HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Newport Center Planned Community Amendments and Transfer of Development (PA2015-109) - CorrespondenceComments on Council Item 16 (October 27, 2015)
The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item 16. Newport Center Planned Community Amendments and
Transfer of Development (PA2015-109)
1. The staff report fails to make clear that this action is a response to the defeat of Measure Y
by voters on November 4, 2014.
a. As the report does allude to, prior to 2014 The Irvine Company had made promises
to relinquish occupancy of portions of buildings in its part of “Block 100” of Newport
Center Drive in order to complete occupancy of its new office towers in other parts of
Newport Center without going over the General Plan limits.
b. Passage of Measure Y would have granted a floating allotment of more than 500,000
square feet of new commercial development and 500 new dwelling units to the whole
of “Statistical Area L1” (within which Newport Center lies), allowing TIC to suck them
up for its own use, including allowing continued occupancy of all its Block 100
buildings, and more.
c. Since Measure Y failed TIC now has to explain its continued occupancy of its Block
100 buildings either by asking for a General Plan amendment or by moving unused
development potential from other areas.
d. The staff report (which is difficult to verify since it assumes “past transfers” to Block
100), says TIC needs 21,161 sf to accomplish this; while according to the City’s
“Charter Section 423 Tracking Tables” the maximum the Council could add to the
General Plan without a vote of the sort that was defeated by Measure Y is 23,200 sf.
e. Why TIC is not asking for this extra allotment is not clear, but instead it is asking to
move unbuilt allocations from the Corporate Plaza and Corporate Plaza West
“planned communities” (perhaps to respect the residents’ perceived preference for
“traffic neutrality”?).
2. Some preliminary comments based on a quick reading of the report:
a. The 10 foot increase in heights for TIC properties, that has been attached to this
like a kind of legislative rider, seems completely arbitrary and uncalled for. No
reason why this is would be beneficial to the City is either offered or analyzed.
i. The area to the south of the Newport Center Drive circle (that is, south of
Fashion Island) has historically fallen under either the City’s general 32/37
foot height limit or similar or more restrictive covenants.
ii. At some time after 2006, by adding its properties, and only its properties, in
“Block 100” to a “North Newport Center Planned Community” the allowable
heights for TIC buildings in that block were, with very little public attention or
notice, increased to 50 feet.
Received After Agenda Printed
October 27, 2015
Item No. 16
October 27, 2015, Council Item 16 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
iii. Since TIC already enjoys a privilege not available to its neighbors – and to
potentially impact public views from Newport Center Drive -- it is totally
unclear why it, and only it, should be allowed still more height.
b. It is disturbing, and very confusing to the public, when the staff report says the
current NNCPC document (the “PC text”) says the allowable development in TIC’s
Block 100 is zero, but it is “really” 99,953 sf due to “past City-approved transfers.”
Why was the public document not updated when those transfers were
approved?
c. There would seem to be an ethical problem with a powerful corporation asking the
Council to sweep TIC’s needed 21,161 sf of unused development out of “planned
communities” that are not wholly TIC owned (Corporate Plaza and Corporate Plaza
West) and into a parcel that is (“Block100” of the NNPC). Is this fair to the non-TIC
property owners?
d. Further confusing the issue, had Measure Y passed, the Council’s Resolution 2014-
67 would have reduced the current development for the whole of Block 100
(including the four non-TIC-owned corners), which is called “Anomaly 35,” from what
the current General Plan says is 199,095 sf to two anomalies: 58,746 sf for a new
Anomaly 35 and 32,500 for a new Anomaly 35.1 in the northwest corner, which is
presumably consistent with and larger than the existing development. However
these total 91,246 sf which is less than what staff now tells us is the amount allowed
in the TIC portion of Block 100 alone (99,953 sf) – even before the proposed
transfer.
i. How can these discrepant numbers be reconciled?
ii. Are the numbers the public sees in the General Plan out of date? If so, how
did they get modified?
e. More generally, when TIC moves entitlements around involving properties that
comprise less than a full anomaly with separate limits stated in the General Plan, as
in Block 100, how do TIC’s machinations affect the rights of the other property
owners in those anomalies?
f. A final minor point: at least as of late Friday afternoon, the sign announcing this
hearing at Corporate Plaza West (facing PCH) was lying face down in the
landscaping. I assume there are other signs, but that one did not give very good
notice, even to the very few pedestrians who would have been able to read it if it
were upright.
P O B o x 1 0 2 | B a l b o a I s l a n d , C A 9 2 6 6 2 | 9 4 9 . 8 6 4 . 6 6 1 6
STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to
protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach.
www.SPON-NewportBeach.org | Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org
FB SPON-Newport Beach | Twitter @SPONNewport
October 22, 2015
City of Newport Beach City Council
c/o Ed Selich, Mayor
Subject: Newport Center Planned Community Amendments and Transfer of Development
(PA2015-109)
Dear Mayor Selich and Members of City Council:
This letter is a request from SPON, Stop Polluting Our Newport, to eliminate language in
Amendment No. PD2015-003 which allows for an increase in height limits for the Newport
Center Planned Community, Amendment No. PD2015-003.
Specifically, please strike the following in Section III, A. Permitted Height of Structures:
“Allowable heights are determined by sub-area. All building heights are measured at
finished grade. Rooftop appurtenances and architectural features are permitted and may
exceed the maximum building height by up to 10 feet ----.”
The effect of this change to allow additional height is substantial and significant in a
cumulative sense. It essentially allows for an additional floor of use as many of the so called
appurtenances would otherwise have to be accommodated within the building. When
applied to all Blocks in this Amendment it can mean substantial new usable floor area in
addition to the increased height.
The North Newport Center Planned Community (PCDP) was adopted in 2007 as an
implementation of land use changes authorized by the comprehensive General Plan Update
of 2006. The PCDP has been amended to add Block 800 and accommodate the
development of 524 apartments at the former San Joaquin Hills Office site. This project
area encompasses four planned communities and approximately one-half of Newport
Center. The height change would not apply to buildings of 200 feet or more but would still
OFFICERS
PRESIDENT
Marko Popovich
VICE PRESIDENT
Elaine Linhoff
TREASURER
Dennis Baker
SECRETARY
Allan Beek
___
BOARD MEMBERS
Nancy Alston
Don Harvey
Dorothy Kraus
Donald Krotee
Andrea Lingle
Bobby Lovell
Jeanne Price
Melinda Seely
Jack Skinner
Nancy Skinner
Jean Watt
Portia Weiss
Terry Welsh
Received After Agenda Printed
October 27, 2015
Item No. 16
P O B o x 1 0 2 | B a l b o a I s l a n d , C A 9 2 6 6 2 | 9 4 9 . 8 6 4 . 6 6 1 6
STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to
protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach.
www.SPON-NewportBeach.org | Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org
FB SPON-Newport Beach | Twitter @SPONNewport
affect those in Fashion Island as well as Blocks 100, 500 and 800.
Combined with the current project proposed for the carwash site in Block 100, this increase in
proposed heights indicates a prospect for major redevelopment and intensification of the area.
Intensification of this cumulative nature should be studied within the framework of what the allowed
increase would mean for traffic and parking at the very least.
Instead of slipping in these changes to the 2006 Comprehensive General Plan in a piecemeal fashion,
we continue to call for a revisiting of the 10 year old Comprehensive General Plan with a broad-based
committee which can analyze and publicize the proposed changes in a comprehensive fashion.
Adding to the need for this sort of transparent review is the need to incorporate some of the
Sustainable Community Strategies called for in the OCCOG SCS Plan and what it means to our City.
Thank you very much for consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Marko Popovich
President SPON