Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Planning Commission Role in Newport Center & Airport Area GPAs & LCP AmendmentE� ^o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: March 22, 1999 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC Agenda Item No.: SS3 �( DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Sharon Wood 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD 644 -3222 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT. Discussion of Planning Commission Role and Process in Review of Newport Center and Airport Area General Plan Amendments and LCP Amendment SUGGESTED I. Approve suggested approach for Newport Center, and direct ACTIONS: Planning Commission and staff to develop a scope of work, budget and schedule, and meet with property owners. 2. Direct Planning Commission to hold study sessions to provide early review and input on the Newport Dunes Hotel, Banning Ranch, Conexant and Koll Center projects. 3. Direct Planning Commission and staff to develop an approach for studying interrelationships among Newport Center GPA, and possible LCP update and Airport Area specific plan. 4. Direct Planning Commission to review proposed Capital Improvement Program for consistency with the General Plan prior to City Council budget hearings. Background There has been considerable discussion of a possible General Plan update and a number of significant, privately initiated General Plan amendments (GPAs) over the past few months. Staff reports and minutes from these discussions are attached. At the City Council goal setting session on January 30, 1999, the consensus was not to undertake a General Plan update at this time because of the number of other major, high priority issues with which the Council is concerned. The Council did, however, ask that the new City Manager provide an approach for a community visioning process soon after he takes office. In recommending initiation of the first cycle of GPAs in 1999, the Planning Commission made three recommendations to the City Council to include comprehensive planning and coordination among projects in the City's review of the GPA projects. The Council accepted these recommendations with regard to a comprehensive review of Newport Center, and studying its interrelationships with an Airport Area specific plan and an update of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The Council did not require that a study of the entire Cannery Village Specific Plan be done with the request to change land use designation on a limited number of parcels in that area, based on the belief that the City's LCP update efforts would address issues in that area. The Planning Commission began discussing how to implement these recommendations at their meeting of March 4, and concluded that the Commission should have study sessions on major projects. The discussion was continued to March 18, at which time the approach outlined in this report was approved by the Commission. Planning Commission Role California Planning and Zoning Law provides that the "planning agency," which is the Planning Commission in Newport Beach, shall prepare the general plan; implement it through specific plans and zoning and subdivision ordinances; and annually review the capital improvement program for consistency with the general plan. The City charter gives the Planning Commission the power to recommend to the City Council the adoption or amendment of a "Master Plan," and to make recommendations concerning public works. Planning commissions are intended to be the primary advisory body to the legislative body on planning matters, and in many cities takes the lead on such matters, leaving the legislative body more time to deal with other issues of concern to the community. The Newport Beach Planning Commission has, for the last twenty years, taken a lower profile approach to community planning, concentrating instead on reacting to development applications. The City Council is now faced with very significant and time - consuming issues, such as an airport at El Toro and annexation of the Newport Coast. A stronger role for the Planning Commission could assist the City Council to achieve more planning goals while the Council focuses its time on other important issues. The Commission's current role in major GPA projects is limited to making recommendations on the worthiness of initiating the amendments, and reviewing projects at public hearings after the EIR and all other project analysis has been completed. After applicants have spent the time and resources to get that far in the process, Commission members feel it may be unfair for them to request changes or analysis of additional alternatives, even if they are not completely satisfied with the project as presented. During the discussion on March 4, the Commission expressed a desire for earlier opportunities to receive information and provide input, to request that additional concepts and alternatives be explored, to study linkages among projects, to raise issues that should be addressed during project review, to provide guidance to applicants, and to receive public input. Upcoming Projects The following major GPAs have been initiated. • Newport Dunes - 500 hotel and time share units • Conexant (Rockwell) - 500,000 + sq. ft. • Koll Center Newport - 250,000 sq. ft. • Newport Center, Block 800, Pacific Plaza - 140,000 sq. ft. Page 2 • Newport Center • Fashion Island - 100,000 sq. ft. • Block 500 - 450,000 sq. ft. • Corporate Plaza - 69,000 sq. ft. • Corporate Plaza West - 101,000 sq. ft. • Block 600 - 150 residential /resort units • Cannery Village,I l Lots -commercial to residential • Banning Ranch - 1,750 residential units (Application filed with Orange County) Newport Center The Planning Commission is likely to have the greatest impact through involvement in the Newport Center projects, due to the magnitude of the proposals and their location within a distinct area. The following are suggested as goals of this program. • Address all of Newport Center, and involve all property owners in the planning process. • Take the lead in long range planning, and evaluate alternative visions, policies and implementation measures, including original vision and plan for Newport Center. • Take advantage of Newport Center's well - defined boundaries, and use as a