Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes -8-16-2005-GPPlanning Commission Minutes 08/16/2005 4 Page 1 of 10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081605.htm 09/23/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director haron Wood, Assistant City Manager Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager David Keely, Associate Engineer Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Elwood Tescher, Consultant, EIP Associates rleton Waters, Consultant, Urban Crossroads PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS one None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on August 5, 2005. AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Review of General Plan Update Land Use Recommendations and ITEM NO.1 Selection of Preferred land Use Plan /Project for Environmental Impact Report Discussion Item Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager, stated that what staff is asking the Planning Commission and the Council to decide on over the next two meetings is the project description for the EIR. We should remember that it's possible to approve a General Plan that has less capacity than what was analyzed in the EIR, but you can't go above what you've analyzed in the EIR unless you re -do and re- circulate the EIR. So if you're going to err on one side or the other, I would encourage you to err on the high side so we don't find ourselves at the end of the process hung up by an EIR that considered too little. This is not to suggest that you do something that's unreasonable, or that you would never nsider approving; but, if you're on the borderline I think we should keep that in mind. est Newport Highway file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081605.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/16/2005 Page 2 of 10 Elwood Tescher reviewed the staff /GPAC recommendations for the West Newpord aioner Eaton asked for more discussion about why the GPAC recommended amount for commercial for the area. Tescher explained GPAC had debated between the existing general plan and er number recommended by staff and after much discussion decided to split ber in half. nissioner Eaton asked for more information regarding the down - zoning of Area R -2 to R -1. He was concerned about the community reaction to this action a I how many lots were currently developed as duplexes. Wood reported that she attended the West Newport Visioning meeting called uncil Member Rosansky where he asked those in attendance (approximately 1 out this issue and all but 6 to 8 agreed with the concept of reducing the zoning from R -1. She added that the same sentiment was expressed in the public workshops t June. She and the Council Member also realize that most people in attendance w )bably from owner occupied single family residences. Temple did not have the exact number of duplexes in the area, however indicated tl t of the older development was largely two family units until the trend beg -oximately 10 years ago when these properties began to be rebuilt as single fan nmissioner Tucker pointed out that this issue may be a call for the Council Member district which could be based on the people this would affect. He also added that go through these areas there may be some properties where we could change sor imercial areas to residential which would not intensify the use and could perha ice some impacts. Tescher stated that staff and GPAC did recognize the viability of some of mmercial in this area because of the size of the parcels, parking issues, etc. w )mpted the recommendation to promote aggregation of lots to create more cohe velopment patterns. He indicated there would be more discussions during developr the economic strategic plan later in the process. er McDaniel asked if it was true that the greatest demand currently is He felt that if there is a demand, the money would follow to make it happen. Wood responded that it depended on the area but overall it was a correct statement. r. Tescher added that there had been comments from people in the neighborhood whc anted to have some local serving commercial in the area so they could walk to services. PAC felt there was still some opportunity for commercial in the area. nissioner McDaniel also felt that as soon as an area is declared open gone comes in asking it be designated something else. He gave the example behind the Central Library that will be developed as a park. Commissioner Hawkins asked for more discussion of Sub Area C, and asked if it was intended to be multi - family residential and /or open space and if both how it was going to fi file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081605.htm 09/2312005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/16/2005 Page 3 of 10 lin the area. I I nmissioner Cole asked if we wouldn't be better off recommending, for the purposes EIR description, to keep the R -2 designation and have the higher density evaluated. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. icy Gardner, GPAC Co- Chair, indicated the GPAC members struggled with all >mmendations presented; however they tried to keep an overall view to try to bale needs of different areas and asked the Commission to do the same. in Debay indicated she had previously served on the SCAG Housing and C welopment Committee and asked if GPAC had discussed the State quirements during this process. She was concerned about the down - zoning i this area. Wood indicated that the Committee had discussed the housing requirements and ant Housing Element has a program requiring 20% of all units in new development, age to be affordable to low and moderate income households and she thought ram would continue with this update. She added that GPAC had recommenc rases in housing in other areas of the City. Debay also pointed out that she had been involved in getting a condo con% ram to improve some of the