Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • • Planning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 16 file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Comrnission \2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Kiser- All present. Commissioners Tucker and Toerge excused STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Dan Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation/Development Services Manager Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Niki Kallikounis, Planning Department Assistant ELECTION OF OFFICERS: ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to elect Commissioner . McDaniel as Chairman, Commissioner Tucker as Vice Chairman, and Commissioner Toerge as Secretary. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Kiser Noes: None Approved Absent: Toerge and Tucker Abstain: None POINTMENTS TO GPUC TO REPLACE SHANT AGAJANIAN APPOINTMENTS AND ANNE GIFFORD Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to fill the two vacancies with Commissioners Cole and Eaton. Neither Commissioner Cole nor Eaton objected to the motion. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Kiser Noes: None Approved Absent: Toerge and Tucker Abstain: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Comrnission \2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 I`1 v • L Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 2 of 16 None None REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES: None other than the one placed on the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: Minutes of June 19, 2003 Minutes Approved SUBJECT: General Plan Initiation ITEM NO.2 Initiation of amendments to the General Plan and the Zoning Code General Plan relating to the annexation of the Emerson Tract. Initiation Adopt Resolution No. 2003 -1606 recommending the initiation of a Approved General Plan amendment (GPI2003 -005) to the City Council and initiating code amendment (CA2003 -007) SUBJECT: Larry and Jackie Dodd Residence (PA2003 -072) ITEM NO. 3 254 Poppy Avenue Continuance request to August 7, 2003 Request to establish grade pursuant to Section 20.65.030.B.3 in order Continued to to remodel an existing single family residence by adding a second floor 08/07/2003 and roof deck located in Corona del Mar. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser and voted on to approve the Consent Calendar. Eaton and Cole abstained from the Minutes portion of the Consent Calendar. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Kiser CONSENT Noes: None CALENDAR Absent: Toerge and Tucker Abstain: Eaton and Cole from Item No. 1 Approved POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 11, 2003. SUBJECT:. Newport Auto Center ITEM NO.4 445 E. Coast Highway PA2002 -227 RHL Design Group, Inc. file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission \2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 3 of 16 Attn: Larry Tidball (PA2002 -227) Approved with conditions Request for an amended Use Permit to allow a 2,496 square foot expansion of an existing 1,504 square foot sales office /storage building (4,000 square feet total for use as an automobile showroom) and a 6,302 square foot addition to an existing automobile repair and service building at an existing automobile dealership. egg Ramirez commented that he distributed two sets of condii 3 Mr. Ramirez noted that one of the items is the additi editions of approval that he e- mailed to the Commissioners ea the week, and the other are revised conditions of approval, 17 Ramirez explained that condition no. 17 now requires the parki ut to be in substantial conformance with the approved site pl ect to review of the Traffic Engineer. This was changed to refer site plan rather than specify an actual number. It seemed a lit using the way the condition was originally written. Mr. Ramirez explained that condition no. 18 was revised to require a minimum of 70 parking spaces for the exclusive use of employees on the site. This condition also requires a revised site plan showing the location of these spaces and the site investigation to confirm that the spaces are clearly marked for employees only. The number 70 was reached by conversation with the applicant who said that was the maximum number of employees they expected to be working at any given time. Mr. Ramirez stated that they did want to place restrictions as far as marking other spaces for other uses such as service, customer parking, display parking, etc. Staff believes that it is more appropriate to leave that to the business owner given the nature of an automobile dealership and the fluctuation in receiving stock, etc. Ramirez noted another change, which is not on the hand t is Condition No. 26, on handwritten page no. 13. The once on Condition No. 26 should read, "Prior to the final buil action, the project applicant shall arrange an evening action with the Planning Department or Code and Water Qu, rcement Division to assure that site lighting does not spill ring properties." The word "not" was left out. Staff also has a few photographs of the existing site and a site plan • that is available for use in the hearing tonight. Chairman McDaniel commented for the record that he had two letters, one of which was e- mailed to him from Martin Litke, and a letter from