Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Minutes - AmendedCity of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 May 11, 2021 Agenda Item No. 1 Nancy Scarbrough thanked the General Plan Update Steering Committee and HEUAC, noted her attendance at every in-person and virtual outreach meeting, believed it was time to pause and consider an alternate plan, submitted an Option 3 for consideration, on behalf of the Good Neighbors group, requested Council direct staff to consider it, and indicated it is sellable to the community. Sean Matsler, Cox, Castle & Nicholson, representing Lido Partners, requested inclusion of the Fritz Duda property in the site inventory list, believed that Via Lido Plaza is a gateway to the City, reported that the owner plans to propose a mixed-use redevelopment centered around Lido Theater and to maintain the existing commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR). He added that the proposed residential use is similar to surrounding and existing uses, and the owner is willing to offer affordable housing of 15% low income and 20% moderate income, and requests a density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Jim Mosher referred to his written comments and expressed the opinion that staff has not expressed the seriousness of the housing crisis, noted thatple are moving out of the State, and stated the problem is due to high taxes and property v Max Johnson supported the Good Neighbors' Option 3, agreed with the rationale for 1,000 ADUs, supported the request to stall the submission of the draft Housing Element, and expressed the opinion that the City needs toe and let residents be more informed and engaged in the process. David Tanner commented that it is important for Co,cit to understand the full impact of the Housing Element on the GP and City before Council acts, believed the City will not be able to comply and should only give the minimum to HCD, stated that the City is not going to want any new housing in areas subject to fire, flooding, earthquakes, or other natural hazards, and the GPU needs to state housing will not be located in these areas. Debbie Stevens, HEUAC meq1&Lr1gJLimked staff and the consultants, was encouraged by Council's comments, stated the is too large and wanted to see the number capped, indicated the Housing Element st1W recognize some of the existing ordinances, supported the ADU comments, concurred with restarting the GPU process, and noted that the industrial sites on the list should be removed. Dorothy Kraus thanked Council who participated in many HEUAC meetings and workshops, agreed that the draft Housing Element is complicated and will have a long-lasting impact on the quality of life and character of the City, supported the Good Neighbors' Option 3, noted that comments from 7ouncil Member Dixon, Council Member Brenner, and Mr. Costa are incorporated into Option 3, and requested Council pause and make this a thoughtful process to fully understand the consequences of the HCD submittal. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon stated flexibility in the location of some of the sites could be beneficial in light of potential geographical restraints caused by Greenlight, and supported an increase at Banning Ranch, Coyote Canyon and other locations, and retaining as many options as possible. Council Member Dixon supported whatever is possible with Banning Ranch, did not support adding Lido Village at this time because residents have not provided input, and supported preservation of the sight plane ordinance. Community Development Director Jurjis summarized Council comments as: • Support to delay the submission of the Housing Element to HCD, • Support to boost the ADU count, • Reduce the buffer to 5%, • For Banning Ranch, increase the dwelling unit count to 50, • Reduce the density of the Airport Area and Newport Center, Volume 65 - Page 17 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 • For Coyote Canyon, reduce the low and very -low units and possibly boost the density, • Remove the sites as requested by the property owners, • Add sites that are requesting to be included, • Discuss Inclusionary Zoning at a future City Council meeting, and • Kick off the General Plan Update. Council Member O'Neill discussed the process HEUAC used for listing properties for redevelopment, noted that listing a property on the sites inventory does not mean a project is approved, a property owner's interest in redevelopment resulted in the property being listed, and the list should stay consistent. Council Member Dixon reported the residents of her district have not expressed a desire to do this, community review and comment has not occurred, and Lido Village has not been studied for impacts on traffic, parking, or West Marine. Council Member Brenner supported looking at that in the ure, but not adding it to the list tonight, and expressed the opinion that discussion needs cur regarding the sight plane ordinance, workforce housing, objective standards, ADUNaLan inclusionary policy. In response to her question, Community Development Direc1010indicated the Circulation Element will come to Council in May 2021. City Manager Leung advised that Lido Villa n�to Council with ADUs and buffer discussions. Council Member O'Neill noted the importance of referr ng to our residents and assured that ever the things Council Member Brenner listed isare not part of the draft Housing Element, but Council will talk about all of thole topics. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon supported adding as many properties to the list as possible in case HCD rejects some and emphasized this is not a vote for a project. In response to his question, Community Development Director Jurjis related that staff will bring that property back to Council for discussion. There was oo rawvote to approve the list of comments to staff except for Lido Village. Council MembeiWeill clarified that the process has been to list APNs for any property owner who indicated th7lrvere willing to convert the property to housing and list the number of units and affordable units. He noted that this practice will continue for any property owner who comes forward before the draft is submitted to HCD. There was a unanimous straw vote to consider any property that wants to be placed on the site inventory list. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Charles Klobe noted Mr. Matsler's comment for Lido Village dictated 30 dwelling units per acre, which was not vetted at a public meeting, and implored Council to allow public comment on the density when Lido Village returns for discussion. City Attorney Harp reported the City Council would adjourn to Closed Session to discuss the items listed in the Closed Session agenda and read the titles. IV. CLOSED SESSION - Council Chambers Conference Room A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Volume 65 - Page 1S City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 Ms. Rosenthal understood that parking standards are objective, and the applicant is required to demonstrate that the density bonus incentive is necessary to provide affordable housing. Patrick Gormley, Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile representative, shared a view of Coast Highway, commended Council for reviewing the issue, the coalition has 1,200-1,400 members, expressed concern that Mariner's Mile will not continue the legacy of having villages surrounding the Bay, Mariner's Mile does not need to continue the way it has been for many years, a village design is best for Mariner's Mile, Council has to come up with a vision for Mariner's Mile, this prof ect will take away protected public views, does not address the number of accidents along Mariner's Mile, endangers children who travel through Mariner's Mile, the project's design, size, and adverse impact to the community is not worth the project, read a letter from Jodi Bole of the Balboa Island Preservation Association, the community asked the Planning Commission to hold a community outreach meeting, but the City denied the request, the applicant provided a Zoom meeting, Mariner's Mile should follow the design of Lido Marina Village, and people do not know what is required at Mariner's Mile. He added that the Coalition requests continuation of the project, an analysis to preserve the views through the use of story poles, a redesign of the project. Peggy Palmer, Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile treasurer, advised that the coalition has not done three view simulations, only one, used a presentation to discuss publicpviews, ingress and egress, and SB 1467. She stated that the coalition feels the project is an embarrassment to the City and patients park in the area to view the tranquil Bay piVr to receiving treatment at Hoag Hospital Jim Carlson, Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile chairman and architect, provided his background and used a presentation to discuss the architectural analysis, view simulation comparisons, story poles, and the Coalition's request. Charles Klobe, Newport Heights Association president, noted when the last General Plan was implemented, mixed-use horizontal on Mariner's Mile did not contemplate the HAA and density bonuses, thanked Mayor Avery for calling the project for review, opposition to the project is nearly universal, there is no reason to grant a parking reduction, this project does not comply with the LCP, and an Environmental Iiact Report (EIR) should have been prepared. He requested Council direct the applicant to redesothe project to comply with the I �eaCoastal Act, not reduce parking, and to prepare anJJ6 Kathy Shaw, Mariner's Milebuslness owner, stated village communities are becoming more popular and valuable, the project could set a precedent for architectural style but is too big and dense, far from timeless, and has no maritime appeal, the project will be a burden on safety, parking, and traffic, and a loophole or incentive offered by the State does not mean it is the right thing for the City. Slavica, Mariner's Mile business owner, discussed safety issues, the number of accidents on Pacific Coast Highway each year, insufficient parking, and the use of Avon Street. She expressed the opinion that the project does not fit at this location. David Tanner referred to his written comments and expressed the opinion that the rooftop deck and the flat roof on the residential building are not allowed, the project impacts public coastal views, staff and the Planning Commission determined the project is consistent and approved the findings, the Coastal Commission approved the findings, Council has to interpret the LCP, the project is not consistent with the LCP, the resolution and findings are not accurate, Council must consider public comments, CEQA concerns include visual impacts, impacts to community character, and public safety, the project must comply with all General Plan, Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), and LCP policies, and Council needs to change the process for evaluating planning applications. Paula Castanon expressed concerns about traffic, parking, and the narrowness of Avon Street, noted Tustin is 27' 7' wide, and urged Council to protect pedestrians, especially children. Volume 65 - Page 25