Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc minutes 11-15-07Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT November 15, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnI 1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren: Commissioner Peotter was late TAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson, City Attorney Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner aylene Olson, Department Assistant Erin Steffen, Office Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on November 9, 2007. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES David Lepo, Planning Director, requested Item 2, Hoag Health Center, be continued to January 17, 2008 after hearing comments tonight. The DEIR is going to be recirculated. Mr. Lepo requested Item 5, Arches Grill, be heard as the second item tonight. HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October 18, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Eaton and seconded by Commissioner Col to approve the minutes as written. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Absent: Peotter was late) ITEM NO. 5 NEW BUSINESS: Approved OBJECT: Arches Grill 508 29th Street In accordance with Section 20.60.015 (Temporary Structures and Uses) of thel Page 1 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnI 1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 ewport Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Director has authorized derision to the temporary use of an existing eating and drinking establishn r a period not to exceed an additional 90 days. The action specifically all e existing eating and drinking establishment to continue operating under >nditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3611 with an exception that would a temporary expansion in the hours of operation to accommodate weekday lu Lepo stated the Municipal Code requires that the staff report on ision of the temporary Use Permit is for receive and file purposes and n necessary. The applicant will be coming back for review of the nevi: Permit. rman Hawkins asked when this item will be coming back to the Plann Lepo said in January, 2008. nmissioner McDaniel questioned the hours of 6 am to 11 pm and what hours for lunch? Lepo asked that Mr. Murillo check into the hours for the next hearing on comment was opened. comment was closed was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Com to receive and file. None Hoag Health Center (PA2007 -013) 500 -540 Superior Avenue project includes: (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet c General Office and Research & Development floor area c the existing 329,414 square feet of floor area to medics office use; and (2) the construction of an additional 20,58f square feet of medical office space on -site, for a total c 350,000 gross square feet of medical office floor area. Th( total new medical office floor area requested in th( proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. Additionally, approval of a traffic study is being requester pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasinc Ordinance (TPO). A total of 1,985 parking spaces ar( provided to accommodate the development, including 42; surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces in two parkins structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on -sit( parking requirement of 1,750 spaces required by the City': Zoning code. Lepo stated after reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) project, CalTrans indicated that the left -turn lane from northbound Newl levard to westbound Hospital Road was not of sufficient length ITEM NO.2 Continued to January 17, 2008 Page 2 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnl 1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 Page 3 of 20 )mmodate vehicle queues. As requested by CalTrans, the City conducting uing analysis that indicated the left -turn lane would need to be lengthened I roximately 120 feet. The Planning Department and the City Attorney's Offsi sed Hoag officials that the queuing problem at Newport Boulevard ai pital Road represented a new, significant impact that required recirculation DEIR before action should be taken by the Planning Commission. To alic a recirculation period of 45 days, this item is requested to be continued nary 17, 2008. Hillgren asked: If this was a recommendation to continue this item or is there opportunity to act on this tonight? How is this different from any other mitigation measure that is preset for questions or objections on the EIR; seems to be minor issues on tr stacking? r. Lepo answered it would not be in the best interest of the City to act on th night because there could likely be a challenge to the determination on ft =QA on the DEIR. Also, it would be minor as long as no one commented 1 ok issue or possibly filed suit; CEQA environment guidelines does say if thei an impact that is discovered after circulation of the DEIR and it is significant H i need to recirculate the DEIR. ) mmissioner Hillgren asked who determines if it is significant? r. Lepo answered that since Newport Boulevard is a state highway CalTrans e agency responsible for making that determination. Harp, Assistant City Attorney, agreed with Mr. Lepo. He also pointed out that ig agreed to the recirculation of the DEIR. nmissioner Peotter asked what is the actual number of cars stacking? y Brine, City Traffic Engineer, responded: • They looked at the peak hour volume of cars turning from northbound Newport Boulevard to westbound Hospital Road. • As it exists today the left -turn lane is adequate in length to handle the peak hour left turns; added left -turn traffic would require the turn lane to be lengthened. • The existing turn lane is approximately 150 feet -in- length and would need to be increased to 275 feet -in- length to handle the increased traffic. nmissioner Peotter asked if this was an increase of six cars stacking on the sting seven to eights cars. Brine answered yes. nmissioner Peotter questioned: • Is this significant? • What other potential impact would