Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-30-2005-GPPlanning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 1 of 19 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 30, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - All Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Mr. Elwood Tescher, consultant, EIP Associates Carleton Waters, consultant, Urban Crossroads UBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on August 26, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of August 16,2005. ITEM NO. 1 Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item to September 8, Continued to 2005. 09/08/2005 Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS 1BJECT: Review of General Plan Update Land Use Recommendations and ITEM NO. 2 Selection of Preferred land Use Plan /Project for Environmental Impact Report Discussion Item New ort Center /Fashion Island file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Elwood Tescher reviewed the staff /GPAC recommendations for the West hway. missioner Hawkins noted his concern of the open space above the library ;ado. He noted the City Council has committed to this as open space but he wo specific square footages inserted, or something, so that is not cut back in not to accommodate other uses. iissioner Eaton asked how the 600 units will be allocated to the traffic there are twelve different traffic zones in this area. . Tescher answered that in the planning traffic modeling, regardless of the inte nes the allocation of where the uses are permitted, the traffic model takes itroid of all the uses within the outer boundaries and allocates them to the peripF surrounding network. The retail /entertainment use will be allocated to the Fas ind Center square footage; the office uses will be allocated to those areas "rently have office entitlement; and the housing will be located possibly to rtheast of the area. missioner Hawkins asked for a statement on the methodology for the ription and evaluation of the alternatives. Or. Tescher stated that as you go through the process and the public hearings there vill be the environmental impact report that will enable you to understand the various mpacts of the various land use options under consideration not only from traffic bu )ther factors that must be addressed. As you are making these recommendations used upon the EIR and additional public input, when you make a recommendatior vithin the context you can opt for something that is of a lesser impact than what the DR found but it is much more difficult to go to the other area. So, for example i nstead of 600 units, it was your recommendation at the time that we triple the housinc mits in the area, and that had not been considered in the EIR, you would have tc evise the EIR and go back for a public review process. So we do err and caution fo he higher side to work back from. imissioner Eaton asked if the lower intensities will be reflected in the EIR and those alternatives be generated, and who will decide upon them? Will the tr lel be run only on the preferred land use plan or will it be also be run on Tescher answered that by State Law, an EIR has to consider a project that res lesser impacts than indeed the primary project as being considered and evalue the EIR. Where the alternatives are less, than those will be considered a part of Z. We have not yet defined the alternatives, we will be doing that next w lowing these discussions. These alternatives will not be going back to GPAC. Carleton Waters, consultant from Urban Crossroads, answered that we are rune traffic model for the current General Plan and the preferred alternative. The tr reserved one model run based on the decision making process to address ifications between the alternatives and the preferred. Tescher added all of the trip generation resources and tabulations of all natives to date will be included. Page 2 of 19 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 3 of 19 immissioner Tucker noted that what we ultimately pick could be a lesser intensi in what we study in the EIR. We have gone through the study areas. Who is goir look at the specific choices for specific properties and when are they going to do it expressed that doing it at the last minute in two meetings is not going to be h Dice. We have a long time now before we have to make those decisions and ggest that we, or somebody, look at given areas now. 5. Wood answered that staff and the consultant team have started talking at iting the Land Use Element itself. We should be able to have some of that to oner. Another goal of this General Plan update is to back away from some of reel by parcel specificity that our current General Plan has because it is unusual not what the State Planning Law calls for, and so we are exploring ways where n express these General Plan entitlements in a more general way instead of spe !signations to parcels. missioner Tucker noted that landowners are going to need to understand wha can, and can not do with their property out of the effort that we are going through. ig an area and applying entitlement, we need to discuss how that will work an( is no reason it can't be happening now. Who will be involved, GPAC or the ning Commission, ultimately the City Council, whomever, we need to start now. imissioner Henn noted the Economic Development Committee pointed out tF e were defects in the calculations in the economic impact of retail /commercial Fashion Island area that resulted in a substantial understatement of the benefit in terms of revenues to the City. s. Wood answered that we use a city -wide fiscal impact model. There is a gener; >sumption that for all retail commercial zoned property we use a standard separatio 40% service commercial and 60% retail commercial. That same break down wa )plied in Fashion Island that shows a lower sales tax return than what you would g( you had more retail. We believe that in