Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes (2)Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes • April 20, 2006 Regular Meeting - 3:00 p.m. Page I of 16 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - ommissioner Hawkins was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager ames Campbell, Senior Planner regg Ramirez, Senior Planner Dan Campagnolo, GIS Analyst inger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary BLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Bruce Low, representing property owners from Cannery Village, noted their concern ith the owners and operation of the Newport Brewery Company. He asked that the None ommission review the use permit, noting that the Coastal Commission requirement had been omitted, and or are not being upheld by the operator. He distributed copies of a letter that had been sent to the City regarding this matter. He noted that Cod Enforcement does not have the authority to address the error in the use permit. Ms. Temple then presented a 5 year pin to Commissioner McDaniel in recognition of his service to the City. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on April 14, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of April 6, 2006. ITEM NO. 1 Minutes Approved Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. yes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn es: None bsent: Hawkins bstain: None file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 4 F_ L r Page 2 of 16 HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: Fuji Yama Restaurant (PA2006 -03 ITEM NO. 2 4511 W. Coast Highway PA2006 -003 pproval of a Use Permit to allow the operation of a 1,550 square foot restaurant Approved amed Fuji Yama Restaurant and to allow the restaurant to operate with a Type 41 On -Sale Beer and Wine Eating Place) License pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage utlet (ABO) Ordinance. Mr. Campbell gave an overview of the staff report. He noted there is no need or a parking waiver as it is a small restaurant and concluded by saying that staff recommends approval. Mr. John Lee, President of Fuji Yama Inc., at the request of the Chairperson, noted he has read and agrees to the findings and conditions as presented in the staff report. Motion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve Use Permit No. 2006 -002, subject to the findings and conditions of approval. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: Hawkins Abstain: None x x x OBJECT: General Plan Update ITEM NO. 3 Land Use and Circulation Elements. r. Elwood Tescher, consultant from EIP, noted the following: Continued to May 4, 2006 • The Land Use Plan - examines the City from a standpoint of asking the question of, are there areas of the City in which change is likely to occur due to issues of land use incompatibility, economic issues, etc. It concentrates on areas that emerged during the public visioning process as needing attention in the future. • There are a number of specific sub areas that have been examined for which changes in land use and /or density and intensity have been specified. • There will be growth in other areas of the City as the General Plan currently permits that growth. He then showed a graph depicting changes by this process. • He referenced areas of undeveloped capacities remaining, such as THe Newport Coast area, Corona del Mar, the Balboa Peninsula area, and Balboa Island. • There are places in the City that have existing office and retail development i.e., the area of Santa Ana Heights. There has been an attempt in a number of these areas to scale back those densities. • The Irvine Company has looked at the removal of almost 400 residential units in the Newport Coast area from the growth capacities as well as 1,300 residential growth elsewhere. s. Temple explained that in Corona del Mar and on Balboa Island, there is two amily zoning. Not all lots are currently developed with two units and so that rowth represents the differential between every lot being two units and what is file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Page 3 of 16 Ion the ground today. I Tescher noted that there are almost 3,000 units of potential growth capacity; additional capacity is on the books today. Wood noted that all these units are carried in the traffic model and show the generation and traffic from the circulation system assuming full buildout. Ir. Tescher noted these were numbers that were on the books at the time of th urrent General Plan. Even though those numbers were technically in place, lose units haven't been built out. The numbers we are looking at today, with ie traffic model for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the implication that II those are actually going to be physically built in 25 years, based upon the xperience today, is possibly questionable. continued on the possibility of traffic impacts on local intersections. s. Wood noted that GPAC and staff had proposed that in West Newport the o family designation be changed to single family designation and there was �neral agreement on that but for purposes of the EIR, we left it as two family. aff had suggested a similar change for Balboa Peninsula, but a number of operty owners were not supportive of that, so GPAC did not recommend it anc either did the Planning Commission or City Council approve that in the project !scription for the EIR. We did make a similar recommendation for Balboa and and GPAC agreed, that was not included in the project description for the R; and for Lido Isle the underlying lots are much smaller than the lots people in and have built their houses on so that there is capacity of another 300 sidential units, we had suggested that that capacity be reduced to what it is Jay along with the recommendation to require consolidation of lots rather