others have, with the recirculation of the DEIR, that would be different from the mitigation measure we now have file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnl1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 and that could not be addressed tonight? Harp answered: . The public has not had the opportunity to review the analysis that H done, the impact that was created or our proposed mitigation measures. There are other ways to mitigate the condition; install two turn lanes at intersection which would require other reconfiguration of the roadway. . The point of CEQA is to get information out to the public and give them opportunity to discuss it. mmissioner Peotter stated he had wished that staff had come to the Planni mmissioners about the recirculation and allowed them to make the decisi whether or not to go forward with the recirculation of the DEIR. on was made by Commissioner Peotter to deem the impact insignificant action on this item tonight. Commissioner Hillgren seconded the motion. Hawkins responded: . The DER has already been recirculated to the public and the public I the right to make comments and have those comments heard or read the Planning Commission. If we take action tonight and determine the impact, which has beer declared as significant, to be insignificant without having factual basis i could create a conflict in the record and there is probably substantia evidence that there is a significant impact that we would avoid considering. i Hawkins asked Dennis O'Neil, representative for Hoag M if they were ready to present their position tonight. O'Neil stated that their legal team did submit their arguments, in writing to t fining Department and the City Attorney's office, in which they took issue interpretation that was being made by the City Attorney's office and ste fever, there are arguments made by both side of this issue supported by lei Lions. In the interest in moving this along, and after some lengthy discussic i staff, they agreed that the recirculation was in order and decided not prese ght. They asked that the public comments be opened tonight, the head be closed but remain open and continued to a date certain. Harp added, had Hoag and the City Attorney's office not reached ement on the recirculation and Hoag had wanted a determination on ficance issue by the Planning Commission, they would have left that is fed to be decided tonight. McDaniel was not in support of the motion. Peotter withdrew his motion. comment was opened. Peterson, owner of Harbor Mobile Homes located across from Page 4 of 20 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnl 1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 project, made the following concerns: . He just found out about the project several weeks ago and the traffic floe impact and possible widening of Superior Avenue in front of their property. . Wanted to know if this was the right time for him to be present with concerns. . If his tenants will still have the ability to make left -hand turns to enter exit the mobile home park. . Wants to be notified if the median is to be widened in front of his property. Harp responded this is an appropriate time for Mr. Peterson's comments. Brine said the project under construction now does not go north to Mr. rson's property location; ultimately there will be a median in that segment of prior, but there are no plans at this time. The traffic signal project would be a of the Hoag project and require right -of -way acquisition. There would be a land turn access at the signal. comment was closed. ular was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissior d to continue the hearing on the Hoag Health Center, amendment to U No. 2006 -010, Traffic Study No. 2007 -002, and Certification nental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006101105) to January 17, 20 None xxx West Santa Ana Heights (PA2007 -209) =_ral Plan Amendment in the West Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan ided by Mesa Drive, Santa Ana Avenue, Bristol Street, and the Nei ;h Golf Course. This General Plan Amendment will assign land 3ories to properties scheduled to be annexed on land use maps cons existing county designations. =_II Bunim, Assistant Planner, gave an overview on the staff report. Mr a wanted to point out a change that was discovered prior to the hearing thi: ng: Land Use Map - Statistical Area J6, L4 - the RM designations have variety of densities which include 11 per acre, 14 per acre, 29 per acre ai 43 per acre. . A recent discovery is pertaining to the area that included the 29 per acre; is possibly inaccurate as approved in 2004. . The Santa Ana Heights Land Use Districting map provided on the Co web site divides the property designated as 29 dwelling units per acre three different sections; 1500 square -feet per unit, 2400 square -feet unit, and 1500 square -feet per unit. ITEM NO.3 Recommended )proval to the C Council Page 5 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn 11-1 5-07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 . In 2004 this was approved, straight across the board, as 1500 per unit. r. Lepo stepped in with the following: . In 2004, when the pre- zoning agreement was reached and the was adopted, the intent was to keep the status quo. . Staff discovered late today that one of the parcels that showsl500 feet unit unit only got to that high of a density because of a density for affordable housing; this was missed in the 2004 pre- zoning. . The General Plan is incorrect and it should be a lower density requirem of 2400 square -feet per unit not the 1500; the density bonus should not counted in the underlying land use designation density. . Staff recommends the Planning Commission use the resolution b them recommending amendment to the General Plan with the exce that an adjustment be made to the density requirement on that parcel, the confirmation of the covenant for affordable housing. Hawkins wanted clarification if it would be changed to reflect 29 acre. Lepo answered it would be 18 units per acre, but wants to see the confirm