Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/29/2007"Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 29, 2007 Regular Meetinq - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 19 "http://wv,/w.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/2007/mnl 1292007. htm 06/20/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter and McDaniel Commissioner Toerge was absent, all others were present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager David Lepo, Planning Director Robin Clauson, City Attorney Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Gerald Gilbert, City consultant planner Joe Foust of Austin Foust Associate Dane Privitt of Bonterra Consulting Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING O HE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on November 21, 2006. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: North Newport Center Planned Community ITEM NO. 1 Fashion Island (PA2007 -151) Recommended Code Amendment to change the zoning classification of Block 600 from the or approval to the Administrative Financial Professional (APF) District to the Planned CommunityCity Council (PC) District; Planned Community Development Plan Amendment to adopt a new Planned ommunity Development Plan for Fashion Island, Block 600 (bounded by Santa Cruz Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Rosa Drive, and Newport Center Drive East), and portions of San Joaquin Plaza (bounded by Jamboree Road, San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive) and Block 500 (bounded by Santa Rosa Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road, Avocado Avenue, San Nicholas Drive, and Newport Center Drive East) and to remove these areas from the San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community Development Plan and the Block 500 Planned Community Development Plan; Development Agreement to vest development rights and establish a public benefit contribution to the City; raffic Study to evaluate potential traffic impacts and circulation system improvements; Page 1 of 19 "http://wv,/w.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/2007/mnl 1292007. htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 Affordable Housing Implementation Plan specifying how the development A the City's affordable housing goal. `er of Development Rights finding that the transfer is consistent with the of the General Plan and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Chairman Hawkins request, Mr. Alford recapped: These amendments will create a new Planned Community Development in the Fashion Island Newport Center area including the majority of properties in San Joaquin Plaza, Block 600, Block 500 and Fashion Island. The three PC's (San Joaquin Plaza, Block 500 and Fashion Island) will be amended to take those properties out and form a new Planned Community which will include land use and development regulations and guidelines dealing with future development in these areas; The PC's for the remaining properties will remain unchanged. Block 600 will be re-zoned to the new PC to be incorporated in that North Newport Center PC; The Development Agreement will secure development entitlements in exchange for public benefits; The Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) deals with projects ability to meet our General Plan policies dealing with housing needs; Traffic Study is required under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO); Transfer of development rights is permitted under the General Plan policies. response to questions received at the prior meeting regarding the PC texts, rking, setbacks, etc., a supplemental report has been distributed including a )morandum dealing with traffic issues. Information from the City Attorney's ice dealing with some environmental issues has also been provided. He noted arald Gilbert, Dana Privitt and Joe Foust, City consultants who are available to swer questions. n Miller of The Irvine Company (TIC) gave a brief overview of the presentations de at the last meeting. He noted this application is consistent with what was )roved in the General Plan and the agreements must be in place before TIC ceeds with development. There is now one cohesive Planned Community text all areas for consistency and cohesiveness allowing them to move forward to )lament the mixed use areas. They have read the additional supplemental staff ort and concur with the additional language and discussion on the setback uirements and parking management plan. However, on the office parking ndards, staff is recommending a change from 1 per 375 square feet to 1 per ) square feet. That is problematic and the 1/375 has worked well in Blocks 500 1600. We would rather retain the particular existing standard (1/375) as it has rked well and is appropriate for these mixed use areas. This is the only nation from the staff report that we have and agree to all the other isiderations. We concur with the resolutions and the other documents, the king standard is the only issue we are requesting be changed. Eaton asked about the conditional use permit for Block 600. ke Erickson, RBF Consultant for The Irvine Company, answered the auirement is 1/375 square feet for Block 600 for general office uses that has en built into the past requirements. This had been re- confirmed with the Four aasons parking studies as well as when the hotel expansion was approved and 1/375 requirement was continued on as part of that particular approval. When last building was put in, this standard was again re- confirmed. This has been place for a long time and the typical view of the upper deck on both parking uctures is mostly empty, so it seems to be working well. There were different Page 2 of 19 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /P[nAgendas /2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 06120/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 :nts for Family Fitness and the Twin Palms but the general office use constant at 1/375 square feet. r Eaton asked if there was a later version of the November 9th Agreement. Miller answered that the discussions with the lawyers have been ongoing but deal points are the same. Timing has somewhat changed but the fees are the ie. There is a change and that is for the offer of dedication for park and open ce site of the OCTA site south on our land if the City decides to put the city hall ind the library. There are no substantive changes to what has been ,sion continued on the potential City designation of the monies as well as and types of project issues. ssioner Hillgren asked about the 500 Block as being all office and how it to mixed -use concept and parking ratios. Miller answered the 1/375 relates to office, if other things are put in they have it own standards, which need to be worked in. 1/375 has worked well in Block I and again we have extra parking there and other owners in that same block re parking agreements. In doing a parking management plan, the 1/375 is still acing and will work if we add additional square footage there. The city hall, if it nes in there, will have a higher parking standard, so they will have to have king dependent on the final size and