prototype to change the specific, regulatory nature of General Plan and comprehensively address all General Plan elements as well as urban design issues. • Develop one specific plan to replace existing mixture of zoning and Planned Community development regulations, and to include design guidelines that maintain quality and coordinate development in the center. • Prepare a Master EIR to cover all development contemplated in the Specific Plan. • Finance planning effort through contributions of funds for consultant assistance from major property owners (with provisions for later reimbursement from lesser owners as they develop) and contribution of staff time from the City. The first step in this process is to meet with property owners and determine their interest in participating in a comprehensive planning project, which staff has started to do. At the same time, a scope of work and budget should be prepared, and reviewed by the Planning Commission before it is presented to the property owners group for their review. It is important to accomplish these start-up tasks quickly so that as little time as possible is lost for those applications already underway. It would be helpful for a committee of the Planning Commission to work with staff on the scope of work and budget. Other Private Projects The Commission probably does not have the ability to become as involved in the other private projects that have been initiated (Newport Dunes Hotel, Conexant and Koll Center), since they have progressed well beyond the initiation stage. The City Council gave distinct direction on the approach to Cannery Village. The Banning Ranch could and should have early Planning Commission input with an approach similar to that suggested for Newport Center, since 50 acres are in the City and all of the project will be annexed to Newport Beach eventually. However, the project proponent has elected to process the development with Orange County as the lead agency. Nonetheless, the Commission has expressed its desire for early briefings and opportunities to Page 3 __€ curb provide input on these projects. This can be provided by scheduling two or more study sessions for each project, one shortly after an application is filed, another when the Draft EIR is released for public review, and perhaps another if necessary to address specific issues associated with the project. Staff has started to develop a matrix of milestones (attached) for the major projects in process to help us allocate resources and schedule reviews without overlapping time periods. It is incomplete at this point because so many of the projects have just been initiated. However, it is clear that enough information already is available on the Banning Ranch for a presentation to the Commission; and the Draft EIR on the Newport Dunes Hotel should be released in April. The Planning Commission scheduled a study session on the Banning Ranch project for April 22, and one on the Dunes project for May 6. Interrelating Newport Center, Airport Area, LCP and Community Visioning Process In addition to the privately initiated projects discussed above, the City may be initiating an update to its LCP and a GPA and specific plan for the Airport Area. Both the Planning Commission and City Council have indicated that the interrelationships among these projects should be studied. The City Council also has indicated an interest in undertaking a community visioning process. It would be consistent with the earlier discussion of the Planning Commission's role for the Commission to assist the City Council by providing direction and leadership in these areas. As with the privately initiated projects, study sessions as these plans are being formulated will help the Commission see how they impact one another, and where adjustments should be considered. Regular communication between the Council and Commission on progress and direction would be necessary to ensure that the Commission does not get ahead of the Council or go beyond its advisory role. Capital Improvements Program The State Planning and Zoning Law provides that the Planning Commission annually review the capital improvements program for consistency with the General Plan. The City Charter also gives the Commission the power to make recommendations to the City Council concerning proposed public works. Currently the Planning Commission does not do this. As this function is generally recognized by professional planners and legislative bodies as a key link between the preparation and adoption of a general plan and its implementation, it is suggested that this be made part of Newport Beach's planning process. Staff Support The Planning Commission role described in this report is both exciting and ambitious. It should be remembered that the members of the Commission serve in a volunteer capacity, and also have careers. Staff support will be needed to help make this process a success. The existing staffing level, based on current City priorities, is not sufficient to manage the existing workload, the GPA projects that have been initiated, and the comprehensive approach to reviewing them that is described in this report. The Planning Department has requested an additional Senior Planner in the 1999 -2000 budget. It is not recommended that the City commit to this approach if the additional Page 4 staff cannot be provided or priorities are not reordered to allow sufficient staff resources to be assigned to these activities. Submitted by: EDWARD SELICH Planning Commission Chairman Attachments: SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager 1. Report to City Council regarding General Plan Update, January 11, 1999 2. General Plan Update Discussion Outline for City Council goal setting meeting, January 30 3. Minutes of goal setting meeting pertaining to General Plan update, January 30 4. Minutes of Planning Commission discussion of GPA initiations, February 18 5. Minutes of City Council discussion of GPA initiations, February 22 6. Summary of Newport Center development regulations 7. Major Project Milestones Page 5 �Ew�o r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: January 11, 1999 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.' PLANNLNG DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Patricia L. Temple NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92653 (949) 644 -3200 (949) 644 -3200: FAX (949) 644 -3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: General Plan Update ACTION: Receive and file report, and direct staff to prepare a grant application for LCP Certification for consideration by the City Council on January 25, 1999. This report has been prepared to provide preliminary background and discussion on a potential comprehensive General Plan update. Background There have been some initial discussions by City comrnittees expressing interest in an update of the City's General Plan. Similarly, the Planning Commission has discussed looking at the General Plan as they have considered specific development requests. Environmental Oualitv Advisory Committee At their meeting on June 15, 1998, the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC), made a recommendation to the City Council that it consider commencing a comprehensive update of the General Plan. The reason for this recommendation was a concern that individual projects would be better evaluated when there is a better long -range plan for an area. Additionally, the Committee felt that it may be time to consider an update, since the last one occurred 10 years ago. Upon receiving the recommendation on July 13, 1998, the City Council directed staff to return with an outline of what a general plan update would entail. This report has been prepared to respond to that direction, as well as to respond to various requests of City Council related to this project. EQAC has subsequently received a presentation from staff on the general plan program as provided for in State planning law and the State General Plan Guidelines, as a preliminary to further efforts to support a comprehensive general plan update. A copy of the staff presentation to EQAC is attached to this report. Economic Development Committee The Economic Development Committee has a sub - committee working on strategic planning for economic development. This sub - committee's concept is that the process would involve developing a vision for the future of Newport Beach, with the subsequent development of General Plan policies to guide City decisions (a general plan update). Issues identified for further discussion are: i what proposals from Newport Tomorrow cant' over to today's issues regional changes and development r revitalization of deteriorating areas oreservation of older areas subiect to than -ge commercial and tourism development replacement of older infrastructure ➢ filling "holes" in the existing General Plan, such as aesthetics, commercial activity in the Bay, and the protection of water views Harbor Quality Citizens Advisory Committee A sub - committee of the Harbor Quality Citizens Advisory Committee has been discussing ways to better manage the resources in the harbor (lower bay). One of the ideas which has come forward is to develop a Harbor Element of the General Plan. It is felt that such an element could provide a more coordinated policy framework for Bay management. This would differ from the City's current approach, a variety of regulations in Council Policy and the Municipal Code which are the responsibility of various City Departments to administer. TPO Working Committee This committee has been working with staff on amendments to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The amendments currently being suggested are those necessary to address some legal and operational problems of the current ordinance. While it may be desirable to consider additional changes to the TPO (such as a different target Level of Service in the Airport Area), the Committee generally believes that these more significant potential changes would not reach a consensus in the committee absent a more comprehensive planning program. Planning Commission Recent development projects considered by the Planning Commission have also raised questions related to a General Plan update. Specifically, some recent projects which required General Plan Amendments, which are fairly small in the overall context of Newport Beach, still raised questions as to whether their approval could restrict other property owners from exercising their already existing entitlements. Of particular concern is additional new General Plan entitlement in areas where the predicted capacity of the streets is already over the City's goal of Level of Service "D." Additionally, in analyzing and discussing these projects in relation to existing General Plan Policies in the Land Use Element, both staff and the Commission believe that there is little guidance beyond certain policies related to circulation system capacity to guide the land use decision making process. Since there are no goals set forth for the unique areas of the City, there is very little basis other than traffic impacts for whether a land use or entitlement change should be approved or denied. Further, this particular lack of area goals affects the simpler land use approvals such as Use Permits. With no policies or goals in the General Plan indicating how an area should function or look in the future, both staff and the Planning Commission can only analyze these projects in relation to the standard health and welfare finding. This makes it more difficult to develop supportable findings Cenenl Plan Update Page 2 tl a s r. .seYi s..wlzs,.. .5.,�s�a1'- :,�,a..�:�� �xifls9i min ernailYitrnilfA7�= for denial of a specific project that may not be consistent with the community's presumed vision for an area. t Strengths and Weaknesses of the Existing General Plan As part of the discussion of the issues by EQAC, staff prepared a summary of our view of the strengths and weaknesses of the existing General Plan. This part of the presentation generated a lively discussion between committee members and the staff. We have, therefore, included those observations below, for the Council's consideration. Strengths of the existing plan. • Level of specificity prevents questions related to actual entitlement and limits of land use designations. • Is strong in the area of the Housing Element, with a comprehensive set of policies and programs which have enabled the City to maintain certified compliance with State Guidelines since 1959. • Has a good Recreation and Open Space Element, which focuses on and acknowledges the fact the City is