all the facts. nmissioner Eaton stated it appears this 1500 square -feet per unit applies three properties along the north side of Mesa Drive and asked if the coven; lies to all three of the properties? Lepo responded it applies to the center property. ioner Eaton asked if the lower designation was adopted for the ce then would it be surrounded by the higher designation of the other Lepo answered no, it would be the average rate because the three developed as one property. Eaton asked the following about the nursery: . In the General Plan, the nursery is designated as Open Space. . The description of Open Space in the General Plan says "a de: intended to conserve natural resources "; is that what a commercial is and does it fit the OS designation? Lepo stated it is not a perfect fit; the alternatives under our current Genera i are Commercial or Multi- family, but for purposes of continuing with the is quo this is the closest fit. If the nursery goes away, then the propert, er will need to come back . for a General Plan Zoning Ordinance amendment. Eaton asked: Page 6 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnl 1-1 5-07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 Page 7 of 20 Was staff acknowledging if the nursery decides to convert to another and it is surrounded by residential use, that another use other than Space would be appropriate? • If so he would like that to be part of the recommendation. nan Hawkins questioned, if the nursery was selling plant material and want to label it as Commercial but as Open Space? r. Lepo answered that was correct; • It gives the City more flexibility in the future, should that use go away, determine what the appropriate use would be. • If you make it Commercial that would allow a lot of things. imissioner McDaniel was concerned about the areas in Santa Ana were zoned for kennels; • If we change those areas to single - residential detached, what will happen when these residences start complaining about the barking dogs? -sell Bunim responded as follows: • The General Plan is for single - family residential as the primary use. • The Specific Plan, zoning, will allow for residential kennel. nmissioner Toerge asked what would be the downside of zoning the parcel nursery is on as single - residential detached and allowing the nursery to be al nonconforming? Lepo stated when the pre- zoning agreement and resolution were adopted in 4, one of the findings was not to create nonconformities as part of the exation. It is staffs interpretation the nursery in the OS zone is conforming. -irman Hawkins asked: • What was the character of the nursery? • Does it have an office? • Can it have a mixed -use designation? sell Bunim said they drove by the site, which was fenced in, and there wer e tents that would normally contain plants. Whether there was an office o it was to hard to tell. Lepo reiterated the terms of the agreement were not to change the things, not to create nonconformities, and in that spirit we are recom yen Space. comment was opened. file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnl 1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 I B. Hanley, resident of West Santa Heights and member of the Ana Heights Association, and wanted to state his concerns: . Has attended numerous meetings over the past 8 years to ascertain environment is suitable for the community. . Very concerned that their community is being divided. . Wants to be an entity of a larger community. . At one time there was a house on the nursery property and about 4 someone lived in it. comment was closed. ion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commiss m to recommend to City Council the approval of General Plan Amend !007 -007 to include the West Santa Heights with the land use designs iosed; and give the staff the flexibility in the area designated as RM 29 acre on Statistical Area LU11 to be modified to 18 units per acre, consi subsequent staff findings before going to City Council. consideration of Commissioner Eaton's suggestion, it should be noted in ;ord it is the Planning Commission's opinion it would be appropriate should None xxx BJECT: North Newport Center Planned Community Fashion Island (PA2007 -151) Amendment to change the zoning classification of Block 600 from nistrative Financial Professional (APF) District to the Planned Commt District; ned Community Development Plan Amendment to adopt a new Planne munity Development Plan for Fashion Island, Block 600 (bounded by San Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Rosa Drive, and Newport Cent East), and portions of San Joaquin Plaza (bounded by Jamboree Roa Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and San ara Drive) and Block 500 (bounded by Santa Rosa Drive, San Joaquin Hil 1, Avocado Avenue, San Nicholas Drive, and Newport Center Drive Ea: to remove these areas from the San Joaquin Plaza Planned Communi �Iopment Plan and the Block 500 Planned Community Development Plan; pment Agreement to vest development rights and establish a contribution to the City; Study to evaluate potential traffic impacts and circulation Affordable Housing Implementation Plan specifying how the development at the City's affordable housing goal. Wood, Assistant City Manager, stated: Adjourned and Continued to wember 29, 2007 Page 8 of 20 file: //F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Planning CommissionTC Minutes\mnl1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 • The noticing on this project was not mailed to all property owners wit 300 feet of the project property through an error by staff; therefore, Planning Commission may not take any action on this item tonight. • Proper notice was mailed to many people and the applicant wishes proceed with the hearing. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hear a presentation fr the applicant and a report from the staff; after which the Commission have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and staff, request additional information to be provided before the Commiss considers and takes action on the project at its next meeting. • Staff also recommends this item be opened for public comment for the who received notice and are at the hearing tonight. • Staff recommends the hearing be continued to November 29, 2007. • All information provided tonight will be available for members of the put who attend the November 29th hearing. i Wood requested that the applicant make their presentation prior to report. Miller and Rob Elliott, representing The Irvine Company, gave ntation on the project. imissioner Cole asked if there was a proposed height limit, in the 500 Block, of 375 feet that would allow a 30 -story building to be built and if ned on building a 30 -story building? Miller answered that was the existing height limit today and they would not aging it; however, they would have to go through the FAA for anything m feet. He wasn't sure on a 30 -story building; there are 430 units to go :k 600 worked in with existing offices and a hotel and he is not sure of 1 Iht but they will be compatible with the existing buildings. ner Eaton stated he had a number of questions, some that could tonight and some he will e-mail for the next meeting, he tt )ck 600 and San Joaquin Plaza are governed by the City's parking regulatic ere are some difference between the existing and the proposed parF 3ulations. Section III of the PC Text, the proposed parking requirements ices, are not nearly as restrictive; therefore a surplus of parking would gated. Why is a lower requirement proposed and is it the applicant's inter• use some of the surplus in other areas? Miller answered: . By taking Section III of the PC Text and the traditional zoning ai combining them into one, they are trying to make sure they work as group. . Their intent is to over -park to make sure every use, the planned residential, office, and retail use, is beneficial and not a detriment. . Not their intent to add a use like residential, under -park it , and have make a negative impact on one of the other uses, be it hotel, office, retail. Page 9 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn11- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 • The residential, office, hotel, and retail will be under their control and want to make sure it is over - parked and be above the standards. amissioner Eaton pointed out that two of the three blocks along San Joaquin currently governed by the City's parking requirement, which for conventional as is one for 250, and the proposed PC regulation is reduced to one for 375. 1 are they going to one for 375? Miller suggested that Ms. Wood may better answer this question. Wood said part of the reason is: • This is a mixed -use area and everything works together. • You can have a lower parking requirement in that type of environment. • By combining the three planned communities and conventional zoning one regulatory document, you can take advantage of the coordin center of mixed -use development. . Miller added that during heavy uses of Fashion Island, special events, Newport, or Christmas, all of the office parking is heavily used by the cause at night this parking is not being used. They do parking manage Wood gave an overview on the staff report and pointed out the following: • Several years ago the former Planning Commission felt very strongly there should be one comprehensive plan for Newport Center. • All the property owners agreed on a cooperative agreement, which into one application; it did not go forward to public hearing but pi was made on the Newport Center Comprehensive Plan. • Many items written in this plan were incorporated into our General Plan. • Staff strongly encouraged The Irvine Company to do a one Plannt Community Text for their Newport Center properties, incorporating much of the area that could logically be put into one document; this wou continue with the goals that the former Planning Commission had for comprehensive plan for Newport Center. • This would be much easier for property owners, staff, commissioners everyone to use in the future because there would be one set development regulations for this area. • The existing three Planned Community Texts are not easy to use, not organized, not long range regulatory documents; this one Plar Community Text will be a big improvement and a first step for LCP /General Plan Implementation Committee in trying to simplify zoning regulations as we go forward in implementing the General Plan. • A new provision in this development plan is a procedure and standards transfer of development rights; in the new General Plan there is a policy transfer of development rights in Newport Center and that policy v Page 10 of 20 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mn11- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 carried over from the 1998 General Plan, word for word; there is r implementing ordinance or other document that provides guidance to th staff, Planning Commission or the City Council on how to approve transfer, the new Planned Community Text will make it very clear on how transfer of development rights will be done. Regarding the question from Commissioner Eaton on Fashion Island a the existing 10 -foot setback requirement and the provision that was a to reduce this setback to zero, with the Planning Director's approval di the plan review process; staff wanted this in the Planned Community to implement another policy in the General Plan which is specif Newport Center; staffs thought is to enhance Newport Center Drive road for pedestrian activity, provide a nicer strolling area for the new business proposed, and should it become more of a downtown pedes experience those buildings typically come up to the property line n than having a setback. Another significant change is the plan review process; in this PC Text wi be specific regulations for design and the way the area is to look and ther is a process in place where we will be reviewing for conformity with thos regulations. This process is similar to the one being used recently the implements the General Plan design policies for one and two -famil houses; during the plan