Fashion Island there probably is more tha )% retail as opposed to service and that will be run again when we run the fisca ipact model on whatever the preferred land use is. Tescher added that they are updating the fiscal impact model concurrent with is model. is comment was opened. is comment was closed. Eaton asked if a conference center could be considered in this su s. Wood answered that a study had been done several years ago. The conclusion at study was that a conference center needs so much subsidy, and in our case ( )tels are doing well enough, that there wasn't the return for the City to be providi at kind of subsidy. That idea was more for Council deliberation rather than a st Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to recommend the additional 125,00 square feet retail, no change from the existing entitlement for office, housing increas ntitlement by 600 dwellings, and increase entitlement by 65 rooms for hotel. file://H: \Plancomm \2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 4 of 19 Commissioner Hawkins noted that overnight lodging could encompass the convention) concept; and, none of this address the open space issue raised at the start of thin iscussion. The open space issue should be incorporated here. imissioner Tucker noted that his motion does not contemplate changes on el and does not want to get into each parcel in that context tonight. It is up to ncil to determine if a convention center is needed. nmissioner Hawkins noted he could not support the motion because of the lack open space designation for the parcel north of the library. Eaton, ( Hawkins del Mar Tescher reviewed the staff /GPAC recommendations for Corona del Mar. ) mmissioner Eaton asked what the difference is between the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .5 and the existing. Temple answered that both the existing and the proposed FAR is 0.5. GPAC ussion was on the reconstruction of non - conforming buildings that exceed 0.5. A :ific provision is included in this document about reconstruction in certain I. Tescher noted the GPAC recommendation was for the re- building based upon a tural disaster that would also allow the possibility for someone to upgrade, improve renovate their building. GPAC recommends the option to re -build to the same Boice, resident, noted: Corona del Mar is comprised of buildings that were built in the 40's and 50's and when an effort has been made to replace with a newer building they run into the burden of maintaining the 0.5 FAR. The end result is that the same buildings will be there forever. In a new building that is reconfigured for retail space, you can't do it the way it exists now unless you have a fire or an earthquake. What we would like to do is to have the ability for those who wish to replace their buildings have 1.0 FAR. Removing residential for parking spaces at today's cost would come to about $200,000 a parking space. >. Temple noted that the City has historically carried the standing development as sumed to continue without being taken down. Changing the reinstatement of non - nforming buildings upon demolition in addition to destruction or natural disaster out control of the owner will not have any implications to the impacts to the traffic and culation system. Mark Schuline, resident and business owner, stated that as an owner of several buildings in Corona del Mar, he can not knock his buildings down and replace them ith modern buildings due to the current restrictions. He stated that his options are file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Carnmission Minutes 08/30/2005 limited. )hn Blom, resident and business owner, stated that people have put in underground irking and parking on rooftops. In order to do something this expensive, you have to able to build on a 1.0 ratio in order to make it worthwhile. Following a brief scussion he suggested a parking district for Corona del Mar when people come to e City for a variance for parking, charge them for it. Put that money into the parking strict so then the City would have money to buy a piece of property for parking rather an just giving a parking spot that will not be used because it is inconvenient to the ) nsumer. At Commission inquiry, he noted that people should be allowed to build the ime size square footage structure as presently on the property. is comment was closed. nmissioner McDaniel noted his concern is not the fact that we give the ability to re- d at 100% of the size that they have, it is what are they going to use it for? One ding now that is an old building that has two people parked during the day; then it is i down and has a use of 20 people an hour. How do you allow for that without wing individually what is going to go in there? I support the fact of charging a fee parking spaces, but I don't know what that number would be. I would like to see 'ona del Mar be re- vitalized on a regular basis, but there are issues in terms of king that we are not going to solve easily. hairperson Toerge noted that there hasn't been a time when anyone from the )mmunity has support parking waivers in the Corona del Mar community. The )mmercial property owners would, but there is no support from the residential )mmunity. When parking has been waived it is based on the specific merits of the >e, not of the structure, particularly in conjunction with use limitations that are tached to that particular use. In the case of those restaurants, the operation hours arranted the waiver. The suggestion that we allow buildings to remain at 0.5 Overage is in contrast to what we hear when applicants come before us. The scussion of parking nodes throughout the community and the creation of some in -lieu es to help create their own parking is a great idea but so far, nobody has come up ith a plan that is workable. It is a linear commercial district and allowing someone to ark four blocks away will not solve the problem, that would