older duplexes in West Newport and asked how d be affected by the down - zoning. Wood responded that existing condos would be legal non - conforming uses. Howe) re developments would not be allowed. She added that because the Planni emission and Council had been reviewing parking requirements for those conversioi felt that trend would be slowing down because of increased requirements. mmissioner Tucker pointed out that this general plan.would be in effect for four or re RHNA updates and each update is anticipated to increase the housing requirem we have to plan on where to add those units. airman Toerge stated that for this section the recommendation is to evaluate R -2 in m D and maintain the higher retail density as recommended by staff for consider, the EIR. He polled each Commissioner. Commissioner Henn opposed evaluating the higher retail Commissioner McDaniel agreed with the recommendation Commissioner Tucker agreed with the recommendation Commissioner Cole agreed with the recommendation Commissioner Hawkins preferred R -1 rather than R -2 Commissioner Eaton agreed with the recommendation Ran file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081605.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/16/2005 Page 4 of 10 imissioner Tucker noted that the Banning Ranch proposal is considerably less th land use designation in the County and the City presently provides for, and he ;erned that if we study the recommendation as opposed to what the General Plan h ently set forth and the County and the City provides, we're not going to have enou in our analysis. From a legal standpoint he is worried about whether we can all units than what they have today, especially because the property is mainly in i recommended postponing the discussion on this area until the meeting of due to ongoing discussions with the owners of the property. Mr. Tescher reviewed the staff /GPAC recommendations for the area. Cole asked for a clarification of medical related uses. Tescher explained it could be medical offices, convalescent facilities, etc., the ing would determine the range of uses. ioner Eaton asked for more discussion regarding the recommendation the mobile home parks and if that was a conflict when the recommendation is e revitalization of the higher density housing in the area. As. Wood responded that she recalled that GPAC didn't want to restrict the mobile hi Iarks so they could not be changed to a different type of multi - family development, so nd designation allows multi - family residential. However in the policies it encoura etaining these parks because they do provide affordable housing and are well maintah She added that the current zoning ordinance includes a mobile home park overlay & luite strict about keeping mobile homes. imissioner Eaton asked about the area on the west side of Monrovia, he pointed in the introduction it had been described as underutilized commercial. He drove today and thought it looked pretty heavily utilized. Wood indicated that there was an application in process to convert the commercial iential. She added that the area backs up to Banning Ranch and if that area w )loped it would likely be higher density residential also. hairman Toerge opened the discussion to the public. Dietz, GPAC Member, asked the Commission to consider a high rise sf opment in this area and to increase the housing level in the recommendation to to allow such a project. She felt it would fit well in this area being near me, es. McDermott indicated she represented the property located at the terminus of t and Monrovia and they had filed for a General Plan Amendment for multi-ft ng which is consistent with what is being recommended by the consultant/staff. oner Tucker asked if the suggested 32 units per acre was a maximum or He asked if this would prohibit a development as described by Ms. Dietz. file://H:\Plancomm\2005\081605.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/16/2005 Page 5 of 10 Ms. Wood indicated it would not; however recognized that the EIR would have to conside visual impacts for a project of that size. Tucker suggested adding language indicating an average of 32 units immissioner Cole indicated the use suggested for the Newport Technology G )uld increase traffic and that not too long ago the Commission had a hearing regal aining the Research & Development uses to reduce the traffic impacts to grounding community. Tescher acknowledged that the traffic is higher in this area and that increase is c other areas of the City where trips were reduced. airman Toerge stated the recommended change to the staff recommendation would reflect housing of 32 units per acre on an average basis for this area. There were ections. and he stated the Commission was unanimous in this decision. Boulevard Tescher reviewed the staff /GPAC recommendations for the area. imissioner Hawkins asked about the recommendation for office up to two stories Area A and the mixed use up to three stories in Sub Area B. r. Tescher clarified that office could go on either side but mixed use only in Sub Area irtly because of the terrain. He added that because of construction costs, the minims r mixed use is three stories. Hawkins asked about the height of the three story buildings. r. Tescher indicated it would be approximately 40 feet depending on the building :tual construction. ner Hawkins had concerns about putting the 40 foot buildings next although did not have the same concerns in Sub Area A. Toerge had some of the same concerns with the impacts of the three st on the residents of the area. He also indicated some concern with the .5 FAR he will address in the future. However for the purposes of the EIR description I the recommendations as written. iissioner Hawkins suggested locating the higher buildings in Sub Area A and two story buildings in Sub Area B for the purposes of the EIR. missioner Henn pointed out that for the purposes of the EIR it didn't matter whether in Sub Area A or B because the total to be evaluated won't be much different. Toerge opened discussion to the public. an Debay indicated she is working with a developer who is planning a mixed use evelopment on the southernmost piece of Sub Area A. She added it would b condominiums and the project will not pencil out if not allowed to go to a third story. Sh file : //H:1Plancomm\20051081605.