than aving the ability of using those old small lots. Those are some of the issues at the Planning Commission and City Council will need to make their final !cision on as we proceed with the Land Use Element. '. Tescher noted that the numbers are based upon what was present in 2005. , ooing at the EIR you will see bigger numbers for additional capacity in the Bas of about 2,000 to 3,000 housing units in Newport Coast. That is because D base of the traffic study used for the EIR and the basic year for all the data the EIR was 2002. There has been a fair amount of construction that has tually occurred since 2002 so this is an update of numbers to the base year of 05. You will see impacts of increments of growth in the EIR not only for the alas that the City Council suggested that we explore for height numbers such in the airport area that ended up in the draft plan, but you will also see a ference between what is actually built on land as the base for the EIR. So, % impacts are going to appear greater than based upon where we are in 2006. nuing, he referenced a table and noted the study areas that are primarily iercial areas discussed during the visioning process as having either tunities to change due to economic potential, or the need for change. The of significant change are. 1. Airport area - potential changes replacing commercial and office with housing. 2. Fashion Island /Newport Center area - opportunity for retail increase; file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Page 4 of 16 minimal change for office; and opportunity to add housing and hotel units. 3. Mariner's Mile area - adding housing. 4. West Newport Mesa area - area abutting Hoag Hospital 5. Banning Ranch area - open space with a fall back for residential. 6. Balboa Peninsula area - reducing some commercial capacity and replacing with residential basis. he table shows an update of the existing use in the City in 2005, a tabulation of ie potential yield or results from continued implementation of the existing eneral Plan, the change in those numbers that have occurred from the draft nd comparisons with the EIR, which has higher numbers because of the irection to explore the consequences of larger growth in the EIR. He went on explain the table and the numbers. r. Carlton Waters, consultant from Urban Crossroads, noted: • Traffic implications have been reviewed as suggested previously by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. • This additional analysis is what is referred to as the preferred alternative in the General Plan, or the with project in the environmental document for the General Plan Update. • The number of intersections showing deficiencies today can, through application of appropriate improvements to the roadway system, be reduced for the with project scenario, although the with project scenario requires additional traffic generated for all these land uses that are depicted in the previous exhibit. • He went on to discuss the exhibits and resulting impacts; the intersections that would require improvements; regional growth impacts; changes in land use in terms of trip generation for the City as part of the analysis and trip distribution. • He noted that for the airport area with residential uses, the analysis shows that the slight increase in traffic generation potential would be improved due to the directional flow of traffic. Wood added that both the Planning Commission and City Council will want be thinking about some changes to the draft Land Use Element that will result less trip generation from the land uses. That may not necessarily result in a ange of the number of intersections that need higher improvement because much of the impact is regional traffic. r. Tescher then presented maps on each of the sub areas noting that there are ndamentally two land use classifications, one is a mixed use classification that II allow additional residential units which will be located outside the CNEL lines id two commercial nodes that include the court house as a public facility. The an in terms of numbers will either yield that status quo, or if there is residential areas that would occur as replacement for existing square footage. So, there >uld be a reduction of office, industrial and /or retail square footage that would cur primarily west of Jamboree and if the Conexant property were re -used for sidential, those existing uses would be replaced. There was discussion anging some locations within the Koll Center development as in -fill without !cessarily demolition or replacement of some of those uses. Toerge asked why mixed use development is shown inside the file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Page 5 of 16 ICNEL line? Tescher answered the Advisory Committee stipulated that in this area we rld have a maximum of about 3,300 residential units. That was a specified it within this area. They said west of Birch Street, residential could be ,ommodated if there was a waiver from the noise standards to meet the legal uired findings from the City Council, and, it could occur only if the trips from resulting residential would not exceed the trips from the otherwise permitted d uses within that area. Those were the two provisos in their plan. With the option of the Quail Street Village, there are minimum standards of ten acres the aggregate of uses and the inclusion of the one acre park and the paration of a plan that would meet the policies and standards including the enity of pedestrian oriented streets. :ussion followed on potential scattering of residential of ten acre chunks, a t come, first served' concept, the flexibility to be built into the system and a alatory philosophy as opposed to market and property owners' desires and it extent to keep the Airport Land Use Commission happy by keeping even potential residential use outside of the 