what is worked out. We are basing ours existing practices and the way it has worked well and will continue to. He led that other than office, there are no other uses today. Wood clarified that 1/375 square feet is the existing requirement in the ned community for Block 500. on Hawkins noted paragraph 4.1 in the Development Agreement the processing of subdivision maps. Miller noted that the park fees will be paid for these units but they ask for an on to do maps or not do maps. It will not change the payment of park fees, bu s in the Development Agreement an option to do or not do maps. Our current nt is to build rental apartments. If we need to move forward and have "for sale s, then we will do maps and there are also provisions that any additional park will have to be recalculated and we will pay that then. arson Hawkins asked about the option in paragraph 1.24, nothing has :d in connection with the terms and conditions of the option. The option begins and ends on certain dates and certain requirements have to be Miller agreed and added that the parking structure design and concept of the hall will be reviewed and commented on by both parties. Wood noted that there is nothing in the clarifications referred to by Mr. Miller would impact the findings with regard to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. lie comment was opened. tt Smith of Best, Best and Krieger, representing Ron Presta, referring to his :r that had been distributed to the Planning Commission, noted the following Page 3 of 19 "http: //www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007/mn11292007.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 s: the disruption to the parking configuration and availability; increase to costs, and potential for over - deviation from parking standards. suggested that the parking management plan include a site plan and evidence nonstrating the peak hour parking demand from all buildings, uses and tenants issioner Eaton noted the common parking issue should be addressed by of the property, not the City. Smith added that his clients own the rights to 90 parking spaces through a snant of the fee grant subject to shared use. He noted that the City Engineer ds to assess the parking for all tenants who have rights today. Darrell, director of the Kennedy Commission, noted the concern of the stency of this proposal with the General Plan. According to the State's te, the city's Housing Element is not in compliance. The City is being iraged to look towards Newport Center for appropriate sites for affordable ig development and there has been no discussion and asked for more >sion on potential options for new unit development or purchase long -term ability in existing units in the Bays development. He asked that there be discussion on these options. Wood noted that a Housing Element needs to meet the requirements of State N and be certified by the State Department of Housing and Community velopment (HCD) as complying or, you have the option of self certifying. The using Element of 2006 was certified by HCD and we were a compliant agency. e next required update is due in June 2008 and we are working on that. In ween those times we updated the Housing Element to make it consistent with of the General Plan when that was updated last year and that is still with HCD J we are working with them on additional information they are requesting to -ig that into compliance. Compliance with State Housing Law is not determined aed on how many housing units have been built in the community within the A year or within a planning period. It all has to do with whether the Housing :ment meets the requirements of State Law and has been certified by the State. e went on to explain what must be done to update the Housing Element. imissioner McDaniel noted for the record that the Housing Element has been will continue to be addressed as mandated by State Law. icia Harrigan, local resident noted her support of additional affordable housing in e City. The implementation seems open -ended and not specific as to when ings are going to happen. quiel Gutierrez, attorney with the Public Law Center, noted the designation of affordable housing being placed outside the project area. He expressed his cam on how the traffic generation will be dealt with in the Environmental act Report. Hawkins noted this is an addendum to the EIR. xge Jeffries, local resident, noted his concern of the consistency and the ipliance between existing and proposed uses. The General Plan policy notes expanded retail uses and hotel rooms and development of residential in Kimity to jobs and services while limiting increases in office development. He ad the office development is recommended to be limited as opposed to new ding. This proposal would eliminate some retail and virtually all hotel rooms Page 4 of 19 "hftp: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendtis /2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 d create new office building of over 270,000 square feet; this is not consistent :h the General Plan. The elimination of hotel entitlements replaced with office titlements is a departure from the spirit of the General Plan and is not insistent. The proposed transfer of density is dependent on a finding of uivalency in traffic generation. The trip transfer traffic study attached to the )posed EIR addendum uses the ITE office regression equation to estimate the ffic for proposed new offices. It attempts to demonstrate that larger office velopments produce less traffic per square foot than smaller office project. It is sed on very large office buildings in urban downtown settings and is appropriate use multi - building on multi block situations. As this is based upon a suburban age it is questionable whether that formula should be accepted. The formulas ed in support of the original General Plan used different formula traffic studies. u are therefore using one formula for this study and using two other formulas foi original study. You should use the same formulas and apply those to the new provements to get consistency and equivalency. ry Tucker, local resident, referenced his correspondence to the Commission. noted policies recommending accommodation of uses that maintain or ance fiscal health and account for market demand and development. New ;es are a permitted use in the General Plan subject to limits. The Council is m the discretion to allow for the transfer of development rights within Newport iter with a finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General n. Flexibility is important. The City Council will be making the final Vandersloot, local resident noted his support of the application. He noted the ;y on transfer rights can be made with the finding that the transfer is consisten the General Plan and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. It makes >e to build residential where people work. It also gives the City the ability to a site for a new city hall in Block 500. This process is allowed by the General i and should be approved. )res Offing, local resident, noted her concern of the traffic study measurement hods. An addendum may be prepared if only minor changes are proposed. City