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/16/2005 Page 6 of 10 asked the Commission to consider three stories in Sub Area A. missioner Eaton pointed out the recommendation only allows mixed use on the and asked if Ms. Debay's application would suggest a different recommendation. Tescher pointed out that Commissioner Hawkins had recommended the [hree story buildings be allowed in Sub Area A instead of B. missioner Eaton asked if that would cause a conflict because of noise issues port Boulevard. Tescher responded that would be a consideration and we would have to look at ,nan Toerge indicated that the Commission was recommending mixed use /three buildings on both sites for purposes of the EIR and we can evaluate the use later. were no objections from the Commission. Tescher reviewed the staff /GPAC recommendations for the area. missioner Eaton asked about Sub Area D, whether it was intended to be either lborhood shopping center or a mixed use development. He stated that Ms. Wo( ated it could be both and he wanted more discussion about that site. Wood indicated she meant to say either /or; however, her point was that either e was still the opportunity to serve the local retail shopping needs of the people in the surrounding area. ioner Hawkins asked if the multitude of ownership in Sub Area C would create for the planning in this area. He also asked if staff /consultant had ai ,ns of incentives to mitigate those problems. Tescher indicated there would be a lot of discussion as the process moves into 1 �Iopment of the economic strategy plan. He added that the trend today is tl :topers come in and develop a single parcel or multiple parcels more equivalent i homes creating more of a village kind of character as opposed to larger high r cities. One or two lots could be suitable for that type of development today. )mmissioner Henn asked why there was no recommendation for residential in Sub (Lido Marina Village), such as mixed use. r. Tescher indicated that was an option originally considered for that area however Dre concerns about the height and Coastal Act issues that were considered. Wood added that we felt that was one of the few areas where more Comm ity could be done on waterfront property without impacting nearby residential h is the kinds of uses the Coastal Commission is looking for along the waterfront. Commissioner Tucker also thought residential should be looked at for this area. He fell hat adding residential would allow the area to start living up to its potential. He also had a uestion about what is happening with the South Coast shipyard property. fi le: //H: \Plancomm \2005\081605.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/16/2005 Page 7 of 10 IMs. Temple indicated that we're in the process of preparing the environmental documeni� however there are still issues with the level of information in the application. nmissioner Tucker commented that he did not think that the Albertson's would last site was redeveloped into mixed use structures. iissioner Henn thought there was a pie shaped area in the Lido Marina Village be residential mixed use. ommissioner Hawkins asked about the small lodging facilities in Lido Marina Village there had been a preference by GPAC or staff to avoid a large lodging facility. He *ed if there were other areas considering larger hotels. Wood indicted there was a very strong reaction against a hotel in the area in a sur e during the visioning process. Approximately 68% of the responses indicated they support a hotel there. Tescher responded that hotels are being considered in the Newport Center /Fash id and Airport areas. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the ssioner Henn recommended allowing mixed use residential in the Lido for EIR evaluation purposes. Toerge polled the commissioners on this issue. Commission Tucker supported Commissioner Henn's recommendation. Commissioner Eaton asked the Chair to come back to him. Commissioner Hawkins supported the staff recommendation. Commissioner Cole supported Commissioner Henn's recommendation. Commissioner McDaniel supported Commission Henn's recommendation. Chairman Toerge supported the staff recommendation. Toerge indicated four votes were supporting the addition of mixed to Lido Marina Village for purposes of the EIR and directed staff to add Tescher reviewed the staff/GPAC recommendations for the area. Toerge asked where GPAC had suggested adding more visitor serving uses area. Tescher responded that they did not designate a specific location or parcel, file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081605.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/16/2005 ly throughout the area. )mmissioner Eaton asked about the significant difference in the retail and office the report presented to GPAC and the report presented to the Commission. r. Tescher explained that it had been an error in the report presented to GPAC and commendation was the same to both groups. :)mmissioner Henn asked if there was a significant different in traffic generation bed and breakfast type facility and single family or R -2 uses. Teton Waters responded that the trip generation for a bed and breakfast would ( the number of rooms available, however typically the numbers would be a bit n the trip generation for a single family home. nmissioner Henn added that one of his concerns is the lack of viable hospitality on insula and asked if it would be appropriate for EIR purposes to evaluate the hic \C recommendation. er Tucker asked about the Emerald Forest building and why residential in that particular area wouldn't be possible. Wood indicated she would be less concerned about adding residential in this she was with Lido Marina Village. Eaton asked where the reduction of 90,000 sq. ft. of office would r. Tescher indicated the reduction was from the current General Plan capacity in ea, it may not be existing office today. :)mmissioner Tucker asked if the potential reuse of the fun zone area for the useum would fit in with the recommendations. Tescher responded it would. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the nan Toerge stated the Commission is recommending to include mixed e ipment in Sub Area A and include the larger amount recommended by GPAC serving bed and breakfast/hotel. There were no objections from the Commission. Mariners Mile Tescher reviewed the staff /GPAC recommendations for the area. nmissioner McDaniel expressed concerns about adding residential in this area due speed of traffic in this area. Hawkins asked what height was being considered for the residential bluff. Page 8 of 10 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081605.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/16/2005 Tescher indicated that the height would be based on protecting the views from ' which is why the recommendation is to put the taller buildings to the rear of erties near the bluff. He also stated that traffic had been reduced with d uses in this area by about 2% from the existing uses. ssioner Tucker thought that for EIR purposes some level of mixed use residentia be considered on the bay side of the highway. sioner Henn agreed and pointed out that at vacant property for quite some time. 1 marine uses; however the viability of that nent should be evaluated on the waterfront. irman Toerge opened discussion to the public. people living on the bluffs have be He added that he is a proponent use is in question and thought via McDermott stated she represented the Ardell property as well as others in 1 !rs Mile area. She presented a document with recommendations for langua :s to the Commission. She felt that the incentive of adding residential is what sary for revitalization of the area. She stated she had been involved in the GPj nmittee discussions for this area and felt they were excited about the possibility itial uses on the bay side of Coast Highway. She indicated they would supp limits, limits on the amount of residential, and lot consolidation to create vial use. She asked the Commission to consider residential use in Sub Area A. lip Lugar, GPAC Co- Chair, stated he had also attended the subcommittee meeting area and felt that Ms. McDermott had overstated that they had been enthusia ut residential on the bay side. He stated they were enthusiastic about residential inland side of the area but had difficulty with residential on the bay side. Duffield stated that he realized that adding residential is the economic choi er there are currently 9,000 boats in the bay and they may have to be taken im for service because there will be no place to take them here. We are a mar and he doesn't think every inch of the waterfront should be a house. Daniels, Ardell Investment Company, stated he was interested to hear of the walk I Mariners Mile. He stated that property owners would be asked to help with cing of the project and in order to get that participation they would have to be allo e uses on their properties. iissioner Tucker indicated he would like to see mixed use studied however wanted on the properties east of Rodman and not include Mr. Duffield's location. Toerge asked if designating certain properties was appropriate or whether of the area should be studied. He indicated that some of the informatil was conflicting on the height of mixed use projects. Tescher explained that mixed use could be vertical or horizontal and on the bay ects would be horizontal with the residential to the rear of the commercial use. irman Toerge stated the Coastal Commission is focused on providing public access harbor /beaches and strongly supports visitor serving commercial. He would suppi lying some residential however not necessarily site specific. Page 9 of 10 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \081605.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/16/2005 nmissioner Eaton suggested wording to consider mixed use for parcels that have t 200 linear feet of frontage, stay within the existing height limit, be limited to 50% project area and reviewed on a project by project basis. Toerge heard no objections and stated that would be the recommendation. >mmissioner Tucker made some observations on the traffic part of the report, Table 1. questions the 3.55% reduction by what's being proposed because there are 2 items a' bottom that account for almost all of the reduction in trips. One is database cleanuF anges and the other is other land use changes to already built out areas that were no ill to their entitlement which may not really be a reduction in trips. Also, Banning Ranct shown as a 13,000+ trip reduction and that's based upon a reduction in densities tha iy or may not happen. We need to reformat the traffic information so that the effects o General Plan changes are more apparent. He asked if the EIR will be prepared basec on what's on the ground today versus the General Plan update. Tescher said it would be both, the EIR will uses and it will compare that with what's i. State law requires that , for a General I > lines. evaluate the recommended General PI; on the ground and the existing Genei 31an EIR, you compare both, you have was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. and will reconvene August 30, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. LI Page 10 of 10 file: //14: \Plancomm \2005 \081605.htm 09/23/2005