65 CNEL. nmissioner Tucker noted it is the province of the City Council to make the cy decisions. He opined that the Commission should go through these are make recommendations to the City Council in an ordered fashion, so that Council can make the decision to remove density or changes from where t want to. in followed on the format, procedures and mechanism to deal with housing units, mixed uses, commercial use and housing densities. Area: Tescher reported: . Additional housing capacity - roughly 3,300 units. irperson Toerge asked why residential in this area? What are the regional ,ing needs? We have arrived at 3,300 units through our studies but why n 10? How do we arrive at these numbers. His other concern is the location residential within the 65 CNEL line; and, he is concerned with the mixed u, slopment and a potential requirement of 5 or 10 acre minimum parcels to i a residential development only. r. Tescher responded that as the sub area land use designation is written, this the most unique classification in the plan, as it indicates the areas within a ixed use can be 100% used for the underlying retail, office, industrial, iatever the existing land uses are; alternatively, the properties could be aveloped for a mix of development types such as 100% residential at the knsity specified in this plan; a third option is to have a mixed use building sere you have the retail or office on the lower floor and the residential above. sere are three options and the resolution of the later two options have to come rough a specific plan or some type of development plan that is prepared for at sub -area. This plan gives maximum flexibility for the development planning ocess to determine that specific yield or mix of uses on a site or within one of file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 residential villages. cuing, he noted the first development density increment needed to be at ar )e of 50 units per acre and that subsequent phases could be 30 units per This is referenced as LU6.15.11 and LU6.15.12 on page 3 -103 in the al Plan. iairperson Toerge noted that by mass zoning this entire region and creating opportunity for first come, first serve, it seems like we are allowing residential go where it might in that airport area. I thought this plan, where we identified ecific pod areas where residential could be developed, would create more 9cient traffic flow as opposed to the potential for that residential to be spread t and making it harder to reduce traffic and trips because of the lack of ncentration. He noted his concern of the CNEL line, the number of housing, d the way re- zoning would be done in the area. He opined that it should be :used in tighter regions to intensify the housing potential in those areas. 5. Wood clarified that the policy that requires the first phase of residential velopment to be a minimum of ten acres with the higher density was intended prevent the sprinkling of smaller housing development throughout the area. I veloper might comply with the ten acre minimum land area and 50 unit per re density, and it might be partly located on the shaded areas on the exhibit d partly outside them, at least we would have the ten acre base and we )ught we would be achieving the goals of live /work and getting people out of ussion continued referencing the exhibit under discussion; 5 acre minimum came out of the City Council as referenced in LU Policy 6.15.10 on page 3- issioner Henn noted that if there has to be a broader designation of itial capability in the entire airport area, excluding any land within the 65 line may make sense. ner Tucker asked if residential was scattered in all the areas, is that that would work well in the airport area? Are we happy with that m if housing ended up being there? nissioner Henn noted that the pods might be located or connected Bntly and it would be up to the individual developer of the ten or five acre He noted that there are other places where a lower number will have a tr Icial effect on the congestion issue as opposed to the airport area. He J the 65 CNEL line is problematic. nmissioner Tucker noted he believes the City Council should not override tl Tort Land Use Commission. The Airport Land Commission will not approve project and it would have to come back to the Council for a 4/5 override. It, lever, is their discretion. s. Wood added that one of the findings within the EIR regarding land use )mpatibility that, with the plan as drafted with residential shown within the 65 NEL contour, there is significant and unavoidable impact. The Council would ave to approve a statement of overriding considerations for those provisions Page 6 of 16 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Page 7 of 16 before the General Plan could be adopted. mmissioner Eaton noted the letter received from the Airport Land Use mmission, specifically asks to delete the residential from the mixed use feral diagram of the Land Use Plan. If we eliminated residential from both > diagram, that would have a significant effect on how many units could be re. He then noted a difference on the lines shown on two exhibits asking ich one was the accurate one. Staff noted they would address that. g, Commissioner Eaton noted that he was not clear about the Koll on which was replacement and which was additive housing. Tescher noted that the Roma design was done on the existing lay out of the i and what buildings were most likely to remain given physical racteristics, occupancy characteristics, etc. Their conclusion was that any of areas shown on the exhibit (Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative icept Diagram) as yellow are reasonably expected to be replacement west of Arthur. East of MacArthur, the Conexant property is also perceived to be a lacement use. He noted that the rest would be considered as