Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/22/2005 - Study Session0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council, Minutes Study Session November 22, 2005 — 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Council Member Selich, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Webb, Mayor Heffernan, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols Excused: Council Member Ridgeway CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Council Member Nichols received clarification from Administrative Services Director Danner on the City's use of recycled materials, as discussed in Item No. 12, Proposed Update of City Council Policy F -5. Additionally, Council Member Nichols stated that be would be pulling Item No. S17, Fire Management Association MOU, from the Consent Calendar at the evening meeting. 2. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - REVIEW OF DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT [681100- 20051. Assistant City Manager Wood introduced the item by stating that the City Council would begin reviewing the Land Use Element of the General Plan at the current meeting, and that the Planning Commission reviewed the same material at their meeting on November 17, 2005. She explained why the Land Use Element and Circulation Element are the most important elements in the General Plan Using the table of contents, Woodie Teacher, EIP Associates, explained how the Land Use Element document is organized. He began discussing the element itself by referring to Goal 1 regarding the role and character of Newport Beach. He outlined the principle changes made by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), and reported that the Planning Commission concurred with the changes. Goal 2 addresses the land uses to be accommodated in the community. The changes made by GPAC were minor and were also agreed to by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tescher stated that Goal 3, and the accompanying policies, address how the land uses will be organized. He highlighted the changes made by GPAC and the Planning Commission. Mr. Tescher discussed Goal 4, the land use diagram, and the table that lists the primary land use categories, types of uses and permitted densities /intensities. He noted that the land use diagram section is still being worked on and that the details included in the table would also be addressed in other sections of the Land Use Element. isMr. Tescher referred to the fifth section, which covers the community design Volume 57 - Page 467 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes November 22, 2005 character of the various districts in the community. He noted that Goal 5.1 addresses residential neighborhoods, including single family and multi - family neighborhoods. He highlighted the changes recommended by GPAC and the Planning Commission. Nancy Gardner, GPAC Co- Chair, provided information on the changes recommended by GPAC and her response to the changes made by the Planning Commission. The Council Members discussed the inclusion of design guidelines in the General Plan, in general, as well as the policies contained in the single family neighborhood section. It was the general consensus of the Council Members to support the recommendations of GPAC, with the exception of deleting the wording, "orientation to desirable sunlight and views ", for the fifth design consideration in Policy 5.1.5 and deleting Policy 5.1.7. Mr. Tescher referred to the section on multi - family neighborhoods, and the changes recommended by GPAC and the Planning Commission. It was the general consensus by the Council Members to support the original language in the building elevations section and to support the Planning Commission recommendation for the ground floor treatment section. Mr. Tescher referred to Goal 5.2 and the policies for commercial districts. He highlighted the recommended changes. It was the general consensus of the Council Members to support the recommendation to delete the language regarding LEED certification. Mr. Tescher referred to Goal 5.3, which addresses mixed -use districts and neighborhoods. He highlighted the recommended changes and responded to questions. He noted that Policies 5.3.5 and 5.3.6 apply to both commercial and mixed -use districts. It was the general consensus of the Council Members to support the recommendations of the Planning Commission on both policies. Mr. Tescher referred to Goal 5.4 and the design of office and business parks. Support for the Planning Commission wording was expressed. Mr. Tescher referred to the sixth section, which addresses neighborhoods, districts and corridors, and specifically Goal 6.1, which deals with public and institutional uses. The changes made by GPAC and the Planning Commission were minor. It was the general consensus of the Council Members to support the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the wording change to Policy 6.1.4, as recommended by the City Attorney. Mr. Tescher highlighted the policies contained in Goal 6.2, residential neighborhoods. Ms. Gardner explained the reason why GPAC deleted Policy 6.2.18. It was the general consensus of the Council Members to support the recommendation of the Planning Commission to leave it in and add the word, "existing ", as recommended by Council Member Rosansky. Mr. Tescher stated that the only land use district reviewed by the Planning Commission at their recent meeting was the airport area, Goal 6.15. He introduced Walter Rask with ROMA Design Group, who was retained by the City to work on the policies, recommendations and guidelines in this section. Mr. Tescher provided a brief overview of the policies, and noted that they include guidelines for how residential neighborhoods could be accommodated in the airport area. He displayed a map showing the 65 Community Noise Equivalency Level (CNEL) lines, and stated that it has been airport policy not to allow residential housing within the 65 CNEL. 0 Volume 57 - Page 468 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes November 22, 2005 Mr. Rask displayed the plan that was developed by the ROMA Design Group. He explained that it identifies four residential neighborhoods in the airport area, with requirements for a minimum of ten acres per neighborhood, a minimum of 50 units per acre and a minimum one -acre park per neighborhood. He provided background information on how the plan was developed, and explained that the requirements could be avoided if, as a part of the developer's application, a concept plan is submitted to show how the neighborhood fits into the overall area. Bob Burnham, former City Attorney, referred to the two 65 CNEL lines and explained how they are based on certain assumptions. The Airport Land Use Commission adopted the outer line in 1985, and he noted that it is the Airport Land Use Commission that will be required to make a determination on the consistency of the City's adopted General Plan with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). He further explained how the City Council can override that determination if certain findings are made. Mr. Burnham agreed with Council Member Daigle's suggestion to add language to the airport compatibility policy that would read, "unless the City Council makes findings for overriding considerations in accordance with State law ". He explained why it would be inappropriate for the City Council to adopt a 65 CNEL line in the General Plan. Referring to Policy 6.15.10, Mr. Tescher explained that the Planning Commission recommended that developers that apply for a waiver of the neighborhood requirements in the airport area have a project that is of at least five acres. Mr. Rask responded to the letter, dated November 22, 2005, from Brookfield Homes in regard to their airport area condominium project. The letter outlined four suggested modifications to the draft Land Use Element. Assistant City Manager Wood additionally noted the correspondence received from the Orange County Business Council, also dated November 22, 2005, which was written in support of residential housing in the airport area. A brief discussion followed regarding the Brookfield Home project and its noncompliance with the proposed policies. City Attorney Clauson confirmed that the City Council will not be required to apply the yet- to -be- adopted policies to the project. Dave Bartlett, Brookfield Homes, discussed the information covered in his letter, and stated that Brookfield Homes is recommending that the General Plan be general and provide guidance only. He urged the City Council to eliminate the five -acre minimum, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Council Member Daigle stated that the General Plan shouldn't be driven by the Brookfield project, and expressed support for the Planning Commission's recommendations for the five -acre minimum and for no further reduction to the 3,300 housing unit figure listed in the land use diagram. It was the general consensus of the Council Members to support these recommendations. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT - at 6:05 p.m. Volume 57 - Page 469 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes November 22, 2005 The agenda for the Study Session was posted on November 16, 2005, at 2:15 p.m on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. Recording Secretary i Mayor Volume 57 - Page 470 9 is City Clerk r r {J\ Volume 57 - Page 470 9 is