check process there is an extra plan review by th Planning Department to check for conformity with the General Plan an the design regulations that are part of this planned community. Transfer of Development Rights for this application, which the G Plan does allow for in Newport Center, will transfer some e: development rights from Block 600 to Block 500; that includes 195 u hotels rooms and eliminating some existing development of various in Block 600, converting that to office and transfering to Block 500; 72,000 square feet of that transfer is intended for the new City Hall. The General Plan policy states a transfer can occur if it's consistent the General Plan and there are no adverse traffic impacts; traffic stud the transfer was done by Austin -Foust Associates, and they concluded the 72,000 square feet for City Hall plus 205,000 square feet of o entitlement could be transferred to Block 600 and the same trip genes of 338 PM peak -hour trips would be maintained as without the transfer. . An intensity analysis was done to ensure that development allowed transfer does not exceed the intensity in the Land Use Element General Plan. . The Development Agreement is required on this Plan and Municipal Code; staff and a City Council with The Irvine Company to develop the agre Development Agreement does meet the requirem and Municipal Code. project per the Gei committee, who we sment, both agree ?nts of the General . This project is not required to comply with the TPO at this they are not ready to secure any building permits, but the elected to take care of the TPO compliance now. . The applicant has chosen to do this following the provisions Comprehensive Phased Land Use Development and Circulation Page 11 of 20 file : //F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnl 1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 Improvement, which is intended for projects that will take longer than months to complete; under these provisions there are four findi required for approval regarding traffic impacts, improvements to circulation system, consistency between the Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the General Plan. The traffic study prepared by Austin -Foust concluded there would impacts at 3 intersections: MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin F Road, Goldenrod Avenue and Coast Highway, and Marguerite Avenue ; Coast Highway; the Development Agreement requires the improvem called for in the Circulation Element for MacArthur Boulevard and Joaquin Hills Road; the General Plan shows no feasible improvements the other two intersections so they would continue to have an impact. Staff finds that 3 of the 4 findings can be made for approval under TPO; when the findings cannot be made, the Ordinance allows Planning Commission to make a finding that the benefits of the proje out weigh any impacts to the circulation system; staff believes thi findings can be made because of the public benefits that are provided outlined in the Development Agreement. The Affordable Housing Implantation Plan is required under our Housing Element because the project will have more than 50 reside units; the applicant has proposed 15% of the units be affordable to Ic income households and presented two options: 1) to build 14 afford units on a vacant site they own on San Miguel Drive and make -up difference with adding covenants to units that exist along San Joaquin Road; 2) to meet the entire requirement by adding covenants to existing units. The applicant agreed If the income level for the units is lower, the would be 10% instead of 15 %; if the income level is higher, the would be 20 %. Bontera Consulting was retained to do the environmental review and prepared an addendum to the EIR that was done for the General Plan; conclusion is the project is consistent with the General Plan and there no environmental impacts that go beyond what is in the General Plan. Eaton had the following questions and concerns: . Feels the transfer of development rights is not consistent with the Lai Use Element and is going in the opposite direction of how he read Lai Use policies regarding Fashion Island; would like an analysis of how this consistent these policies. . Key to the transfer is the traffic equivalency; would like to know how equivalency conclusion was reached. . This TPO analysis does not use the General Plan traffic analysis num but uses the ITE; is there a requirement to use General Plan numbers does it shift depending on the kind of traffic analysis used? . The provision in the TPO analysis regarding office development used regression equation and he would like an explanation of the regres equation and how it works. Page 12 of 20 file : //F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnl1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 The TPO analysis was for all of the project except for the 72,000 feet for City Hall and wanted to know why this was excluded. . It looks as though the City Hall option site is not entitled to a monume sign but only a building sign; would like confirmation of that and why and the City Hall is subject to any of the regulations. Wood answered the staff would be able to have information on stency with the Land Use policies in the next meeting's staff report. Brine responded in regards to the TPO analysis and they previously used thl 3TAM as the trip generation for traffic studies but as of July- August of this yea has been changed to use ITE rates for traffic studies. Wood stated that Mr. Foust would be at the next meeting and perhaps dd hold these traffic questions for him to answer then. )in Clauson, City Attorney, responded to the exclusion of the 72,000 squ t in the TPO. As part of the negotiations in the Development Agreement 1 i would be able to use the 72,000 square feet for a new City Hall and wt City Hall project started they would do a TPO analysis, if they decided to L I site. Also, it was agreed if the City decided not to use that site and 1 ne Company utilized the site, in the future, for office or another use they wo required to do a TPO