largely built out. Weaknesses of the existing plan: • Does not provide a "vision" for the future of the community. • Provides no goals or desired development patterns for the individual and unique commercial districts. • Is more regulatory than policy in nature. • Level of specificity requires frequent amendments. This tends to diminish the policy stature of the plan. • Has minimal policy guidance related to the use of the Bay, either in the Land Use Element or the Recreation and Open Space Element. • Addresses the City's role as a visitor destination only in the context of protecting and preserving residential areas from the negative impacts from visitors. Provides no goals or policies aimed at reasonably managing or improving the quality of the visitors who inevitably will come here, and how they impact local resources. • Does not include any specific construction technique requirements as a result of the hazards identified in the Public Safety Element. What Would a General Plan Update Program Look Like? Typically, comprehensive General Plan updates involve all elements of a city's general plan. This is not, however, a requirement. Our own 1988 General Plan review only involved the Land Use and Circulation Elements, and was undertaken primarily to add intensity limits to commercial land use classifications, satisfying the correlation requirement between those two elements. In determining General Plan Updme Page 3 whether to commence a General Plan update, one consideration should be the scope of the program. That is, should we look at some or all of the General Plan Elements; should elements be totally re- written or just expanded, fine -tuned or updated; and should elements be added (such as the previously mentioned Harbor Element)? The City also would need to decide whether to use consultants, in -house staff, or a combination thereof. The use of outside consultants to prepare the updated documents can provide an outside view and a fresh perspective on a community's planning issues. However, the use of outside consultants can result in a "canned" General Plan, that is, a slightly modified version of other general plans the consultant has prepared for other communities. Many communities decide to have the revisions prepared by in -house staff. While this approach will take more time and impact staffs ability to complete other projects, in -house staff are familiar with the unique aspects and needs of the community, can readily focus on the community's most important issues, and can usually better anticipate where areas of controversy might arise. The City should also develop a process and procedures under which a General Plan update would be conducted. For example, would the City include a visioning program similar to the Newport Tomorrow as a preliminary step in the process? What type of oversight or review of the consultant's or staffs preliminary or draft work products would occur (steering committee, public circulation of working drafts, etc.)? What type of overall community outreach is necessary? One additional consideration is the relationship of the General Plan to the Local Coastal Plan. A comprehensive or partial General Plan update will certainly trigger parallel changes to the LCP. However, changes to the LCP which are part of a comprehensive update of the General Plan could provide an opportunity to develop information and improved policies which could facilitate the certification of the LCP, with its added benefit of returning full permit authority to the City in most areas of the Coastal Zone. Staff has also been made aware that there is grant funding available to assist in the certification of our LCP. The application for this funding was received by staff on December 14, 1998, and applications are due by January 29,1999. With the concurrence of the City Council, staff will prepare the application for consideration by the Council on January 25, 1999. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director , 4 Attachment: Pres tion to EQAC Ccneml Plan Updme Page 4 The Role of the General Plan (quoted from the State General Plan Guidelines) A General Plan provides a basis for rational decision making regarding a City's long -term physical development. A developing community is like an incomplete and evolving puzzle. A General Plan serves a generalized and dynamic picture of the puzzle. California state law requires each city to adopt a general plan "for the physical development of the city, and any land outside its boundaries which... bears relation to its planning." The role of each community's general plan is to act as a "constitution" for development, the foundation upon which all land use decisions are to be based. It expresses community development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land use, both public and private. At one time, the local general plan was looked on as a set of broad policies that had little actual role in development decisions. Changes to the law occurring since 1971 have vastly boosted the importance of the plan. A general plan may no longer be merely a "wish list" or vague picture of the community's future; it must now provide concrete direction for decision making. Preparing, adopting, implementing and maintaining a general plan serves to: • Identify the community's land use, circulation, environmental, economic and social goals and policies as they relate to land use and development. • Provide a basis for local government decision making, including a nexus to support development exactions. • Provide citizens with opportunities to participate in the planning and decision making process of local government. • Inform citizens, developers, decision - makers, and other cities of the ground rules that will guide development within the community. The general plan bridges the gap between community values and actual physical decisions. i im I ,.11 The Newport Beach General Plan is comprised of the following elements: Land Use Circulation Recreation and Open Space Housing Noise Public Safety Conservation of Natural Resources Growth Management • Most recently, the City has updated the Recreation and Open Space Element (1998). • The Noise Element was updated in 1994. • The Growth Management Element (adopted as required by regional congestion management mandates) was adopted in 