be the parking of last sort. An in -lieu fee will only work if there are locations spread out along the arterial at would be reasonably workable. : Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted a substantial number of the buildings are m- conforming, both as it relates to floor area and as to lack of code required parking. the FAR was increased to 1.0 there would be traffic implications, whereas the origina commendation would not. iscussion followed on the policy of non - conforming buildings. :ommissioner Tucker recommended to stay with the development capacities of 0.5 AR per the existing General Plan and the right in event of fire or other natural disa: nder our Municipal Code as opposed to the General Plan to re -build in those ircumstances. Eaton asked about the parking issues of this policy. Hawkins agreed with Mr. Bloom's comments regarding in -lieu parking Page 5 of 19 file : //H:\Plancomm120051083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 6 of 19 es r. Tescher stated the GPAC policies recommended for parking were for the shared cilities as identified in the staff report with the caveat that the ground level is used for tail. )mmissioner Hawkins asked about the impact of incorporating the GPAC commendations. Mr. Tescher answered it was neutral. :)mmissioner Tucker noted that if we added up to 1.0 FAR, which in many cases Auld be what is existing, that we would end up with traffic ramifications. r. Tescher explained that it is neutral from the standpoint of the additional square otage. Referring to the exhibit, the existing General Plan, which has the .5 FAR, lows on the sites with sites that are developed with less than with the .5 FAR ipacity. Today there is a square footage increase of about 125,000 square feet thin the area with some additional office square footage as well. Staff and GPAC )th recommended the same consequences. The charts already include the operties that are built at higher than the 0.5 FAR as the base. )mmissioner Tucker noted that some of them are not built to what the General Plan ows and some of them are built to over what the General Plan allows. If all of them ive the right to go to a higher number, isn't Patty's position right? s. Wood noted the recommendation was not to allow every property to go to 1.0 kR, just those that exceed the .5 now could re -build at whatever non - conforming level ey are at. The reason that would not have any implications on traffic or roironmentally above the existing General Plan, is because our past practice has yen to assume that existing non - conforming levels of development will remain on the ound. This is in addition to a natural disaster, if someone wanted to re- develop their operty they could demolish what is existing and re -build at the same intensity. )mmissioner McDaniel stated we are assuming that if a property is rebuilt to the ime size it was that the use will remain the same. If the use changes that could range parking. s. Wood answered then they would have to meet the code required parking for iatever the new use was. We are not talking about giving breaks for parking, all this saying is that one could re -build the building. otion was made by Commissioner Eaton to recommend as GPAC recommended th the revised wording acknowledging that does not address parking problems. >mmissioner Henn clarified we are recommending the 0.5 FAR plus the policy re- iild recommended by GPAC. ie maker of the motion aareed. ns, Tucker file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 7 of 19 1Mr. Tescher gave a staff report overview of the basic recommendations from the 1 1 nissioner Eaton asked about the area designated by the 65 dBA CNEL boundary Mr. Tescher, referring to the exhibit, pointed it out. nissioner Eaton asked about the residential units. Mr. Tescher referred to the on page 77and the staff report on handwritten page 50. Eaton asked how the replacement would be managed. r. Tescher answered the calculations were based upon these properties for these ductions indicated as a permissible use and replacement as well as in the northwest )rner of MacArthur and Jamboree. He affirmed that the additions would be on the DII property as the scale of the buildings was a primary factor with one and two story Adings today. The scale of the Sutton Place hotel or some other buildings would not �cessarily change. It is being looked at as a unit, and if the replacement happens on parking lot, that will have to be replaced and integrated into the creation of those her pedestrian linkages, architectural and landscape relationships. imissioner Eaton asked about the reduction of densities, what was the reduction is it the same throughout? Tescher answered the intention and discussion was that this was intended to be rage density over the entire site with approximately 50 units per acre. He noted there may be a variable height achieved within the area, but we are not going to cifv where. imissioner Eaton asked about the two 65 dBA CNEL lines, what are the ifications of managing them? Harp answered that there has been some discussion regarding the liability ;ociated with overruling the Airport Land Use Commission's decision. There is an nunity applied to the proprietor of the airport if the City elected to overrule the »mission's decision. However, there is no statutory liability imposed upon the City overruling those decisions and no case law supporting imposing any liability on the Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the City has overruled the Airport Land e Commission for a child day care facility on Bristol Street. missioner Tucker discussed the dates for the settlement agreement and the :ss of overriding. Somebody is obligated with what goes on as to their impacts on and people. Discussion followed on possible potential liability and agreements. itinuing, he brought up the issue of the Conexant site and discussed those options. a manufacturing