in -fill. The nbers generated for the net yield of commercial and office were based on this ring a brief discussion it was decided to reflect this in the plan as it is (a policy decision if there should be additive development in some or any ms or whether it should all be replacement. Once that is decided, we will how to write the regulatory language. ussion continued on the yield of this number for purposes of the EIR at the lion of the City Council was 4,300 units. Deleting some of these areas n the CNEL would reduce the potential of the acreage unless the density increased. ) mmissioner McDaniel noted that due to the technology of planes and building nstruction today, he is concerned that this document, which will be in force for i years, excludes something that in the future would not be justified due to the Iditional technological advancements. He is not worried that property be veloped in that area with the technology of today. He opined that if the need present, we should allow that need to be fulfilled. He would like this to be as merit as possible to allow developers and those who have the money and red who want to live and build there, to do so. issioner Tucker noted he would not like to see overrides for this area. He like to see the areas for the housing be simplified. If we end up sting this potential residential from the 65 CNEL, the Council will have all ight that we have expressed through staff. missioner Cole noted he agrees with Commission Tucker's comments. He asked about the existing zoning with an FAR of .5 to 1.0. Temple answered: . General Plan categories are a mix of Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF) and commercial and general commercial with one area file: //F: \Users \PLN\5hared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Page 8 of 16 designated as public facilities, which is the court house. Underlying zoning in Campus tract is conventional zoning APF with a floor area ratio (FAR) of .5 or up to a maximum of .75. Rest of the area is in planned communities with building limits established block by block. An exception is a former older industrial site has since converted to other uses through a Use Permit and other means. mmissioner Cole noted most owners there have an FAR from .5 to .75 and new designation would be mixed use B2 would allow up to a maximum 75. Would any of the existing owners be down -sized by the proposed new >ignation from an FAR standpoint if they elect not to go ahead with the idential option? If some owners went ahead with the residential units, used m all up, would the other existing owners lose the ability to go ahead with it original ability to expand on a commercial basis? Temple answered: • No FAR's in the two Planned Communities. • FAR's based on the actual land that an individual owner might build some of those floor area ratios on a strict land to building ratio could be 3,4, 5 times the area of the lot, not a .5 or under 1. This is due to "footprint" lots. • The current General Plan today is a first come, first serve system where an allocation is established for a number of properties in a geographic area and the owners in that area access that entitlement for their own projects as it is available. • In the two Planned Communities, which is everything easterly of Birch, there is no difference from residential and commercial allocation today. • There are some lots in those areas where there is site specific floor area limits and for those you could calculate a FAR. Tescher, referring to page 3 -46 Table LU1, noted the descriptions of the ssifications and the deference to the statistical tables that indicate limits for sub areas. No one will be down -zoned by the new designation. nissioner Eaton asked for, and received, a clarification of the anomaly and the use of floor area ratios and flat square footage. ,ommissioner Cole opined that the airport area is a good area for mixed use as t was clear during the visioning process that the community seems to be willing o see residential as well as future office growth. It is also the best place for Lture office growth and by setting it up the way that is proposed, it might )reclude this office growth. It is easy to change the actual number and he wouk ike to hear about different numbers. He would not change the CNEL, as there ire enough prescriptions, and would not like to handcuff the Council. irperson Toerge asked if there was an opinion to not include the property in the CNEL line, how would we deal with a lot that is bifurcated by the line? r. Tescher noted this would be a policy. Most communities correspond the Ii the parcel boundary. Toerge noted: file: //F: \Users \PLN\5hared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Page 9 of 16 . If approved units are not built within the appropriate time frame, is there some process for an appeal? Wood noted that this could be dealt with as the implementing zoning or :ific plan is being structured. Some developers may want to protect their lement through development agreements, others may not. It could be set ugh a use permit. comment was opened. ,e Cohen, noted he has an interest in the Commerce Plaza property, asked many lots in this area are bigger than 5 acres? Noting the older properties would change, with a five acre rule in place, how many would be affected? Tescher noted that he did not have the diagram that designates five acre . He noted that there were few larger parcels. . Cohen noted the goal is to have a viable community but his concern is ere entrepreneurship goes into planning. He identified seven parcels that a acres or more and stated some of these do not make sense to go home nership. He suggested that the minimum acreage be lowered or eliminated there are really only two viable places to be turned into residential. He is 1cerned with the overall plan. Philip