file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission\2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 4 of 16 the General Manager, Tim Tauber, to Mr. Larry Tidball, which was given to the Commissioners this evening. Commissioner Kiser noted that the staff report indicated that then were no comments received from any neighbors as of the time o writing staff report and asked if there still nothing received tonight. Mr. Ramirez commented that it was after the staff report wa: completed that they received a telephone comment, and thi Commissioner's all received correspondence from Mr. Litke. imissioner Kiser asked Mr. Ramirez if he knew how man3 loyees' parking spaces there are currently on site and if they hav( parking spaces reserved exclusively for employees at this time? Ramirez responded that during his site visit he noticed a couple o: s on the wall that said employee parking but it was apparent tha cars parked in those spaces were not employee cars. Mr. Ramirez that he did not have a number of parking spaces and does no Lk there is any set system out there right now. Mr. Tidball, the applicant's representative, stated that the Genei Manager, Mr. Tim Tauber, could not be present this evening becat of an unavoidable conflict, which he could not break. Mr. Tidball sk that the General Manager presented the letter to him this afterno is by fax regarding the parking situation and that he would like stipulate that they would be willing to cooperate with the neighbo and that the employees are not supposed to be parking off -site. T] was reiterated to the employees at a staff meeting today. Mr. Tidb commented that the General Manager said that he would everything possible to make sure that does not happen in the future. . Tidball commented that they have no problem with the lang revised Condition No. #18, which calls for clearly marking ntifying and not using for any other purpose the 70 parking site for employees. Tidball recapped the project and gave a history of the dealership. Tidball explained that the intent of the design of the project is ti -h the existing architecture and appearance of the facility on thi ide, and that the inside showroom reflects the brand identity o i auto maker. Mr. Tidball expressed that the General Manager apologizes if there was any inconvenience caused to any of the homeowners in the area. •Mr. Tidball explained that there may have been some disruption in the parking patterns because of the ongoing construction at the site during the last few months. file: //F:\ USERS \PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission\2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Mr. Tidball said that the Conditions of Approval presented are •acceptable but had a couple of questions. Specifically, there are concerns regarding Condition No. 427, which requested that after hours the lighting be limited to security lighting. Mr. Tidball said that currently that is the case for the rear portion of the site but at the front display lot fronting on Pacific Coast Highway, the display lighting is left on in that area until midnight, which is after the close of business hours and then the lights turn off automatically. Mr. Tidball commented that they would like to request that the front area be allowed to stay illuminated until midnight. rman McDaniel asked Mr. Tidball to explain display lighting. Mr all said that it is overhead, parking lot lighting. Mr. Tidbal red to the plan and showed the areas of the site that would be ted by the display lighting. Mr. Tidball noted that the lightin€ d be away from the homeowners residential areas to the rear am d not cause a problem nor has he heard of any problems, and the arship has not had any complaints and does not think the City ha: any complaints of this existing practice. Mr. Tidball said that would like to maintain that practice. IMs. Wood asked if the lights were going to be replaced with somei •new or were they asking to keep the existing lights on until mid; as they have been. Mr. Tidball responded to keep the lights on as have been. Ms. Wood asked if they would be the same light fix and poles. Mr. Tidball responded yes. Tidball commented that his other question concerns the payme impact fees for traffic trip generation, Condition No. 10, which sa �y should be paying the fair share traffic fees, at the request of st d asked for clarification. Mr. Edmonston responded that the fee ovided for by ordinance to be paid prior to issuance of buildi rmits, based on the increased traffic due to the project. irman McDaniel asked Mr. Tidball if he was okay with thi ussion taking place after this project is passed? Mr. Tidball sai they would like to work with staff to resolve this issue of tb meat fee for traffic generation and as long as they could work in a way that will work out equitably, he thought it would be fine. Mr. Tidball referred to the transportation corridor fees and asked if there any transportation corridor fees in addition to the trip generation fees? Mr. Edmonston responded that he did not believe • there are any fees for anything south of Coast Highway. Commissioner Selich asked for clarification if the sliding gate were to be relocated on Bayside Drive; currently the gate is perpendicular to Page S of 16 file: //F: \USERS \PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission\2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 