use, it does not seem to be adaptable to an office use. If that nufacturing use went away, what kind of plans do we have if that building is no aer a manufacturing use? Mr. Tescher answered that the recommendation is to allow the site to be converted to office, retail, or housing. The number of housing units is not incorporated and was not calculated separately. We have asked that this be looked at as one of the file: //H : \Plancomm \2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 village concepts. Discussion continued on trip generation rates. missioner Tucker noted he would like to see the housing in there. The airport may not end up being trip neutral at the end. The airport area has a lot less trc ems as opposed to along Coast Highway and that would be the better place to housing, to keep the traffic numbers down. issioner Cole noted this is one of the few areas that had wide support for growth h the Visioning Process. He noted his concern of office development there as Tescher explained the option of office or residential. He noted that for the EIR )oses the existing General Plan is being assessed as well that would allow only the 5ioner Eaton noted that there should be caps on trips relative to the existing Plan trips. He discussed intersection levels of service. He added that al should not be allowed in the Campus Tract. ioner Hawkins asked about the implications of the Roma study? Wood noted the first priority was for Roma to help with the number of dwelling s that might be reasonable. They are doing refinements of how much density can it at various sites and are starting to develop policies. Some of the policies they Id draft could end up in the General Plan Land Use Element and help with sions on appropriate locations within the airport area for residential development, connectivity so that we can be creating a real mixed use district. There are some 3estions for parks, different recreation needs and size of the projects that may be ing forth. Some of these policies may end up in the Zoning Code. nmissioner Hawkins noted that to the extent that the City needs to make decisions arding the project description for the EIR in connection with the Land Use Element, have sufficient information from them that we can move forward and not risk a 3lem down the road. agreed. comment was opened. n Saunders, citizen and member of the General Plan Advisory Committee, noted following: • Recognizes the City needs more housing. • The Birch Street area is an undeveloped area. • The General Plan should not be an additional constraint to development that might be desired over the next twenty years. • The area noted within the decibel boundary is not suitable for housing. The Development Standards should be the constraint upon this area, rather than the General Plan. • He then explained the methodology used for recommendations on development capacity allowing flexibility. • The Birch Tract was included for flexibility as over half of it is in the area that is suitable for housing. Page 8 of 19 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Encourages the Commission to not be overly restrictive particularly in the Birch /Campus Tract areas. GPAC recommends that areas B and C be combined to allow housing. mmissioner Tucker asked if there is a difference in terms of the traffic study where TAZ's are and the intersections are that we designate which of these properties are which use? Should we pick a volume of housing to study and figure out where that ume is going to go? That way, Roma Consulting will have more of an opportunity to ne their plan. eton Waters answered that the traffic generated from this basic area will be ibuted over a broad area, the specific locations will have a minor affect on resulting mes. It is more important to identify a quantity of potential residential use. imissioner Tucker noted his concern of a situation where the trips from Conexant understated because it is being treated as an industrial use when it isn't under the itional concept. For the EIR purposes I would like to figure out the number of units should go on that property. imissioner Hawkins noted that there needs to be a methodology to determine the ber of housing units in this area. My understanding of the 3,300 residential imum it was trip neutral, that was the basis. If that is the case, we can allow fential so long as over the existing General Plan it doesn't increase the trips. That methodology on which we can proceed and I would like to propose that. rperson Toerge, referencing the bar chart, asked if the potential 1,000 units that t replace the Conexant site are included? Tescher answered the additional estimated 1,000 would reduce the chart for the istrial as that is the current designation on site. ;hairperson Tucker suggested that for the EIR we support staffs recommendation w he expanded 1,000 units that might result from the Conexant site and reduce the ndustrial. This would add to the EIR study and allow us more flexibility in evaluating and uses. Henn asked for clarification on the 3,300 number on parcel C, how was arrived at? Tescher explained the calculation. Eaton asked about residential in the Campus tract. Wood noted that in the long term for policies in the General Plan, this is not an ropriate place for residential so close to the airport. We also need to continue to fide places for retail uses in support of all the other uses there including the airport, F residential and office that exists today. For purposes of numbers in the EIR, if we go with the 3,300 or the 4,300, that will not make much difference at this point. We deal with the policy issue later on after the EIR. vote: Adding the 1,000 units to the Conexant without the cap: Toerge, yes Page 9 of 19 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 10 of 19 )mmissioner McDaniel, yes )mmissioner Henn, yes )mmissioner Cole, yes )mmissioner Hawkins, we need a cap rmmissioner