Bettencourt, on behalf of Brookfield Homes and Fletcher Jones, • Properties within the Quail Street node average 1.6 acres - parcel assemblage would be necessary to have an eligible site, or the specific plan study text would be necessary. • The existence of office buildings (approximately 2) that have been converted to condominiums make parcel assemblage difficult. • Housing opportunities within the City, and if the Banning Ranch housing opportunities and the airport housing opportunities are eliminated or severely constrained, there is no opportunity for legitimate starter families anywhere. • We want to be mindful of allowing housing opportunities within the airport area, and on this site the Planning Commission and City Council had amended the General Plan to provide for 152 two bedroom extended stay apartments, and Extended Stay America has been operating successfully in the airport area. McDermott, local resident, noted the following: • Concerned with the viability of assembling 5 acre parcels. • There is a need for a comprehensive plan but the ability of many of those owners to assemble those parcels to create viable residential, is a concern. • The additive residential needs definition in terms of Koll Center as the parking lot areas do represent a viable residential opportunity. Because of the types of land uses allowed within the planned community context, it really creates the opportunity as you have convenient work place settings. • Decisions may need to wait until the EIR has been reviewed by all parties. file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Page 10 of 16 1 . She asked for clarification on the General Plan structure. comment was closed. Toerge noted: Acreage size - critical mass of gaining residential in a consolidated area is a greater priority than the difficulty associated with assembling parcels. Property rights currently do not include any residential entitlement. The right to the residential entitlement only accrues if that development can accommodate or be accomplished pursuant to the reasonable planning guidelines that have been put together. then asked for straw votes on: 1. Elimination of mixed use designation within the 65 CNEL line, 2. Number of units, 3. Minimum acre size and density allocations, 4. Pod concept versus the first come first served concept, 5. A policy to better describe the replacement versus the in addition or additive residential development on some of the office properties. missioner Eaton asked if straw votes should wait until review of the EIR? i Toerge suggested that this item will be continued so if new received compels a change in opinion it can be noted. continued on further input at future meetings. discussion on each of these items, the straw vote results were: Elimination of units within the 65 CNEL line - the majority in favor of ninating in order to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Commission. Number of units - 4,300 were studied in the EIR and 3,300 are recommend, ay. Carlton Waters gave possible scenarios based on an Excel spread >.et. Straw vote for 3,300 was what the majority felt; however, two mmissioners felt that the number could be lowered given the concern of the )ort area continuing as the primary office center in the City. Minimum acre size and density allocations for first phase - Commission was favor of supporting the plan as drafted in these areas. Pod concept versus the first come first served concept - all agreed to the first ne first served concept as currently exists. Replacement residential or additive residential - How this was done needs to set forth in the General Plan. The traffic equivalency depends on how much ce commercial is reduced in order to get a certain number of residential ts. The basic policy question is should there be some areas within the airport a where one could add residential units without giving up commercial itlement whereas the other areas there would have to be some sort of nework. The Roma design considered additive in the parking centers at Koll file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Page I 1 of 16 Center only. comment was opened. McDermott added: • A lot of criteria is built into the policies for the airport. • Any project will be judged on meeting that criteria, and it is a comprehensive plan on how you contribute to parks, pedestrian connections etc. • The theory is that Koll Center meets these criteria with the other amenities that exist, independent of the acreage figure. • The fact that it would be additive, should be permitted. • Every parking area has landscaping so there would need to be some distinction as to what should be included. • The retention basins also have landscaping. Those basins must be retained as part of the flood control arrangement for that whole area. • The area around those basins offers opportunities for pedestrian linkage. -son Toerge noted his concern of the conversion of open space on an basis. If it is a conversion, you take away some office and add ial makes sense. Commission asked staff to include the reasons for allowing additive lential in the General Plan and to add policy that allows it only if there is no of significant landscaped areas and other amenities. Center and Fashion Island Tescher noted that in this area the land use designations reflect the intent, ch is specific in terms of numbers to accommodate a total retail capacity of )ut 425,000 above existing development. The increase in the total square tage in this area was specifically earmarked for an anchor use with )ortunities for office that would be incorporated in any of the areas designat( office or the mixed use area. However, that office is limited to expansion of sting buildings, not for new construction of office space within the area. It is modification of existing buildings. An addition