Update Circulation System and ITEM NO.3 selection of Project Description for Environmental Impact Report Discussion Item Wood noted that the traffic model runs that were done on the land use alternatives veloped by the General Plan Advisory Committee, we had recommended in the �neral Plan Update Committee that we should eliminate assumptions we have Bays made in our traffic model about some improvements to the circulation system, th locally and regionally. That list is in the letter from Carleton Waters of Urban )ssroads to Mr. Tescher of EIP Associates. We are suggesting for the EIR to add ck in a couple of the traffic improvements that we think are very important to serve r future traffic needs regardless of what the City of Newport Beach does on land a. Those two would be the 19th Street bridge and the widening of Coast Highway ough Mariner's Mile. Commission inquiry, she noted the existing General Plan assumes that all of these :ulation improvements will be made. What we are suggesting for the EIR is that we ninate all of the ones except for these two. . Waters noted the analysis examined the current general plan land use as well as a ige of preliminary alternatives ranging from a true minimum to a sub -area iximum. After review, our staff concluded that if the City does not continue to itemplate having those pieces of infrastructure in place in conjunction with the land a element there will be a need for either extreme improvements to other elements of roadway system, or there may be a need to consider a change to the city's level of vice policy. e 19th Street bridge would primarily relieve the Coast Highway area between the nta Ana River and Superior Boulevard, and the alternative analysis showed a need additional through lanes on Coast Highway in both directions without that bridge. nilarly if you choose not to widen Mariner's Mile there will be no way to attain the y's current level of service objective of LOS D. That is the decision that the City is " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Edmonston noted the long standing plan of the City for Mariner's Mile includes a 1 widening on the inland side, no additional widening on the bay side. It is a strained section and allows parking on only one side but it was deemed to be :onable because of the severe constraint on the water side properties. It is sistent with the existing Circulation Element. Hawkins asked about the extension of the 15th Street to Coast Waters noted this is associated with the Banning Ranch property and is envisionec be a roadway part of this development. That 15th Street connection down to Coasi ghway relieves one of the key intersections (Superior /Balboa Blvds at Coast ghway). We wanted to make it clear that if development for Banning Ranch is ntemplated, we should insure that an arterial level roadway that is open to the public provided as part of that development plan. The analysis would include that 15th reet connection if the Council pursues the type of recommendation that the Planning >mmission has made regarding Banning Ranch. airperson Toerge noted that the 19th Street bridge is controversial. Why wouldn't want to show the residents the impact of if not being there? Waters answered we have already done that in the context of the preliminary matives in the constrained roadway network and we will present that with and out that bridge as part of the preferred alternative analysis to assure that the ortance of that piece of infrastructure to the operation and level of service along st Highway is clearly laid out for the public and the decision makers. ommissioner Tucker noted that both of these items are controversial and have been i the books for a long time. For our preferred plan, are you asking us to tell you that should include these two improvements even under a constrained scenario? Is ther( )Ing to be any study done as to what our preferred plan would be like if we didn't ave those two improvements? Waters answered this would be looked at with and without these two pieces of comment was opened. comment was closed. ion was made by Commissioner Cole that the Planning Commission recommend the Preferred Alternative Circulation Element roadway system analyze the EIR be aly consistent with the constrained network that was used to evaluate the minary alternatives, with the exceptions that the 19th Street crossing and the ;Wing of Coast Highway to 6 through lanes through Mariner's Mile should be ssioner Hawkins noted this recommendation conflicts with the discussion in tion with the 15th Street to Coast Highway. My understanding is if Banning goes forward, then we need an analysis of the 15th Street connection to Coast Page 18 of 19 " file: / /N:1 AppsI WEBDATAI InternetlPlnAgendas12005 1mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 19 of 19 Isn't that part of the circulation element? Waters answered the 15th Street connection has been analyzed in the preliminary ernatives dependent upon the level of development assumed on Banning Ranch. It presumed to be dependent on that corresponding land use direction. ommissioner Tucker added that the motion would include that alternative with the anning Ranch. This issue will have to be decided by the City Council, we have made recommendation. It will happen some day sometime in the future. Edmonston added that when the Banning Ranch proposal was reviewed, 15th yet was not a planned roadway on the map. They were proposing to extend 16th 17th Streets. This is the best way to analyze the circulation for the Banning Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn _. .. .. .. _. .. -• -1 - - -. . -.. .. -. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION " file: / /N:1 Apps1 WEBDATA1 InternetlPlnAgendas 120051mn08- 30- 05.htm 06/25/2008