Council cut 40,000 square feet of office in our City. How can you take hotel rooms and transfer those into 248,000 square feet of office when we ded in the General Plan we did not want anymore office? We voted for land designations in the EIR for the General Plan. You are supposed to have ;ific plans and studies and we haven't done anything. The public doesn't know I is going on. Hendrickson, local resident, noted the costs of a new city hall, traffic, ovement monies for San Miguel and Avocado intersection improvements. He �d that the park site would still be less expensive. is comment was closed. oe Foust of Austin Foust Associates, consultant for the City, gave a presentation n the regression equation or ITE's estimations. Referring to an exhibit he xplained the findings that were based on extensive studies representing a total of 35 different office complexes ranging from a few thousand square feet up to a pillion square feet. These 235 office buildings are located in suburban areas in ie range of 100,000 to 5- 600,000 square feet. He noted a small office building of 5,000 square feet could have an expected peak hour trip generation rate of 4 ars per hour. A large million square -foot office complex would only have about .2 cars trips in the p.m. peak hour per 1,000 square feet. It is a consistent curve nd is a function of the size of the office building. For this project with changes in 00,000 up to 6- 700,000 square feet this formula is used. He went on giving Page 5 of 19 uhttp: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 0612012008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 and explaining the methodology for the growth increment. Cole asked why this was not used in the General Plan. Foust answered the General Plan analysis was based on socio- economic i. This method recognizes that leaving in the evening hours from the office, stop off to do a couple of errands meaning there is trip intervention. These rates are determined if you observed the driveways at the office complex and it the traffic in and out. These rates are adjusted for pass -by trips. regression equation has not been used that much in the past in Newport -.h because it is not used for small projects. At Commission inquiry, he noted for Newport Center they have checked the trip rates and comparisons and d that Newport Center generates significantly less traffic. missioner Eaton noted his concern that the addendum to the existing General and the traffic studies done for the General Plan were based on the Newport :h traffic analysis model. He noted the rates used were quite different. Brine answered that there are two references; NBTAM is what was used in evious TPO traffic studies and that has a trip generation rate. The NBTM is the cio- economic model that was used as part of the General Plan and is not a trip aeration base model, it is a socio- economic. There are two distinct models, on a land use based model (NBTAM) and one is a socio- economic model. They e not the same. nissioner Eaton verified that the rates in the table provided are close to the used in the traffic model used in the General Plan EIR. The rates used in tt Health Center were quite higher but came from a different source (previous General Plan). He noted this alleviates his concern as the office and hotel are quite similar to the ITE rates. Brine added that the ITE trip generation rates used for this traffic analysis ig the ITE trip rates pursuant to City Council policy as approved in July 2007 prior to that the NBTAM rates were used. Miller, noted the following: The existing parking agreements will be honored provided by TIC; maintenance costs will be paid by all tenants using the cing spaces on a pro -rata basis. Wood noted that in considering a parking management plan, the traffic neer should look at the properties included in the new planned community idary as well as all the properties outside that boundary that share in that ;ing supply We could add some language to that effect to our Planned Miller noted with regard to the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) uded in the packet, it meets the goal that was set out in the new General Plan has a variety of options including new construction, covenants that TIC meet r requirements which is an average 15% goal; we have restricted where we pul enants on existing apartment units and that is across the street. In this plan, have to put them across the street in the existing apartment complexes so they in proximity to this development. AHIP gives the flexibility to create more low, I low income housing. If we can't meet that, we have to give you more units on other moderate side. AHIP has the timing so as we are pulling down a third of ,e units, we have to account for a third of the affordable housing units. The tentage is maintained. Page 6 of 19 "hftp://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PinAgendas/2007/mnl 1292007. htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 in Hawkins asked about the creation of new affordable housing units. has a limitation on the number of new units that could be created. Miller agreed adding that we wanted to make sure we could identify an existing where we could put low, very low income units and that is the Child Time site. are restricted on the amount of units by the density bonus and the General i. We will attempt to maximize the amount of units there. We have yet to itify the financing process, layout and general detail but we do know the fiber is 14 units. The goal is to develop a plan that is a mixed income project. can't say now what the make -up will be until we go through that financing ;ess. He went on to explain how the process should occur as well as the ng and site. The Irvine Company wants to site these buildings not in the act but across the street. iissioner Hillgren asked about the affordable housing program and the pt of low and very low housing all in one building. In relationship to the r View homes, this doesn't seem appropriate. He suggested a model of units being distributed between the Child Time site and throughout the Bays Miller answered the financing will drive that and we will work with staff. If we get that achieved and the City wants to mix them, we won't have a problem i that. We have to provide the units, so if there is a strong desire to mix them, will create those units somewhere else in the Bays. Our numbers don't nge, the mix we can work with staff to accommodate that request and concern. nmissioner Hillgren suggested the mix on Child Time site is no different than Bays Apartments as a minimum. Having all the same types of uses in one t is not appropriate. Hawkins asked if this is a proposal to change the Implementation ram. missioner Hillgren answered yes. He noted he is for the incentives. If the are provided on one site, they should be mixed. Hawkins asked staff to work on some language for a mix. imissioner Eaton discussed the concept of the affordable housing ementation plan. He asked if incentives for larger family units or low and very income housing were discussed and should they be applied? Wood answered that there are a number of family -size affordable units in the These