of about 600 housing units in area of mixed use is the capacity plus another 125 rooms in a hotel. nissioner Tucker noted it is difficult to use this document and a detailed of contents would be most helpful. Staff agreed and will comply. Toerge asked why the Marriott or other hotels were designated as use. Wood answered that the area for the Marriott has just had a mixed use act approved. Temple noted that Newport Center is viewed as mixed use which is Eontal nature not vertical. continued on: file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Page 12 of 16 • The specific areas within the Center and the mixed use classifications as three categories - mixed use structures, development of areas for a horizontally distributed mix of uses, and commercial development on or near Coast Highway. • The possibility of hotels converted to condominiums. • The tennis courts classified as mixed use with the possibility of being converted to residential. • Hotels proposed to convert or add time shares are designated as visitor accommodations, not residential. • The property owner (The Irvine Company) recommended 450 units in this area. • The GPAC sub - committee recommended 600 units during this process. • Projects wishing to add residential to an existing commercial type tennis club. Toerge noted straw vote issues: 1. 600 units or less. 2. Whether or not the tennis courts should be included in the mixed use designation. 3. Whether or not the hotel should be included in the mixed use designation. 4. Why Corporate Plaza West is included in this designation. comment was opened. ike Erickson, RBF Consultant, speaking for The Irvine Company, noted: • They wish to withhold judgment until they have the EIR and are fully informed. • One of the Company's concern is in the designation of the units. • There is certain interest they have and as they give up units, that there is something in return that comes so that it doesn't get spread out into other parts of Fashion Island. • That is something to consider when designating the total number of units in this area. The Company would like to speak at the next meeting. McDermott, speaking on behalf of the Marriott Hotel, noted: • The Lennar application has been recently approved on a portion of the Marriott site for the condos that relate directly to the hotel through amenities. • The Marriott has rooms that have not been used under their existing entitlement and under the mixed use designation, they could provide a variety of either timeshares, additional condos or some other form of use. • She asked to leave the Marriott in the mixed use designation. • The development around the tennis courts design relates more to the golf course even though it supports the tennis courts, given the unique configuration. Boice, GPAC member and local citizen, noted: The recommendation by GPAC was for 600 residential units. The main concern is traffic and the reduction of any units in that area file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \04202006.htm . 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Page 13 of 16 would be welcomed to the neighborhoods. • She suggested that the Commission reduce the units to 450 as is suggested by The Irvine Company. • She had never heard about residential in the airport area during the visioning process only when it was brought up by GPAC. ublic comment was closed. ollowing an involved discussion of the issues, the following is a result of the traw Votes: 1. 600 units or 450 units - majority recommended reducing the number to 450; and, two Commissioners supported 600 units believing Newport Center is a desirable residential housing area. 2. The tennis court site excluded from mixed use, but the area around them can stay in mixed use - Commissioner Tucker recused himself from this item. The majority recommended that the tennis court site be allowed to have flexibility and be designated as mixed use. 3. The hotel footprints not be designated as mixed use - they recommended an additional policy that would prohibit using the residential entitlement to convert hotel rooms to full -time residential use and leaving the hotels as they are currently designated. 4. The Commission considered the elimination of the mixed use zoning in the golf course parking lot area. Commission Tucker recused himself from this discussion. The majority recommended to leave it as OS (Open Space). 5. Corporate Plaza West - keep the designation as CO -R and the landscape pieces (corner arches) as Open Space and delete the mixed use. 6. They agreed with the retail in Fashion Island and the 40,000 square feet to existing buildings only, not new buildings. lest Newport Mesa: Ir. Tescher noted the policies call for the reuse, infill and intensification of iedical related office adjacent to Hoag Hospital. This represents conversion of )me existing industrial and other uses for higher density residential. This area urng the visioning process was noted with potential change and has a capacity f approximately 1,400 residential units. The density has a maximum of 30 units, Dr acre in this area and the designation of RH -A. There was a trade off for Mitional height in exchange for greater open space at the ground level in the )licies that were previously reviewed. Is. Temple noted the typical residential density for multi - family in this area irrently is 20 units per acre. Is. Wood added that for office, this area has a high FAR of 1.25 so the square otage is quite high. Ir. Tescher noted that the difference from the existing General Plan is about 50 units. The commercial /industrial with the 1.25 FAR provides for about )0,000 square feet of additional non - residential use. r. Carlton Waters noted the net change in trip generation based on the file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006\04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Page 