analysis. The Irvine Company wanted the City to do i TPO for its project. Clauson answered regarding the City Hall sign and that the City Hall is ect to the sign regulations in the PC Text. The City wants to be able to design of the City Hall. The Development Agreement will deal with ess of the design of the City Hall and allow the property owner to h m opportunities. oner Eaton pointed out the design controls in the Developrr it are very loose on the City Hall compared to what is imposed else. Clauson answered that is correct. mmissioner Cole had a question on what the additional TPO impacts would the intersections of Goldenrod Avenue and Coast Highway, and Margue enue and Coast Highway since they have unacceptable levels now. Clauson wanted to point out the TPO did a worst case scenario analysis impacts at those intersections were based on the projection that all the c residential space would all be built by 2009; these impacts are exagger time. The TPO level of service is D; the level of service under the Ger i is E and was determined there is no feasible alternatives to expand acity at those two intersections. n Miller, representative for The Irvine Company, interjected that they v show the worst case scenario and this will not happen by 2009; it is 'ead out over a long phasing plan. Brine stated that those two intersections are currently operating at level lice E and the additional ICU number goes up .01 or .02 but will not char service level; it would have to go to 1.0 to become a service level F. Page 13 of 20 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnI 1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 Wood said this was an impact under the TPO. ,nissioner Hillgren asked about multiple owners in the area and the Gen allows for entitlements of various residential and office units, so who has rtunity to come in and make a claim for those entitlements? >. Wood answered the office entitlements are shown block by block and Tt ine Company owns the majority of the properties in the three mixed -use blocl this project. There are a total of 450 residential units for Newport Center in tt ?neral Plan, and they may be used on any of the sites designated for mixe e. There are 4 sites designated for mixed -use in Newport Center; three blocl north Newport Center and the site where the tennis club is located. arings on the General Plan it was concluded that residential units would t ocated on a first -come first -serve basis and the City would decide if it was asonable number that the first applicant was requesting. In this case Tt ine Company has asked for 430 of the 450. Miller pointed out the only other mixed -use area not under The h ipany's control is the O'Hill property by the Newport Beach Country Club chose to go with 430 and allow 20 to be used by Mr. O'Hill. Lepo stated the status of the application from Mr. O'Hill is incomplete notified the applicant three weeks ago that the application is consid issioner Hillgren had the following questions: . Thought the parking of 1 per 375 was light; is there a parking study rationalizes that number? . Is there an expectation that there will be building -top signage for the buildings? . Had concerns on how we will continue to ensure that Newport Center remain a gathering place for special events with the added residential L and what if these residents take issue to the public gatherings? controls the rights to hold special events? Wood said the question on the parking study will be addressed at the Gilbert, contract planner for the City, said there is no change from signage criteria. Wood stated that there is a provision in the PC Text that notes that Newp ter is a gathering place and includes uses and events that will have t ntial to generate noise, lighting, and odors from restaurants. There is iirement for new residential development that disclosures be made ,pective buyers and tenants, that there is a expectation of these uses a its. This is no guarantee that the won't be complaints. Miller said The Irvine Company has the control over the activities and goes on in Newport Center and Fashion Island. . They will not allow a use that will be detrimental to those activities. Page 14 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mnl1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 . Should there be a detrimental use, it will be discontinued; they shut down very popular car show in Crystal Cove because of the complaints from a retail stores and nearby apartments. Many requests for special events are turned down because they do want over -use; the events are spread out, not held every weekend. The controls they have are working now and will continue to work in future. Wood pointed out if the event takes place in the public right -of -way ect to the City's special event permit regulations and also some events I private property, if they have more than 150 people, are regulated siring a special events permit. Clauson wanted to highlight that The Irvine Company intends to build dential units as apartments, not for sale properties. They will pay the p; for the apartment units, up front before pulling building permits, as part of relopment Agreement. Cole wanted to know if they will ever convert these apartments Clauson said they can convert them to condominiums in the future and m, K they choose to, but they have agreed to pay any park -fee increases ild apply. man Hawkins asked Mr. Miller if The Irvine Company planned on putting on the residential units. Miller said at this point in time they do not intend to do that, but want m. Should they decide in the future to build condos they will pay ;ase in the park -fees no matter what the increase may be? Hawkins asked if there was a cap on the park -fee increase. Miller said no. iissioner Eaton stated he could not support the EIR addendum be a vote tonight and will put his concerns in an e-mail for evt and comments. He continued with the following questions: The existing Fashion Island PC Text has regulations for seasonal p parking and provisions for compact parking, which are not in the