jBayside Drive and asked if they were going to move it around so th it would be parallel to Bayside Drive, which will eliminate the parkii area that is outside the gate at this time. Mr. Tidball responded th is correct and added the currently the gate is currently configured that a few parking spaces end up outside the gate; in addition t] delivery trucks that deliver the vehicles have a difficult time getting the site because they have to make three 90 degree turns this makes makes it difficult. Mr. Tidball acknowledged that in the past son delivery drivers not wanting to make that turn or have had difficul park on Bayside Drive to unload and this has been an issue. T] delivery people have been notified that they are not supposed to that but to make entering the site better and easier for everybody t] drive through was designed it to be parallel to the street so that t] turn movements would be much easier to make. This would inclu, the delivery trucks that enter the site. Commissioner Selich asked Mr. Tidball if he was in a position to respond to the letter from the General Manager regarding the employee parking situation. Mr. Tidball responded he could try to. Commissioner Selich commented that he was not aware there was a parking issue at all until they received the communication from the Litke's. Commissioner Selich said that this week he spent some time on the site in the parking area looking around, and his observation is that clearly there is not enough parking spaces on site for the employees. There are more employees parking off site than there are parking spaces on the site. The most parking spaces that Commissioner Selich counted on site was 10 parking spaces available outside of the customer area in the front where the customers come in. There are that many employees, if not more, parking on Bayside and Harbor Island Drives. Commissioner Selich said he did not understand the context of the letter from the General Manager, which states there is sufficient parking on site. Mr. Tidball said he could not respond to the operations but did say that the dealership is changing and eliminating the Chevrolet brand, so that inventory is going away off the site. In addition, there has been on -going construction and those construction vehicles have taken up space on the site. Also there are construction materials that have been dropped off and stored before they are installed that have interrupted some of the normal parking space that is available. Mr. Tidball said that may have caused some interim problems. Mr. Tidball noted that Mr. Tauber has stipulated that they will work with the community and conform to the proposed conditions here to make sure the employees park on -site. •Commissioner Eaton referred to the existing gate on the back a asked, when they have customers that get there before the gates E open, where do they now park and wait and where will they w; under the new plan? Mr. Tidball responded that the service entry Page 6 of 16 file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission\2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 primarily off of PCH. They come in there and that is where the bird" drop off type situation takes place. nmissioner Eaton asked if they had any objection to Condition No. if they do allow display lighting it would be enforced so that the sting does not spill onto residential properties. Mr. Tidball said y did not have any objection. Hearing Opened Eldred Litke, resident on Harbor Island Drive, commented that lore than a year now their neighborhood, which includes Harl gland Drive and Bayside Drive, has had a problem with the employ arking using all of their available parking in front of their hom taking it impossible for residents to have visitors or service peo. )me to their homes. Mrs. Litke said that they feel the expansion v tke away more parking even though the plan allocates 70 on arking spaces for the employees. Mrs. Litke said that she wall trough the facility and saw that the clearly marked areas park reas being used for other uses. Mrs. Litke said they would like 3e the business prosper but not at their expense. Commissioner Kiser asked Mrs. Litke, in her estimation, how many cars on average park on Harbor Island Drive and Bayside Drive. Mrs. Litke responded 12 in their cul de sac and about 8 on the rest of Harbor Island Drive right up toward the Bayside intersection and then about 4 or 5 on Bayside itself from the corner of Harbor Island Drive further toward the bridge going into Balboa Island. Commissioner Kiser asked if she read Condition No. 18 and asked, if then those arking stalls were used on site, would that take care of the problem? Mrs. Litke said it would definitely solve the problem but is it enforceable? Commissioner Kiser responded that they would have to make sure it is enforceable but the important thing is that she has raised the issue and allowed the Commissioners to focus on it. n McDaniel asked what Mrs. Litke done to bring this s attention. Mrs. Litke responded that Dave Kiff v last July. Martin Litke, resident of Harbor Island Drive, commented that tb are happy that Newport Auto is successful enough in business to wa an expansion. Mr. Litke also expressed concerns with employ( parking on the street, particularly as it prevented