are in a number of complexes throughout the City, including the Bays, :h The Irvine Company owns. These units have been provided throughout the 's as a result of the City's Housing Element and the inclusionary program Fe had for years. The number is not as great as those for senior housing and are listed in the Housing Element. arying percentage requirement depending on the income comes from ations done as we've worked on an in -lieu fee for affordable housing. Our imic consultant on that has calculated what the subsidy would be required to le housing units for the three lower income levels. There is a greater subsidy ement for a very low income unit than there is for a low income unit. Our ng Element says we want an average of 15 %. Adjusting that percentage with the information on the subsidy, that is where we get that sliding scale. Page 7 of 19 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 is the only incentive that we discussed with The Irvine Company. There has no discussion on getting larger units. Miller added that the Bays are larger units and any units that they put snants on would be family units. McDaniel noted the need for senior housing in the City. Wood noted the State Housing Element law and our Housing Element as well gnize that we also need to provide housing for people who work in the City we do have jobs that do not pay that much money so we have lower income )le working in our community. McDaniel asked how long this project will be as it is built out. Miller answered that after we get the zoning and the Development Agreement, i we can go forward with the planning. It is at least two years of planning and i hopefully it will be phased overtime. It will be over a period of time when the dential units will be built and could be 5 to 10 years before it is all built. The ket will also factor into this as well. noted the City did the traffic study and we agree with it. The zoning is sistent with the General Plan. Peotter asked about the option length of four years. Miller answered that it was the City's request to allow due diligence and ming time before a determination was made to place a city hall at that site. required by the Development Agreement to complete the parking structure it to a city hall built on that site. The parking structure is going to be built way and we have to have a configuration that will include or not include city parking with exclusive use and access. We compromised on four years for option. He added they would agree to a shorter time period but not a longer Hawkins noted his concern about the timing of the option period. Miller added when the first building permit is pulled, we pay one -half of the $2i on, whether the option is pulled or not. If the permit is pulled in two years and City has still not decided on the option, they get half the money. The City Id still, theoretically, have the option and have all $27 million dollars. The first ding permit will be the parking structure permit. We have to have the parking cture in place and we will pay $13.6 million. The payments are not related to residential or office, it will be the parking structure permit. The parking cture needs to be provided whether the City does anything or not. imissioner Peotter noted the specific land use regulations on the park site. agreement says you will work to remove any deed restrictions that might it if the voters decide that is where they want city hall. Would you object to wing these regulations altogether or at least deleting them for any :rnmental use? Miller answered this is addressed in the revisions to the Development Dement to remove those regulations. Clauson added that what is on that property now is a deed restriction that icts the use to open space and public facilities in accordance with a planned Page 8 of 19 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnl 1292007:htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 nmunity text. That was the language written in the CIOSA and is the basic triction. There are other types of restrictions dealing with mineral rights and ter rights below surface. The only change needed would be the approval of a text amendment or some other change to allow for a public facility (city hall) to on that site. The language is very close and we have worked out language are in the event that there was decision by the City for a city hall on that site it uld be a simple change amendment. ssion continued on the entitlement, cost of reduction of entitlement, sisal, size of city hall, timing, construction staging areas, performance -ements, and option agreement. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Miller noted will be no Mello Roos on Block 500. ssioner Hillgren questioned if the City purchases the land with the time and choose to build at a later date. Clauson answered that if we exercise the option there is a provision that we discussing right now regarding termination if the City does not do certain igs in a certain amount of time. These issues are under discussion with The ne Company. Hawkins brought up the issue of the 375 foot height request in the i; there is no building that high in the development today. Miller noted one building is at 275. The 375 foot height limit is not a request, i the existing height limit in both Blocks 500 and 600, and 65 feet in San Joaquin aza. We are not asking for a change, but bringing forward what has existed. It compatibility and how buildings are situated. The FAA has to approve any iildings over 200 feet. It has worked well and we want to continue with the isting rules we have worked with over a number of decades. irman Hawkins noted the environmental document is an addendum to the eral Plan EIR. There are conditions of compatibility in the General Plan and do not have any building that is 375 feet tall in the Center. This could be nsistent with the General Plan. He asked if a 275 -foot height limit would be r. Miller answered he could not commit to that as the 375 -foot height limit has )rked there. We want flexibility when we do our plans and again the FAA will ive the final say. Our preference is to have what we've had all along. s. Wood noted the 375 -foot height is in existence for the current regulations in awport Center but it also applies in the airport area and citywide wherever there the high -rise limitatiort zone. That is why staff did not question it when it was oposed as part of this planned community. She noted that this is consistent :cause that is what the height regulations have been and we have design gulations and a plan review process in this planned community as well as ovisions to protect residences on the north side of San Joaquin Hills Road from Iditional shade and shadow from these structures. Also, there is not that much ititlement for The Irvine Company to reach 375 feet. nmissioner Cole noted the site development standards were established under vious PC development plans. It also says the reason you did that was to reflect existing development conditions. 