new regulations. Why are these not in the new PC Text? . The new regulations show that street parking will be allowed to towards the required parking and setbacks would be measured from rather than driveway lines. Why were these added items? . He hoped that the EIR resolution will be a separate resolution. Wood responded: • The compact parking regulations were taken out of the Zoning Code Page 15 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnl 1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 15 years ago but the PC Texts were never changed, so this change bringing it into conformance with what has been working in the rest of 1 City. In the existing regulations seasonal parking is discussed in narratives arrangements could be made to provide shuttles to use the office pai that is vacant on evenings and weekends; the only thing in a regul; fashion is the locations of the drop -offs. The idea was to simplify the regulations; provide for parking man plans; provide for City Traffic Engineer review of alternative arrangements, such as shuttles to off -site locations and valet make this more of a regulatory document. . Believed the current Fashion Island PC Text allowed the on- street parl on Newport Center Drive to be counted, so that would not be a change. Clauson said she was very confident the addendum is the appropri ronmental document and looked forward to Mr. Eaton's reason why it v and will address his concerns. The EIR resolution will be separate. Gilbert responded to the setback requirements: . Unless otherwise stated, setbacks are the minimum distance from the of curb to building - parking structure or parking lot. . Each of the sub -areas is broken out into right -of -ways, which these public streets. . The setback would come from the public right -of -way and that would from the overall width of the public right -of -way which includes parkways. . Clarifications can be made, but the intent is to come from the right -of -way. Eaton would like some clarifications. comment was opened. ce White, from Government Solutions Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, wan cement any reference to the cancell lerties and not other properties or elopment Agreement. and representing Sunstone Hotels ed to clarify that in the Developr ition to CIOSA only applies to tI Iside that are still covered by Clauson responded the Development Agreement is written in a manner so ;els the prior CIOSA Development Agreement and is not intended to canc development rights that are on properties that The Irvine Company no longs s. The existing opportunity for 68 hotel rooms on the Hyatt site rporated into the General Plan. White wanted clarification if this also applies to traffic and other things 3A allows credit for. There is an EIR being drafted for the Hyatt that SA throughout in terms of vested development rights. Clauson said it would apply to the traffic mitigation measures that were put Page 16 of 20 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn 11-1 5-07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 Page 17 of 20 ace for those 68 units. Ms. Clauson then read the following last sentence f age 21 Section 6.14 of the Development Agreement, "The cancellation shall feet the rights and obligations of any third parties under CIOSA or the Bo anyon Development Agreement ". The concept is this affects the developn Ihts of the land owner and the intent is a way to assist the consiste atween the General Plan and the existing development rights, as there H ill remaining development rights. a. Wood addressed the question on traffic. CIOSA was approved, as prol this project, under the "Phased Circulation and Land Use" long title and 'O; and the TPO compliance holds because it did not have the usual expi to that a TPO approval would have. iairman Hawkins pointed out that Section 6.14 contains the defined to moellation" and in the definitions in the Development Agreement "cancellati es not appear as a defined term. Is concerned about defined terms popp and wants the City Attorney's office to ensure that all the defined terms will Section 1. Clauson said they will double check to make sure that it is Shubert, resident in Corona del Mar had the following comments: . Is a staff member of the Kennedy Commission which is a coalition community members that support increased housing opportunities people of all income levels. . Had concerns on the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan as it to this project. . Currently the City of Newport Beach is out of compliance with the cu Housing Element; there is a gap between the identified sites available those that are identified in the draft Housing Element. . Approximately 26 %, 124 homes of the 476 homes that were required to built in the current Housing Element were actually built. . Unless sites are identified for new construction that meets the Element requirements, there will be an enormous deficit carried into the new Housing Element. . This is a great opportunity to add to the inventory of affordable housing. . They request that options are considered and new units are constructed meet their needs. Eaton had a question for staff regarding Ms. Shubert's comments: . AHIP provides multi -level possibilities to satisfy the requirements of residential -units proposed in Newport Center. . Very low income only 10 9k needs to be built; low income 15% moderate income 20 %. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn I 1-15-07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 . The very low are the most difficult units to get accomplished. . Is there any other incentive possible or available other than the fewer to be built? . Are the units that could be provided in the former Playtime School site taken out of the existing Bayview apartment project devoted to the affordable categories now and if not will that change under this AHIP? Wood answered that status of those units will change since they are nol venanted to be affordable units; they are market rate. She did correct Mr ton's comments in that it is not a certain number of units to be built, but rather be provided in this case. The AHIP talks about new units being built only or former Child Time site and that would be 14 out of the 65 affordable units thal required. an Hawkins stated that the public comments will be kept open ed at the November 29, 2007 meeting. nmissioner Peotter asked what is the purpose of the Design Regulations? Irvine Company wants to voluntarily follow these design regulations, why making them City regulations in this Text? Wood responded we are trying to implement the General Plan which has fiber of policies regarding design of development in Newport Center ar W -use projects anywhere in the City. This is a policy decision the Plannir emission and the City Council made when adopting the General Plan. This first time that Newport Beach has had a General Plan that talks as muc it quality design and keeping and maintaining the character of tt ssioner Peotter then asked if staff would be the regulatory device on that doesn't require discretionary review on these design regulations. Wood answered yes, that is the way the PC is written. imissioner Peotter asked if these Design Regulations were the absoli mum to implement the intent of the General Plan or did they expand I it. Wood said she thinks it has been expanded a little in this case but only extent that these are the principals that The Irvine Company has alwg wed. These are the design principles with which they have describ port Center to the City. Miller responded that this was an effort that both The Irvine Company ar had worked on and agreed on. The regulations are now in writing, makes r and easy to work with staff. Hawkins then asked Mr. Miller if they were satisfied with t regulation of these issues. r. Miller answered yes. mmissioner Peotter was concerned with these regulations and would not I see them applied elsewhere in the City because it would take away from Page 18 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn11- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 feel to the City. ssioner Eaton asked if the only other area where the General / suggests design guidelines was the Airport area. Wood said no they are City -wide. What has been said in most of It =_ral Plan policies is that new development should be consistent with ing character of the community. was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by to continue this hearing to November 29. 2007. , Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge, and BUSINESS: City Council Follow -up Mr. Lepo reported at the last City Council meeting two consent calendar items were discussed; one on additional funding for the consultant work that has been on going on the Hoag Master Plan; and Council approved a contract for a consultant advocate to help get the Coastal Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Program through the Coastal Commission. Two other items had to do with the Coastal Land Use Plan. On the recommendation of the Planning Commission the City Council approved resubmittal of the Coastal Land Use Plan to the Coastal Commission; Council adopted the changes to four policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission with the exception of the restriction of Policy 4.4.3 -19 which applied only to Carnation Avenue, Ocean Boulevard, and Pacific Drive. The Council deleted those references to those specific streets and left as originally proposed by staff to apply in all areas that were subject to the Coastal Land Use Plan. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee Ms. Wood reported at the last meeting there was a presentation from a representative from CoStar Real Estate Group which is a subscription service that we have recently contracted with to provide information on available spaces to help us to attract new business' as part of our Strategic Plan; also there will be a meeting on November 21st on the North Newport Center Project and it will be presented by Mayor Rosansky and Mayor Pro Tern Selich. Chairman Hawkins reported that there were two items discussed; one on alley setbacks and one on parking for large homes; Ms. Woods said the draft Zoning Code is taking longer than expected, staff is starting to review it, the consultants still have not addressed what to do about the Specific Plan areas and she and Ms. Clauson have not had time to look at this draft yet. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff.._to report on at a subsequent meeting None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Page 19 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn11- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/15/2007 Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to.place on a future agenda for action and staff report Commissioner McDaniel would like know if the only item for November 29, 2007 is the Newport Center Project and there won't be any surprises as there was with tonight's meeting. Mr. Lepo said that will be the only item. Ms. Woods said they will be ready for the Commission to take action at that meeting. Mr. Lepo also wanted the Commission to know the meetings in January will be on the 17th and 31st. Project status Chairman Hawkins asked about the Group Residential Occupancies and that the City is moving forward prosecuting based upon the Commission's recommendations. Ms. Clauson clarified the City is moving forward and the actions are based on upon the moratorium that the City Council adopted. The regulations recommended by the Planning Commission are still being reviewed by the new legal council and council -adhoc committee and will be presented to the City Council possibly on the first meeting in January, 2008. Chairman Hawkins wanted to know if enforcement action was taken against the Narconon facility. Ms. Clauson said no. Requests for excused absences Commission Toerge and Commissioner Cole will not be at the November 29th meeting. xxx continued to November 29. 2007 at at BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 20 of 20 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mn] 1- 15- 07.htm 11/30/2007