street sweeping. • Commissioner Eaton asked Mr. Litke if there are signs on the str( requiring no parking on street sweeping days. Mr. Litke said tl there are no signs at the present and they are trying to find out how Page 7 of 16 file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission \2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 obtain such signs. Commissioner Eaton asked Mr. Litke would if ould have any problem having the signs installed. Mr. Litke said would not. Hearing Closed Commissioner Selich commented that his only concern on the projec is the parking situation. He also talked to some of the employees tha were parking there in the morning as it happens he lives nearby and i is convenient for him to be there when they are coming to work. Commissioner Selich asked the employees about their parking on thi street and they responded that they were told to park out in the street. Commissioner Selich regretted that the General Manager wa; not present to answer that issue in his letter because he had a couple of employees tell him the opposite of what is in the letter. Commissioner Selich said it boils down to an enforcement problem an( what to do in six months when they will forget about all this. Ms. Temple said that she would encourage anybody who sees E violation or is being overly burdened by business operation to at lease contact the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division and exprew their concern. They could do it by way of telephone call and leave then name and number so we could get back to them. Ms. Temple said thif if this is a situation where there is a violation, which has beer corrected and then it reoccurs, the City's enforcement posture become: more and more aggressive and felt they could ultimately reach the persons responsible for the business decisions to assure compliance. Ms. Temple commented that there may be special circumstances fron time to time that may be out of that business' control but the startin€ point is that the standard operation should be policed at the outside. imissioner Selich said that one of his concerns is, if they :essful, which he hopes they will be with their expansion of ice for Audi's, etc., and the employees are parking on site, 1 ht have excess customer service vehicles being parked out fuse they do not have room on site for them. Commissioner Se >d staff if they prepared some type of parking management 1 nitted it to the Traffic Engineer, would that give more clout 4 enforcement or is what we have right now is enough? If there Aems, would we be able to call it back and review it? Ms. Temple responded when they received some of the comments earlier in the week and staff evaluated them and spoke with them to •the property owner. It was staffs opinion that all those demands on the parking, which was specifically in the business interests of the management to make sure it occurred on site, such as customer, service and delivery parking. Ms. Temple commented that they felt Page 8 of 16 file: //F:\ USERS \PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission\2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 9 of 16 the most important thing was to have a strong tool to assure that t employees were clearly required to park on site, and a condition approval that they felt would really be able to be enforceable when t violation was reported. Ms. Temple felt that the parking manageme plan would not enhance enforcement. Commissioner Selich asked having a parking management plan would make it easier to can t project back for review on the parking situation or not. Ms. Teml responded that we always have our standard condition, if it star becoming problematic, the Commission has the authority to call back for additional review, modify conditions or even revocation. response to a add a condition that would say, "Separate fi )loyee parking, all new or used vehicle storage and service veh .-age, short or long term, must be on site" making the enforcem firer as to how to enforce. Ms. Wood noted that Condition Cady covered that point. imissioner Eaton noted that typically dealers will shift their we a around as their need for inventory grows and they run out n. Commissioner Eaton stated that this is basically a need inual enforcement otherwise this is a good application and good City. Ms. Wood explained that the Code Enforcement is being reorganiz this fiscal year. With all the new requirements on the City for wal quality regulation, we needed to have more inspectors out in the fie and felt that we could be more effective with that function and a] with our traditional code enforcement if we combined those. We n( have a Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division in the Q Manager's office and have increased the staff. Ms. Wood said th they are hopeful that now they will have four people in the fie whereas in the past we only had two. While they will have additior responsibilities, just the fact that they will be out in field more oftE we hope that will allow the City to be more proactive on co enforcement than we have in the past. Ms. Wood said that a situati like this does not have to rely on a complaint coming in from neighbor for the City to act on it. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser that they approve Amendment No. 1 to Use Permit No. 3660 subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval included within the draft resolution, and the additional revision that was mentioned earlier as to Condition No. 26, putting the word "not" into it and with the revised conditions that were distributed tonight including additional Conditions 30, 31 and 32 and revised Conditions 17 and 18, and with one additional correction to Condition No. 18 in the second sentence of Condition No. 18, after the word "prior," to add the word "to." Also with the additional file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission \2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 • 0 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 10 of 16 revision of Condition No. 27 by adding language at the end of the first sentence. The first sentence currently reads, "After hours lighting is limited to security lighting..." Commissioner Kiser proposed that they add, "...except that the existing lighting in the seven light standards along the Coast Highway frontage of the property may be illuminated until midnight seven days a week." Commissioner Kiser stated he would like the record to reflect that the signage shown on the submitted plans is not a part of the application tonight and that is not being approved in his motion. Commissioner Selich said he would support the application but wanted to make one comment for the applicant's benefit. Commissioner Selich noted that he lives down the street on Bayside Drive, just outside the area where the employees are parking, and goes by there every morning about the time the employees are coming out and to inform the General Manager there will be someone driving by all the time therefore not to let up on the condition in six months or so. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Kiser Noes: None Absent: Toerge and Tucker Abstain: None SUBJECT: Richard Martin, authorized agent for the property owner, ITEM NO. 5 Davis PA2003 -120 Partners, LLC 1401 Dove Street Approved (PA2003 -120) Request to approve a Traffic Study in accordance with the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) in order to construct a two -story office building consisting of 26,155 square feet on a site with an existing six - story office building. The application includes a request for a Modification Permit to authorize a reduction in the parking requirement. Upon query from the Chairman, Ms. Temple reported that staff had no more information to add. The applicant was not present. Public Hearing Opened Public Closed Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve the traffic study for IMPAC Office Building (PA2003 -001). file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %o20Commission \2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 11 of 16 Ayes: Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Kiser • Noes: None Absent: Toerge and Tucker Abstain: None City of Newport Beach ITEM NO.6 Housing Element (PA2003 -130) I PA2003 -130 accordance with the State of California General Plan and Zoning Recommended to ;vs, the City of Newport Beach has prepared a Draft Housing City Council for !went. The Element is an update and re- format of the existing Approval using Element and includes updated Regional Housing Needs aessment figures as mandated by State Law. Senior Planner Tamara Campbell noted that this item was continue from the last meeting in June and proceeded to bring the Commissi( up to date. Ms. Campbell commented that she received son comments and questions from Commissioner Selich and had son responses to several of his questions. In addition, Ms. Campbell sa that staff gave a presentation to the General Plan Advisory Committ who also had some comments and questions, which she included in t] staff report for review. Also, Ms. Campbell said that they received 40 letter from Mr. Basye, who is the vice president of AERA Energy, o: the owners of Banning Ranch, which she included in the staff repc as well as the City's response to his comments. Ms. Campbell said, in response to Commissioner Selich's questions did research with the Center for Demographic Research at Cal State Fullerton. Specifically Commissioner Selich was interested in an explanation for the demolition adjustment figure that we show on page 38 of the Housing Element. Dr. William Gayke, who is the senior staff member at the Center, explained that the demolition adjustment is primarily a replacement need calculation, which is derived from previous data on County wide trends and assumptions that a certain number of housing units will be lost either from conversion to another use, some will be demolished, some may be destroyed by disaster and some will be condemned. Ms. Campbell said that the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) gives the County an estimate for what they perceive they think will be an estimated loss, then they ascribe a certain percent that is based on the total housing supply. If SCAG determines that two percent of the County's total housing is projected to be lost or in need of replacement, cities are handed down that two percent for their existing housing stock as their . demolition adjustment. Ms. Campbell said that Commissioner Selich had a question on page file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission\2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 