Eaton, we need a cap 31ion was made by Commissioner Tucker to do the development capacity adding the 3idential maximum of 4,300 units and we will decide where those go later, without a cap for the purposes of the El R. Tescher clarified that we are adding 1,000 residential units within the entire undary of the entire area, some of which may occur within the Campus tract area d that the trip cap would be applied to sub -area B on the map only. e maker of the motion replied that it applies to everything that it would have applied except for the 1,000 unit Conexant without a trip cap. All I am trying to do is the velnnmPnt canacity racnmmenrtatinn with a littler fivaalc (Ayes: Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn (Noes: I Eaton, Hawkins ning Ranch r. Tescher gave an overview of the recommendations contained in the staff report. Toerge asked if the property owner had been contacted. Wood answered that there have been discussions with the property owner and we j1d like to keep the numbers noted in the recommendation (the Taylor Woodrow posal) to give us more flexibility to work with the property owner and make sure that study enough units in the EIR . comment was opened. Basey, representing the Banning Ranch property owners, noted: • There is extensive oil production operations that encumber much of the property that has resulted in a network of roads, well pads, pipelines and facilities, along with a mixture of degraded native and non - native vegetation. • About 85% of the land lies within the unincorporated Orange County territory although it lies within the City's sphere. • The current General Plan would allow up to 2,735 dwelling units, 285,600 square feet of office space, as well as industrial and commercial uses on the site. • A study was done several years ago to set forth a balanced plan for the re -use of the property. This plan when compared to the existing General Plan, represents a 36% reduction. It eliminated office and industrial uses. • More than half the land will be permanent open space and will include habitat, recreation and preservation restorations. • Any proposed new land use on Banning Ranch can only be achieved after an extensive oil field abandonment, remediation and consolidation effort. • The property owners' plan for the site commits to undertaking that clean up and restoration effort as the first step towards reclaiming and re -use of the property. • We recommend that the Commission adopt staffs recommendation as we do to file: //H:IPlancomm120051083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 11 of 19 incorporate the 'Taylor Woodrow' option for analysis in the EIR. ommissioner Hawkins asked about the commercial uses. Ir. Basey noted it would allow for up to 75,000 square feet of retail uses as well as ndertake the complete restoration and clean up of the site. lancy Gardner, Co -chair of GPAC, noted GPAC was very strong about the numbers ublic comment was closed. ommissioner Eaton noted • The 'Taylor Woodrow' premise allows for the greater flexibility and has the land owners support. • The Commission has never seen this plan. • I do not support development going down the bluffs, but I support the rest of the plan. • I favor staffs recommendation for the EIR purposes. ommissioner Tucker noted that the Commission had seen this plan and had a study assion on it some time ago. He noted the essence of the plan for the enlightenment f the Commission. lotion was made by Commissioner Tucker to support the staffs recommendation for ie 1,765 housing units; 75,000 square feet for retail; and the 75 units for overnight bcommodations. ommissioner Hawkins noted he would like to have the motion include the open space ,sue that is called out in the recommendation. He noted that the gateway area called )r a specific open space plan or trail that does not currently exist. The Banning Ranch much more vague and general about the open space issue. We talked about a river ont park that could be regarded as open space, I am not referring to quantity. That is ie same area, right? Is. Wood noted the Orange Coast River Park would be north of Banning Ranch and ie proponents of that park would like to include the wetlands from Banning Ranch. ommissioner Hawkins noted his agreement with the residential numbers, but wants it > include a remainder for open space, so that we recognize that preserve as it was nportant to GPAC and residents. ommissioner Tucker noted he would not change his motion as there is a fair amount F that site that is submerged and there will be a lot of open space areas as there is no Cher alternative. We should study this for the EIR now and at some point deal with it ,hen there is an actual project discussed. I am not sure anything will happen to this te. ommissioner Hawkins agreed that, because the earlier Taylor Woodrow plan had a ibstantial allocation of open s ace, he could support the motion. yes: I Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Other Land Use Revisions: file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 12 of 19 ido Isle r. Tescher gave an overview of the other land use areas as contained in the staff rport. ommissioner Eaton asked about development going back to original lot lines Ilowing a merger on Lido Isle. s. Temple noted that this has happened very seldom and peculiar circumstances ave to come together to allow people to break lots back down to original 30 foot lots. ie first is you must have a lot configuration that is whole lots and many of these lots 'e small fractions of lots. Sometimes you may even get more than two owners to get gether in such a way that they are the appropriate underlying lots able to be :configured. This may have happened on the order of one maybe two a year at the ost. She further stated that there is a tendency to bring more lots together on the ater front to create a larger lot so that larger homes can be built. hairperson