375 feet would allow for a 30 to 35 story ding; the tallest buildings there today on site are 16 to 18 stories. Miller noted there is one that is about 18 -19 stories located at 620 Newport Page 9 of 19 "http: / /www. city . newport- beach.ca.us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 Dr. He noted the heights of some of the other buildings. imissioner Cole noted the 375 height is not consistent with the General Plan is incompatible with the area. He encouraged discussion with staff for a more ;istent height in the neighborhood. sioner Hillgren noted it may have been working at the 375 -foot height there has been no entitlement to build. To suggest that we have a that would be another 100 feet taller than what is there today is difficult to He asked for a likely ceiling for those buildings. Miller suggested that if the Planning Commission would recommend a range, could deal with it at the City Council level. Again, we were just trying to stay i the existing rules. Anything that would get to the height of 375 feet could t be dential but right now we have not designed any particular buildings. iairman Hawkins noted the General Plan talks about consistency with the irrounding area, urban form and development scale. That led me to believe that 30 story building would not be for residential, condominium units or apartments. r. Miller noted there will be residential within the project and we want the oxibility. The design regulations and development standards will police that. :)mmissioner Eaton asked about the noticing provisions, do any other property vners get a notice of either the Planning Director's consideration or his decision this proposed process? s. Wood answered, no. This was modeled after the process being used for one id two- family development. Eaton noted the proposed revised language regarding setback Miller noted the language that was proposed is acceptable. imissioner Eaton expressed concern that the street parking count toward the aired parking. This is not allowed anywhere else in the City and I don't think precedence should be set. Would you have a problem if we deleted that Miller noted the parking on the street is in the outer and inner ring road and rves those areas only. It is our request to be included as it serves those uses Jay for the existing office, hotel and retail. We are basically putting into the iting what is being done today as parking for those uses. This PC text is unique this particular area. Wood added that there is another area on Old Newport Boulevard where, agh a Specific Plan that this on- street parking is allowed to count toward the erald Gilbert, contract planner for the City noted this practice has been done on oak seasonal and the applicant is requesting to utilize that standard. The points lade of the uniqueness of the PC text and location, would protect you from 'eating a precedence that would be used in the general zoning areas. He noted would be the specific streets adjacent to the parcels. Hawkins asked how many spaces? Page 10 of 19 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 Brine answered it would be 20 or less. Erickson added it would be 7 to 10 on Newport Center Drive depending on they are packed in and on San Nicholas they are not marked and it looks like have gotten as much as 20 cars there over the whole length. irman Hawkins referred to correspondence from Golf Realty Fund and asked had been reviewed by the applicant. Miller noted that the balance of units they are not using could be used for >idential purposes. City staff has indicated they are in discussion with Mr. allill try to work through his application. We have tried to accommodate our plication with a possible new plan coming forward from Mr. O'Hill. We are not solved with this at all. Lepo added he heard about this correspondence from the Chairman and that letter had not been delivered to the Planning Department for their review. This ter mixes the allocation of hotel rooms and single family dwellings. The last :cussions with Mr. O'Hill were that he was going to develop single - family tacked units and not hotel rooms. That was consistent with what was allocated the Newport Beach Country Club property and staff never believed nor presented to Mr. O'Hill otherwise. As far as the allocation of units, it is first come >t served and therefore there is 430 units being allocated to The Irvine Company d that is what is in the General Plan. The other issues raised in the letter, we II respond to as soon as we can. We have corresponded with Mr. O'Hill telling n we've held his proposal for 27 units for six months and we've never had a real plication from him. Staff had completed it for him to accommodate his desire to ahead, but he has never signed the application nor given his intention. Hawkins noted the hotel entitlement is now being swept into the office t leaving the Golf Realty Fund without the ability to erect hotel rooms on site. Lepo noted that staffs interpretation is and continues to be that no hotel room! e intended in the General Plan to be allocated for the Newport Beach Country site. man Hawkins noted the anomaly area where this site is numbered, rooms on it. Wood noted the first version of the General Plan did have some language that f had added after the City Council action that specifically said no office or :I. At Mr. O'Hill's request we deleted that in one of the clean ups of the feral Plan because that was language staff had added for clarification, not that City Council had put in. However, there still is a note in that table that says for anomaly site, residential uses allowed under the mixed use designation are miffed. I believe that is to indicate only residential is allowed from among the ad use category. ner Eaton noted it appears that it is O'Hill's intent to provide 27 plus 5 most of which would be rented out and subject to the transient tax. Is that possible under the residential designation in the General Lepo answered yes and that a Development Agreement would have to be Dtiated between Mr. O'Hill and the City in any event. If there is any question Page 11 of 19 "http: / /Www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11129/2007 on what is to be paid, it would be made clear in that agreement. Clauson noted it would be authorized or possible through a short-term lodging :ess if they decided to develop bungalows. imissioner Eaton asked about the amount and if what Mr. O'Hill wants would ire a General Plan Amendment. The correspondence to him a year ago was staff was limiting the General Plan application because it was no longer rssary, has that situation now change or will it be necessary? Wood answered, yes. If 430 are allocated to The Irvine Company and if Mr. ill still wants to have 32 residential units, then he would need to apply for a eral Plan Amendment for those. I don't recall what the purpose was for his nal General Plan Amendment application, I think it may have been before the feral Plan update, but I am not sure. )mmissioner Eaton asked if the Commission wanted to acknowledge the fact at Mr. O'Hill has had an application on file since 2005 and reduce the residential 418, what kinds of problems does that present. Miller answered that assumes whether they are hotel or not hotel or sidential, that is a problem for us. Assuming residential, it goes to staff with a :velopment agreement, they then have