166 pertaining to the prescribed number of units to be conserved i •the question was, "What does this conservation figure mean ?" Campbell said this was a very good question but that no one was e to answer it. Dr. William Gayke said that this was a hig controversial number and the number is handed down by the St, but that it is not a part of the regional housing needs assessment. other words, we have no real obligation to provide that as part of obligation. Dr. Gayke suggested if we wanted to do more research, could contact the State and perhaps get more information there. Campbell noted that there were other editorial changes they wil making in the Response to Comments received from Commissioner ton and other miscellaneous typos we would like to refine. There is new program developed in response to Commissioner SelicM ;gestion and comments received from the General Plan Advisor mmittee on page 2 of the staff report. Ms. Campbell said it is )gram 2.3.2, to demonstrate that it is the City's intent to investigatf ;ential housing and mixed use development in areas such w wport Center, Santa Ana Heights, Bay Knolls and the John Waynf .*port area. GMs. Campbell referred to another question the Commission had, whi pertained to Program 1.1.3 that referenced the City encouraging t State Franchise Board to enforce some of the sections of its code, whi prevent rental housing owners from claiming depreciatic amortization, cost mortgage interest and property tax deductions their state income tax reports. Ms. Campbell said that they found o this only applies to substandard housing therefore we could clarify in the Housing Element by adding the statement, "substanda housing." In the future, we may want to consider removing this sin we do not have a lot of substandard units in the community. Commissioner Eaton referred to the bottom of page 6 and the top page 7 of the minutes of the last commission meeting, Commissior Tucker had some questions that he did not see answered in t current staff report. Ms. Wood responded to the first question rail by Commissioner Tucker, which was a concern with the map and st will check it and if there is an error it will be corrected before it goes the City Council. On page 68 is Program 1.1.3, which is the one n Campbell talked about, a State law that applies to substande housing. Ms. Wood referred to the question of the replacement housing demolished within the coastal zone and said that compli research had not been done on that portion of State law for affordal housing in the coastal zone at that point and staff has continued look into it since then. Ms. Wood commented that if a developer w removes housing units from the coastal zone needs to repl< affordable housing within the coastal zone and the way tl Page 12 of 16 file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission\2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 determination for affordable in that case is made is based on t] •income of the tenants and has nothing to do with the rent they a paying or any covenant limiting the rent, and if the question oft( comes up, "If I just did it to my tenants, then I don't have anybody wl is low income and am I no longer responsible to meet this ?" Ms. Wo( said that they have since discovered that the State law provides that the unit is vacant for a year before the application for the demohti( that it is assumed that the household was lower income and therefo was not an affordable unit. Hearing Opened Hearing Closed Commissioner Eaton commented on Single Room Occupancy (SRO. and noted there is no mention in the Housing Element about SR( housing. Almost every other city in Orange County has built an SRO. Commissioner Eaton said that SROs are very efficient in terms o regional housing needs assessment numbers because they can be buil at very high density and are very small, efficiency units because the; are typically transit oriented. Commissioner Eaton said they are buil for minimal wage earners and can be built at a pretty high densit, • without the normal required parking. Commissioner Eatoi commented that Newport Beach could use an SRO in terms of being ob rich. Commissioner Eaton expressed the desire to add in Progran 2.3.2, the first sentence after, "...the potential of housing and mixe( use development including an SRO, if feasible." Commissioner Eatol suggested that it might be feasible in the Airport Area. Commissioner Eaton referred to the loss of housing that is committe< now, and it has to do with Table 12 on page 15 of the Housin€ Element. As a former planner and a with a personal perspective or the Housing Element, Mr. Eaton referred to the apartments neat Corona del Mar High School and noted that the moderate cos restrictions are going to run out before the next Housing Elemen update, in all likelihood and asked Ms. Wood if he was correct it thinking that before the next update of the Housing Element that w( will wait for the regional housing needs assessment numbers? Ms Wood responded that, if the General Plan Update is concluded befor( the regional housing needs assessment numbers come out and ther( are some changes to land use or identification of new sites that coma out of that process, we probably would amend this element even if the State has not funded the regional housing needs assessment