Toerge asked if the existing development with current trips could be tegrated as a comparison base line with the trip reduction so that we can see the fference? Will the EIR consider those 3,000 trips being there versus not being there. s. Wood answered this was one of the areas shown on the traffic study on the land >e alternatives. Yes, that is part of the existing General Plan so it will be ialyzed. ublic comment was opened. ublic comment was closed. otion was made by Commissioner Toerge to adopt staffs recommendation. Eaton, Hawkins, Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island and Beacon Bay Tescher noted that these are areas where the issue is R -2 designation where the d has been going to R -1. As previously discussed, the recommendation was to re- ignate these areas to R -1 to reflect the existing trend with the possibility of an day that would allow secondary units except for the Beacon Bay area. He tinued giving an overview of the staff report. s. Temple noted that at a recent meeting with several members of each of the Balboc land associations, there was a discussion on the complexity and property value iplications of such a change. With the understanding that the City had the intention at if rezoned to R -1, there is an intent to add an overlay which would allow second ovelling units as an expressed permitted use, the group gave me a 20 to 2 indication favorable. The community leaders did say that they could not fully represent the )inion of the greater Balboa Island community on this issue and so working with those to associations, the City is working towards setting up a broader community outreach eeting, date to be determined hopefully in the month of September or early October. that remains a concern, then we can go ahead and leave the two units per lot for the ne being because we can accomplish this discussion where a supplemental analysis in be considered more acceptable to the community. file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 13 of 19 loommissioner McDaniel noted that it will be very important to have other community utreach on this issue before a decision is made. ;ommissioner Eaton talked about the difference between the densities of R -1 and R- .5. How many of the R -2 lots in West Newport area are developed as duplexes? Temple noted this is not an uncommon FAR limit in our R -2 areas. The R -1 plus and dwelling unit is that the conventional two- family mode on Balboa Island is ceived by the property owner to be a single family dwelling with a small apartment !r the garage. The statewide concept of second dwelling units in R -1 residential as is really to provide for a small second unit that might serve a variety of purposes, just housing relatives, it could provide supplemental or more affordable housing to ar members of the community. State -wide housing advocates really advocate for se kinds of units because of their potential for increased affordable housing. The rd on Balboa Island shows a total of 1,644 dwelling units and of these units, 1027 ry one address or are single family. Fully 62% of the standing housing stock on the nd is either single family or has a second unit so old it has never received an Iress. The remaining 617 dwelling units have more than one address, sometimes or three. There is a significant portion with a strong single family component. McDaniel asked what the difference is between an R -1 with an overlay an R -1.5. Is. Temple answered it would allow the City, for the purpose of traffic, to project one nit per lot with some trend anticipation of people implementing second units. We could actually be projecting fewer units. If we stay R -1.5 we will assume that every lilt eventually have two houses on it. ;. Wood added there will likely be an ordinance implementing this and it would >trict the size of these second units so that they would be the traditional over the rage kind of unit rather than allowing for something bigger that would comfortably use another family. For purposes of the EIR we keep the two units in all these are h the exception of Beacon Bay where it simply can't happen because of the lease. mer McDaniel noted this does not account for garages that have been to living units. blic comment was opened. comment was closed. ion was made by Commissioner Tucker that for purposes of the EIR we keep the units in all these areas with the exception of Beacon Bay where it can't happen cruse of the lease. (Ayes: I Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn rea bounded by Irvine Avenue, 15th Street, St. Andrew's Road, and Coral Place.I I Tescher gave a brief overview. t Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that based upon aerials of this area that are .1 years old there were at least 8 lots that had apartment buildings between 3 and 5 units that have been replaced with 2 free standing houses on a single parcel with a file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 14 of 19 condominium approval. So they are functioning and sold as detached single family I The development proposals we get are following the same direction. We ould have to come up with some type of detached housing designation that would ovide for this style of development unless we wanted to specifically address in our ubdivision Code subdivisions smaller size than conventional lots. That is why people o condo maps. If they can divide the lots legally they would do so because that is preferable to them. Commissioner Tucker noted that there are a lot of big units in these areas. It looks like hey were built in the last ten years. I wonder if this is something that we should switch r not in this area hairperson Toerge asked if the current zoning generates more trips than the roposed zoning, and he was answered yes. Public comment was opened. Phillip Bettencourt, resident, asked if this affects the Masonic Lodge property on 15th Street? Ms. Temple answered we would not change the GEIF land use designation. When an institutional user disposes of their property the developer will deal with the City for a land use designation change. Public comment was closed. otion was made by Chairperson Toerge to support staffs recommendation to re- esignate for single family residential for the purposes of the EIR. Commissioner Tucker noted the recommendation would be for lower density. I would uggest to leave it as it is because they will be studying the higher one in the recommended land use plan not in the alternative, which is the existing General Plan. You can always go back and decide R -1. Maker of the motion agreed, to leave the designation as is. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Southern frontage of Westcliff Drive, east of Irvine Avenue, and western frontage of Dover Drive, south of Westcliff Drive. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. Commission inquiry, Mr. Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads, noted: . The proposed changes are estimated to generate a slight reduction in traffic and allowing some residential uses to replace some of the higher intensity uses that are currently allowed. is comment opened. is comment closed. was made by Commissioner Tucker to move the recommendation contained in fil e: //H: \Plancomm\2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 4 Page 15 of 19 he staff report. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn al Trans property bounded by the Corona del Mar /73 Freeway, Jamboree Road, acArthur Boulevard, and University Drive. Mr. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. There was a discussion on access to this site through a potential extension of Fairchild ith a potential for retail. Commissioner McDaniel noted if this space is going to be used for retail, then we should designate it as retail and not open space. Ms. Wood gave a brief report on their discussions with Cal Trans on this area. Mr. Tescher added that GPAC thought this may be some sort of habitat area and ccess issues due to size of the boundary. Discussion followed on the exhibits. Public comment was opened. Carol Boice, resident, noted that when this area was brought to the attention of the GPAC Committee it was voted open space. This area is in the path of the migratory animals coming down from the inlet down to the habitat along San Diego Creek; also, here were problems with access to this property. If Bayview Way is one of the major oads to come in as access, that is blocked by the car wash at Fletcher Jones Motor rs, it is a dead end. GPAC members drove along this area and they felt that this rea was not a good place for access due to the excessive speed of the drivers. Unless the wildlife have changed their migratory pattern, I don't think this justifies a hange in designation of open space to commercial. I hope that you honor the GPAC, Coastal Commission and Fish and Game and keep this area open space. Ms. Wood noted this is not the same site that Fletcher Jones Motor Cars had applied to the Coastal Commission for their parking. The site we are talking about now is on he opposite side of the 73 Freeway, whereas, what Fletcher Jones Motor Cars wanted to use was the space und6meath the ramps. (Referencing the exhibit on the screen pointed out what would be that area). Public comment was closed. Commissioner McDaniel noted this should be retail. Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to designate this area retail for the purposes of the EIR. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Remnant property adjoining the Corona del Mar /73 Freeway, north of Bison Avenue. r. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. Public comment was opened. file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 16 of 19 blic comment was closed. otion was made by Chairperson Toerge to designate this area open space for the r oses of the EIR. es: J Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn rth side of San Miguel Drive, east of San Joaquin Hills Road, and west of West wport Hills Drive (former child care facility). Mr. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. Commissioner Eaton asked about the density and trip generations. Mr. Tescher answered that the density would be comparable to the adjoining multi- family residential which is 22 units per acre. Mr. Waters noted this would result in a small net reduction in traffic. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed, Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to designate this as multifamily Residential with no access from San Miguel for the purposes of the EIR. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn operty West of Big Canyon Reservoir, north of Pacific View Drive. Mr. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to re- designate as multi - family residential designation for the purposes of the EIR. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Citywide Entitlement Reductions. Mr. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report noting that this reflects the reality of the build -out from the existing capacities to reflect what actually has been built on round. There is a reduction of housing units and commercial square feet in the locations noted. These properties are owned by the Irvine Company and reflect the intentions of the company. Ms. Wood noted that if the General Plan is implemented, the entitlement will be reduced. iscussion followed on the numbers of trips generation. Mr. Waters added that it would be on the order of - 20,000. Public comment was opened. file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 17 of 19 Plic comment was closed. pion was made by Commissioner Tucker to recommend to the Council to reduce residential /commercial entitlement that is shown on the staff report under Citywide itlement Reductions. Hawkins, SUBJECT: Review of General Plan Update