14 of 16 preferred alternative for this area is an increase of between 8,000 and 9,000 rips on a daily basis. The traffic increase is due to an increase of 950 apartment units and 550,000 medical office square feet. iscussion continued on the numbers, zoning classifications and FAR's. Wood noted that the Newport Technology Center is in an area where it was fight having higher buildings would not impact surrounding residences or rs. As long as they were parked adequately, the 1.25 FAR would fit in the i; however, we now see the yield and the traffic results and now question as well and would recommend 1.0. missioner Tucker noted the reduction of the industrial that ends up in office ting in 6,000 trips, he questions whether they would be there in the first continued. blic comment was opened. McDermott, noted: • Hoag is considering replacing one of their buildings with a parking structure. • The parking structure is not included in the FAR count. • The office will remain at .5 and the industrial will be at .75 because this building is taking place with a use permit which is allowed under the M1A zoning. • At the minimum we would need the .75 because eventually we would like to come back and get the whole thing after the General Plan is approved but we can't do that now under the use permit procedure. • There is a reduction of square footage, and addition of a parking structure but the FAR is complicated by the two uses allowed on the property at present. • The other properties she represents now are looking for under 20 dui's. • This area could allow for some affordable housing, which is part of the reason for the higher densities. comment was closed. r. Carlton Waters used his exhibit and gave different proposed traffic meration numbers representing the net increase with the different FAR's. >Ilowing discussion it was determined that the Commission was very mcerned with the traffic generation, and, the reuse of Newport Technology aver for medical uses that could increase the trips but reduce the trips througt reduction of the FAR to .75. It was agreed to lower the residential designation the lower density classification of 20 units per adjusted gross acre. votes: 1. FAR for medical /commercial office limited to .75 -the majority agreed. 2. Residential density remain at 20 units per acre (RM -B) -the majority file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Page 15 of 16 1 agreed. was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this matter to May 4, 2006. None Hawkins None BUSINESS: BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood reported that the Council reviewed the Gei Plan Elements that the Commission had reviewed at their last meeting. There a fair amount of testimony regarding the issue of moorings and the transfer of t moorings. The Council chose to go with the substitute language that had recommended by the Harbor Commission because they felt it was a middle gn and provided the most flexibility for the future. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developm Committee - Commissioner Henn noted that the subcommittee considering the d Economic Development Strategic Plan has met once. They have decided embark on a plan to draft that document to make it perhaps more actionable a specific. They are not certain it is appropriate at this time to have a completed d of that document prior to the completion of the General Plan and submission to electorate, as there are issues in the General Plan that may have significant imp to the strategic plan. The committee will continue work on the draft but it will not finalized for some time. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Committee - Commissioner Eaton reported no meetings. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal PI Certification Committee - Ms Temple reported that the Committee considered I review of the Implementation Plan (IP) related to the City Council and Planni Commission meetings on the General Plan Update. Councilmember Ridgeway h asked for a new schedule that will be held in June and the reconsideration of the in August due to vacation scheduling. Commissioner Henn noted that seve sections were worked through during the meeting one of which is the height limit. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee Commissioner Eaton noted that Councilmember Selich is asking that meetings k held off until June. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the City Hall Site Committee Commissioner Tucker reported the last meeting will be May 1st as the report has t( be to the Council. There are two sites to be considered, the existing site and a sit( in Corporate Plaza West. The benefits of that site is that it is centrally located an( has a 42,000 square foot office building that can easily be retrofitted for City us( and has vacant land so that the special use part of the city building, i.e. counci chambers could go on to that property. The owner of the property is the Irvin( Company and whether they would be a willing seller or not remains to be seen. These are the two sites that have survived through our process. The Council will b( making the choice. Discussion followed. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Chairperson Toerge noted he would like a report on t status of the Use Permit for the Newport Beach Brewing Company. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/20/2006 Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none; at Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood reported that next agenda will list review of the Implementation Plan. Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Henn requested an excuse May 4th. Page 16 of 16 ADJOURNMENT: 10:35 p.m. JADJOURNMENT BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \04202006.htm 05/24/2006