process . and they may run late again. Commissioner Eaton asked if staff could suggest a little stronge: wording for Program 1.2.2, which is the one that deals wit] file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission\2003PC \0717.htm Page 13 of 16 09/03/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 attempting to maintain these units as moderate or low cost units •page 69 of the Housing Element. Commissioner Eaton expressed t he was hoping the City would take a little more proactive stance that and actually provide or attempt to provide some incentive to k these units, which do provide diversity to the City. Wood commented that with that program, it was not staffs inte we would file a report somewhere and thought that some of t Rage in this program came out of the Planning Commissio ier study session on the Housing Element when we were asked stigate the use of our in -lieu funds to extend the affordabil, nants on existing apartments in the City rather than trying glop sites that are challenging. Ms. Wood said that while we si 1 to keep the sites in there and the City is not convinced that we € best bang for the buck in a subsidy program, it still may dble, and it is our intention to take a serious look at using some ;e in -lieu funds for extending affordability in a situation like this. Commissioner Selich asked if the SRO units count in the region housing needs assessment numbers? Ms. Wood responded that they i as far as she knows. Commissioner Selich commented that he thoug. the SRO was a great idea. Commissioner Selich said he would suppo the Housing Element although he does have some problems with and that this item was continued primarily so that he could meet wi staff and discuss all of his concerns, but the City is backed into a corn as it has been Certified by HCD, and we are already behind getting done and affordable housing is a big issue in some circles. Therefor Commissioner Selich expressed that not to approve the Housii Element would put the City at risk somewhat so he supports moving on but not something that he considers an ideal Housing Element i the City. Commissioner Selich reiterated that having something in SROs would be a good addition to it because it might be a me realistic and workable solution than some of the other things we ha been talking about as far as meeting the mandates placed on the Ci by the State to meet housing needs by using one formula for all. T City of Newport Beach suffers in how some of this is calculate derived, and reached at in the report. Commissioner Selich reiterat that he supports it and Commissioner Eaton's suggestion that include the SROs. In response to query from Chairman McDaniel, Commissioner Se also supports the Program wording for Program 1.1.2. Commissic Eaton said for clarification that he did not recommend spec .language but left it to staff so that it would be something they comfortable with. Mr. Eaton said in response to query that he we recommend at the beginning of 1.1.2, to add after 'Tnvestiga availability...and recommend, if proved feasible, " so that it is a li file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission\2003PC \0717.htm Page 14 of 16 09/03/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 15 of 16 stronger and adds more commitment than we have in the • family affordable housing that we should try to preserve. was made by Commissioner Selich to recommend to the approval of General Plan Amendment 2003 -04, PA2003- e Declaration and adoption of the updated Housing Elen e of Commissioner Eaton's suggestions. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Kiser Noes: None Absent: Toerge and Tucker kbstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that there were no Planning items on the City Council agenda. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich reported the EDC had a report from the City's Finance Director on the 2003 -2004 Budget, which was very enlightening and gave a good picture of what the City's budget situation is. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Sharon Wood reported that the GPUC made recommendations to the City Council to fill vacancies in the GPAC. Ms. Wood said that they also discussed an attendance problem and authorized the Mayor to send some special letters to those who had high vacancy and a pep talk letter to all members of the Committee. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - None. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - None. f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - None. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple did not have any updates to report. . h. Project status - Ms. Temple reported that the Environmental Impact Reports on St. Marks and St. Andrews are just about ready to start. file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %o20Commission\2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003 rI L • Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 16 of 16 i. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Cole requested to be excused from the August 7th and 21, 2003 meetings. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman McDaniel gaveled the meeting to ADJOURNMENT adjournment. 7:45 p.m. MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ Planning %20Commission\2003PC \0717.htm 09/03/2003