Circulation System and ITEM NO. 3 selection of Project Description for Environmental Impact Report Discussion Item Ms. Wood noted that the traffic model runs that were done on the land use alternatives developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee, we had recommended in the General Plan Update Committee that we should eliminate assumptions we have always made in our traffic model about some improvements to the circulation system, both locally and regionally. That list is in the letter from Carleton Waters of Urban Crossroads to Mr. Tescher of EIP Associates. We are suggesting for the EIR to add back in a couple of the traffic improvements that we think are very important to serve our future traffic needs regardless of what the City of Newport Beach does on land use. Those two would be the 19th Street bridge and the widening of Coast Highway through Mariner's Mile. At Commission inquiry, she noted the existing General Plan assumes that all of these circulation improvements will be made. What we are suggesting for the EIR is that we eliminate all of the ones except for these two. r. Waters noted the analysis examined the current general plan land use as well as a range of preliminary alternatives ranging from a true minimum to a sub -area maximum. After review, our staff concluded that if the City does not continue to contemplate having those pieces of infrastructure in place in conjunction with the land use element there will be a need for either extreme improvements to other elements of the roadway system, or there may be a need to consider a change to the city's level of service policy. The 19th Street bridge would primarily relieve the Coast Highway area between the Santa Ana River and Superior Boulevard, and the alternative analysis showed a need for additional through lanes on Coast Highway in both directions without that bridge. Similarly if you choose not to widen Mariner's Mile there will be no way to attain the City's current level of service objective of LOS D. That is the decision that the City is facing. Mr. Edmonston noted the long standing plan of the City for Mariner's Mile includes a 12 foot widening on the inland side, no additional widening on the bay side. It is a constrained section and allows parking on only one side but it was deemed to be reasonable because of the severe constraint on the water side properties. It is consistent with the existing Circulation Element. Hawkins asked about the extension of the 15th Street to Coast Waters noted this is associated with the Banning Ranch property and is envisioned be a roadway part of this development. That 15th Street connection down to Coast file: / /H: \Plancomm \2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 ay relieves one of the key intersections (Superior /Balboa Blvds at Coast ay). We wanted to make it clear that if development for Banning Ranch is iplated, we should insure that an arterial level roadway that is open to the public ided as part of that development plan. The analysis would include that 15th connection if the Council pursues the type of recommendation that the Planning ission has made regarding Banning Ranch. hairperson Toerge noted that the 19th Street bridge is controversial. Why wouldn't e want to show the residents the impact of if not being there? Or. Waters answered we have already done that in the context of the preliminary alternatives in the constrained roadway network and we will present that with and vthout that bridge as part of the preferred alternative analysis to assure that the mportance of that piece of infrastructure to the operation and level of service along ;oast Highway is clearly laid out for the public and the decision makers. ommissioner Tucker noted that both of these items are controversial and have been i the books for a long time. For our preferred plan, are you asking us to tell you that should include these two improvements even under a.constrained scenario? Is there )ing to be any study done as to what our preferred plan would be like if we didn't ave those two improvements? Or. Waters answered this would be looked at with and without these two pieces of nfrastructure. comment was opened. blic comment was closed. ion was made by Commissioner Cole that the Planning Commission recommend the Preferred Alternative Circulation Element roadway system analyze the EIR be Dly consistent with the constrained network that was used to evaluate the minary alternatives, with the exceptions that the 19th Street crossing and the :Wing of Coast Highway to 6 through lanes through Mariner's Mile should be ssioner Hawkins noted this recommendation conflicts with the discussion in tion with the 15th Street to Coast Highway. My understanding is if Banning goes forward, then we need an analysis of the 15th Street connection to Coast iy. Isn't that part of the circulation element? Waters answered the 15th Street connection has been analyzed in the preliminary ematives dependent upon the level of development assumed on Banning Ranch. It presumed to be dependent on that corresponding land use direction. ommissioner Tucker added that the motion would include that alternative with the anning Ranch. This issue will have to be decided by the City Council, we have made recommendation. It will happen some day sometime in the future. Edmonston added that when the Banning Ranch proposal was reviewed, 15th et was not a planned roadway on the map. They were proposing to extend 16th 17th Streets. This is the best way to analyze the circulation for the Banning Page 18 of 19 file : / /H: \Plancomm\2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/30/2005 Page 19 of 19 Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn DJOURNMENT: Adjourned meeting at 6:30 p.m. to September 8, 2005 ADJOURNMENT IF BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION El 171 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \083005.htm 09/23/2005