to go to Coastal Commission, etc., is the Im same number? This is what he is telling what he would request but going rough the process the number may not be the same. We took the best shot ised on the information we had and asked for what we have. It is clear that 430 the number through our negotiations with city staff. It is a moving target for us d we have moved forward on the 430 as an accommodation for what the other operty owner could ask for, we could have asked for the 450. comment was closed. rissioner Hillgren questioned the shade standards and how they came Is it possible that new construction could result in an existing structure in shade all day long? '. Alford answered that it comes from a planned community example that was posed for the Dunes hotel that contained a similar provision in the design idelines, and it was used to address potential environmental impacts analyzed the addendum. The standards were designed to deal with the time of maximum pact and addresses impacts off -site. An off -site location should not be pacted. The home sites across the street should not be impacted all day long, t there is a potential and that is why we have this provision. rissioner McDaniel noted his concerns; street parking included as a parking would set a precedent; and apartments in a high -rise apartment on a 24th missioner Hillgren agrees about the street parking issues; for us to agree to parking standards, it really requires a parking study in addition for a rement of a parking management plan and has to be part of the design w process. These two elements are critical. I have a problem with a 375 -fo building whether residential or commercial. If there was a building 10% :r than is what there today, I would support that as I would look at that as a Cole suggested a range of 275 to 300 feet high which would come Page 12 of 19 "http: / /www, city. newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11129/2007 to be roughly a 22 -24 story building. This would be taller than what is there r and would be consistent with the neighborhood and consistent with what the feral Plan calls for. Staff and the applicant can work with that. On- street Gina should be removed. >ioner Peotter noted his agreement with the suggested range and the of the on- street parking. He asked about the ratio requirements under the d Code. s. Wood answered the Municipal Code requirements for general office parking is scale for the first 125,000 square feet at 11250; for the next 300,000 square feet is a lower requirement; it never reaches 375. Peotter suggested using the Municipal Code office parking ratio. missioner Eaton noted his agreement to remove the street parking as Ling toward the required parking. He agrees about the parking per the cipal Code realizing parking management plans can be implemented. He from Section 20.66.060. He has mixed feelings on the high -rise issue as the oot cap has been in place for a long time in several areas of the City. There J be some concern if the applicant tried to utilize that and his concern is >ounded by the fact that there is no noticing requirement. If there was design w with notice for the property owners to have the ability to review what is I on then my tendency is to be more conservative. He would accept the of 275 to 300 feet. in Hawkins noted there was a consensus in connection with the on -street not counting towards the required parking and the proposed height range 300 feet. nmissioners Cole, McDaniel, Hillgren agreed to the proposal regarding using Municipal Code office parking ratio. Chairman Hawkins noted the consensus Wood asked Commissioner Hillgren about his earlier comment about parking ies being part of the planned review. Was that something you were jesting even if the project met the parking standard, or only if a parking agement plan was requested. ssioner Hillgren answered that if we go with the Code, I am okay without a study. then followed up on his request to mix the units in the Affordable Housing dementation Plan (AHIP). s. Wood suggested the following language to be inserted on page 3 of the AHIP Section 2A which is the section on new construction. 'The units will be providec r a mix of income levels, similar to the distribution of income levels served by ,variants on existing units." imissioner Hillgren noted his concern was over concentration; however we get and is consensus of the Commission, he agrees. :ommissioner Eaton noted the wording refers to the covenanted units in the think the issue was all the units including those not covenanted. Wood answered that would not be possible as there are so many units in the s and the vast majority of them even when the covenants are added will be Page 13 of 19 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 rate and we don't want that. i on market rates and percentages, financing, distribution and the of losing the achievements of affordable housing goals. Miller noted his concern that once they go through the process and find the ncing could be all affordable, it could work. It may work because the financing market rate, but it will be a mix. The bottom line is we still have to provide the s either in the Bays or here, so, whatever way it works out in those 14 units there is not enough affordable in those 14 units, we have to make it up in the s. If the Commission does not want all 14 to be affordable, we want a mix, i we'll try to make it work. Until we go through that process of making that ect work, we don't know what the final mix will be. We have to come up with numbers that are required and we will try to make it work wherever you want. :)mmissioner Hillgren noted he is for affordable housing but not for concentrating em in that building. We should look at that building and the Bays and have an )propriate distribution across them and not have 13 affordable and one market. it is 80% again market rate in the Bays, that new building should be roughly 80% arket units. It could be 100% and all the units are in the Bays, I don't care as ng as we are getting to the increase of the base units. That's a good thing; I am mcerned about the concentration. Wood noted even with the proposed language, I don't know what would ,ent one of the buildings in the Bays from becoming 100% affordable. The ;on I was not concerned about an over- concentration problem on this site is ause it is essentially part of the Bays. It is sort of a leftover parcel and had i used for a nursery school or day care center, now that is gone. The logical for it is an extension of that apartment complex. To me it is not one apartme ling sitting on its own, it's part of a larger complex. >. Clauson suggested language that affordable units will not be all concentrated one single structure within either site. continued on siting, deed restriction, etc. Miller noted the Bays is about 554 units. Whatever level we get to that need snants, they are going to be spread out because we have to have affordable !re there was market, it will not all come at one time in a chunk, the y will be and out. He went on to described the process. irman Hawkins recognized the concern expressed by Commissioner Hillgren noted that the proposed language by the City Attorney could serve the goal put it in both sections of the AHIP. ;inner Eaton noted when new units are built with special bond financing, :s aren't there commitments longer than 30 years? Does the lower Senior have one longer? Wood answered yes, with tax credits it is usually 55 years. The City uirement is 30 years. r Eaton noted that is why the housing advocates like the idea of new Getting the longer time period and the tax credit, that appeals to me. Miller added that TIC has some in other areas that are 55 and 58 years that i have to be used for that affordable. Again, the financing drives what the Page 14 of 19 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 act, units and mix are going to be. It can work both ways and until we go ,ugh that, we just don't know. If you say do not make that 14 all one level, we'll e to work through that. It may also be possible that we will have to spread it through the Bays. Hawkins then re- opened the public hearing to hear testimony on housing. rerly Schuberth, local resident noted she spoke at the last Planning emission meeting regarding the Housing Element and meeting the uirements. The concerned addressed was that converting the existing does count towards meeting these requirements. That was the reason for gesting new construction where we can. There are 1784 new units that must planned for and identified in the 2006 - 2014 Housing Element. At Commission airy she noted in order for the City to meet the Housing Element requirement verting units will not count. It is only new construction that will count. comment was closed. Wood noted the 1700 number is not all affordable, it includes some allocation market rate as well. In this case with the units being provided off -site, we are Ling 14 additional units because if TIC provided them on site, those 65 )rdable units would be within the 430 they are requesting. Ms. Schuberth is rect about the conversion of market rate to affordable not counting towards eting the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goal that is ) porated into the Housing Element. Nonetheless, it is adding affordable ising where there is market rate housing and with the construction of the new i units you can say they are replacing the market rate units. There is pending slation at the State to allow cities to count this kind of arrangement towards r RHNA goals because people are recognizing how difficult it is to build rrdable housing and any way we can get affordable restrictions we should take s Wood then repeated her suggested language of, "The units will be provided f mix of income levels, similar to the distribution of income levels served by ivenants on existing units." This would mean there would be the same mix of fordable in both. What Ms. Clauson suggested was, "Affordable units shall not concentrated in one building under either option." Hillgren noted he prefers language suggested by Ms. Clauson. McDaniel, Cole and Peotter agreed. imissioners Eaton noted there is more of an advantage to getting the long i financing and therefore the long term commitment, so he would not support language. He suggested that the resolutions be voted on separately. irman Hawkins noted the consensus was for the language suggested by the Attorney to be inserted in Section 2, inserting a new paragraph C. nmissioner Cole noted that with the changes agreed to by the Commission, application does meet the spirit of the visioning process which suggested reta s in Newport Center, it is consistent with the General Plan as it does allow for economic heart of Newport Beach, which is Newport Center, to continue and /e; and, also has tremendous public benefit of millions of dollars of non )ayer monies for multiple civic uses. This is a unique opportunity to improve community. Page 15 of 19 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 06/2012008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 Motion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to adopt a resolution recommending to City Council adoption of the ddendum to the Final Environmental Report (SCH No. 2006011119) for the City f Newport Beach General Plan. r. Alford clarified this would include the minor wording corrections, which is Exhibit 4 in the supplemental staff report. It was agreed to by the maker of the motion. ommissioner Eaton noted his concern that the Commission is not following the 'ght procedure policy -wise to exclude public review on the environmental ocument. hairman Hawkins noted that TIC should be congratulated for this project and it is wonderful project that will benefit both the City and TIC. However, he is in agreement with the concern expressed about the addendum. The provided memorandum allows great latitude for the City to approve an addendum based on ubstantial evidence and allowing a court to review that and providing great eference to the City. He noted the General Plan argues against the conversion A hotel to office and that 3.3 is a land use policy that talks about limiting office Nile enhancing hotel and we are doing just the opposite. Tracking from the draft EIR to the Final EIR, the draft added where there was an addition of 40,000 quare feet of office, which was added to an additional 40,000 that was already available. That addition of 40,000 was backed out of the final EIR. Referencing able 8 -1 in the Final EIR, it says mixed use office addition eliminated and 8 -1 Iso includes the Draft EIR. For those reasons and others, I don't believe that this is the appropriate environmental document. yes; Peotter, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: Eaton and Hawkins bsent: Toerge Motion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Peottey Recommended o approve the resolution recommending to City Council the approval of Cod or approval to the mendment CA2007 -007 with amendments to Planned Community texts. City Council Ms. Wood noted the changes to the text are that the recommended height will be a range from 275 to 300 feet; general office parking standards per the Municipal Code, on- street parking not to count towards parking requirement; and, additional requirement for Parking Management Plans. Commissioner Peotter asked if the Parking Management adoption is different from he Municipal Code. Ms. Wood answered that it is important to put in here as there is a situation where some properties that share in that parking field, those properties are not included in the Planned Community text, so this is an added measure of safety. Chairman Hawkins noted on page 2 of the resolution there is a reference to the Addendum, which the Planning Commission has made recommendation for approval. The vote on this is not adverse to any vote on the Addendum itself. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Absent: Toerge Recommended �Io otion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Peotte or approval to the recommend to City Council approval of Traffic Study No. TS2007 -001 regarding Page 16 of 19 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007/mn11292007.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/2912007 North Newport Center. City Council Commissioner Eaton noted that the ITE numbers and NBTM numbers from the General Plan are sufficiently the same and he is satisfied. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Absent: Toerge Motion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Peotter Recommended to recommend approval to the City Council for the transfer of development rights for approval to the to the North Newport Center. City Council Commissioner Eaton noted his concern of the consistency issue stating the transfer of office is inconsistent with the intent expressed in the General Plan. The intent was to limit office and encourage the retail and hotel rooms which are being transferred away. Chairman Hawkins agreed this transfer may be a mistake and hamper the economic engine that Newport Center is by deletion of hotel rooms.. He noted he will not be in support of this motion based on his concern with the addendum. Ayes: Peotter, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: Eaton and Hawkins Absent: Toerge Motion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Peofter Recommended to recommend approval to the City Council of the North Newport Planned for approval to the Community Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, which includes the following City Council amendments: adding to Section 2 a new subsection C which reads, "Affordable units shall not be concentrated in any one building under either option." Commissioner Eaton noted his disagreement with the modification as it limits the ability to get the longer term covenant applied to the new units with the financing new affordable units typically utilize. Commissioner McDaniel noted his agreement and would not be supporting the motion. Ayes: Peotter, Hawkins, Cole and Hillgren Noes: Eaton and McDaniel Absent: Toerge Motion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Peotter Recommended to recommend approval to the City Council of Development Agreement No. for approval to the DA2007 -002 concerning North Newport Center. City Council Commissioner Peotter suggested a change to the motion to include extending the option period from 4 years to 6 years as listed in paragraph 4.8.1 on page 12. The maker of the motion did not agree. Commissioner McDaniel seconded the motion as presented by Commissioner Cole. Commissioner Hillgren noted the development agreement pulls this all together. Nobody has a greater vested right than The Irvine Company and things they have one throughout the community are outstanding. He noted his support for this application stating the working relationship between staff and TIC. It is clear tha we believe the opportunity to develop a city hall site on this property is valuable. The economics are such that we don't have the basis on what we have been presented to fairly evaluate whether it is a fair economic transaction for the City. Page 17 of 19 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendW2007 /mn11292007.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 basket of goods being provided by TIC is the right one, but I would encoura Council during their deliberations to make sure there is good third pa uation of the economics of this transaction. Looking at the issues resultii i transfer of development rights, we're giving up Transient Occupancy T T) revenues and potentially taking on additional services, etc., understandii e long term benefits is critical. There are a lot of great public benefits but not in a position to opine that this is a great transaction or not. He noted t )ort of the Development Agreement. immissioner Peotter suggested adding a sentence to this motion for exen Mello Roos for city hall being assessed or being a special assessment for Clauson answered there would have to be some sort of provision that to tt nt financing is placed on the site, that The Irvine Company, or the proper ar, would pay that assessment that would be attributable to the site. Th it be the best way to resolve the issue on whether legally it is required or not. Peotter noted this verbiage is his recommended amendment to . Clauson added when you do any type of financing on a property, you assess er the properties that you own. An interesting point would be that as a sing d owner The Irvine Company, if the City options the property as a city N ject, the landowner would, depending on how many residents there are with land that they spread the Mello Roos over or the assessment district over. re are more than twelve you have to do a vote. Usually Mello Roos is done ijunction with a residential development. The property owner can apply to the i property on a Mello Roos but can't do it on other property within a Mel is district unless those property owners agree. I don't know if there is as mu( icern for the potential in an agreement where the Mello Roos District is beir ned for the City to be part of or have to pay any kind of assessment becam would have to agree to be in that district boundary. Miller added that Section 6.9 allows the City to veto paying any of that, so a that right and it is already in the agreement. Garrett, lawyer for The Irvine Company, read the following excerpt, "The C all have the sole discretion to determine whether to establish a commun ;ilities district, the improvements to be financed in the method of financing tho provements." We interpret that to say that the City can say yes or no to tl >trict and they can say yes or no to every aspect of the district and can say y no to any assessment that would be placed on anybody that would be include the district, including the right to say yes or no to whether their own property Peotter withdrew the proposed amendment. an Hawkins noted the availability of a city hall site in Newport Center is r However, a city hall site in the shadow of The Irvine Company is no rrily that great of a benefit. He is concerned that the short time for thr compromises that benefit further. He noted other changes in tha ment agreement that the Commission has not had the ability to review. y Council should consider these changes and look for a longer optior Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, and Hillgren None Page 18 of 19 "http: /Iwww.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas/2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2007 Absent: Toer e ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo reported that the Council was to hear the appeal of the approval for the use permit for the proposed location of the Panini restaurant but due to last minute opposition regarding parkin issues, this item was continued to March 25, 2008 to allow for an initia study and negative declaration. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairman Hawkins reported at the last meetin a presentation was made on the Newport Center Planned Community. C. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Genera Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee - no meeting. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Project status - none. 9. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 10:20 p.m. JADJOURNMENT BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 19 of 19 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mnl 1292007.htm 06/20/2008