1992. • The Housing Element was last updated in 1992. • The Land Use and Circulation Elements were updated in 1988. • The Public Safety Element was adopted in 1975. • The Conservation of Natural Resources Element was adopted in 1974. While the state general plan guidelines recommend periodic updates, only the Housing Element has a mandatory update schedule. The next mandatory Housing Element update is scheduled for 2000. Key features: Land Use Element: • Detailed and specific to a parcel level (not recommended by the State). • Contains zoning level of specificity in terms of entitlement, such as FAR's, number of hotel rooms, etc. • Contains relatively generic policies, which are City -wide in perspective, but breaks the City down into small segments for the purpose discussion, which are not then not discussed as to how the plan proposed supports the broader policies. • Policies focus on preserving the residential quality of life, but provides little by way of implementation programs to produce results, specifically as it relates to the quality of commercial districts or the role of the visitor. • Covers the entire City planning area, including the Newport Coast, Santa Ana Heights, and West Newport spheres -of- influence. • Is generally designed to support the Zoning Code. Circulation Element: • Includes the Master Plan of Streets and Highways (Map). • Primarily analyzes intersections for the purpose of identifying Levels of Service. • Lists specific design improvements. • Provides a policy basis for TPO, which is the desired intersection level of service goal of "D." • Provides the policy basis for the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance, which is the completion of the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Recreation and Open Space Element: • Precisely defines existing and desired park land and facilities. • Focuses on recreation. Housing Element: • Is the most policy oriented element of the General Plan. • Has detailed Guidelines adopted within the State Government Code, and is the only element which must be certified by the State (HCD). A • Sets forth the goals and programs for the development of affordable housing in the community, such as: • Providing adequate sites for the accomplishment of the City's housing goals. • Use negotiated development to achieve housing goals through the private development community. • Assist housing for low and moderate income housing using Community Development Block Grant funds. • To approve mixed use, residential /commercial development. • To rehabilitate the existing housing inventory. • To promote a variety of housing choices for the elderly. • To develop a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all income levels of the community. Growth Management Element: • Its purpose and function is to meet regional congestion management mandates. • Establishes LOS D at intersections, but allows exemptions under the Deficient Intersection List of the CMP. • Requires new development to pay its fair share of the costs associated with that development, including regional traffic mitigation. • Requires a development phasing plan in accordance with the City's TPO. • Commits the City to participate in inter - jurisdictional planning forums. • Commits the City to the preparation of a capital improvement program consistent with the criteria of Measure M and the Congestion Management program. • Includes a policy to foster balanced land use. • Commits the City to promote traffic reduction strategies through TDM measures. Noise Element: • Describes the noise environment of Newport Beach. • Sets for the policies and programs for both stationary and non- stationary sources of noise. • Provides for reduction of noise impacts from transportation related sources through: • Imposition of mitigation measures �.I u • The use of walls and berms • Design of transportation improvements { • Encouraging the State to adopt vehicle noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles • Consider noise issues in Charter Boat permit process • Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning process by: • Specifying acceptable limits of noise for various land uses • Require acoustic design in new construction • Adopt a Noise Ordinance • Establish a comprehensive program and minimize the impact of noise generated by aircraft departing John Wayne Airport: • Oppose legislation which would impair the County's ability to operate JWA consistent with the settlement agreement. • Maintain membership in NOISE and other groups whose purpose is to preserve the rights of airport operators to establish reasonable restrictions. • Assist the County in implementing a comprehensive noise control program at JWA. • Work to extend the settlement agreement. • This is the policy document which led to the adoption of the Community Noise Ordinance. t Public Safety Element: • Contains technical information on geologic hazards (including seismicity), flood hazards, and fire hazards. • Is in need of an update to meet the current requirements of State law in the areas of wildland and urban fires, evacuation routes, and peakload water supply requirements and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to fire and geologic hazards. Conservation of Natural Resources Element: • Contains discussion and policies in the areas of bay and ocean water quality, air quality, beach erosion, mineral resources, archeological and paleontological resources, and energy conservation. • Element is the oldest, but most of the program areas are now regulated on a regional basis, through such agencies as the AQMD, the ARB, the RWQCB, the County of Orange, and the Federal Government. all Strengths of the existing plan: • Level of specificity prevents questions related to actual entitlement and limits of land use designations. • Is strong in the area of the Housing Element, with a comprehensive set of policies and programs which have enabled the City to maintain certified compliance with State Guidelines since 1989. • Has a good Recreation and Open Space Element, which focuses on and acknowledges the fact the City is largely built out. Weaknesses of the existing plan: • Does not provide a "vision" for the future of the community. • Provides no goals or desired development patterns for the individual and unique commercial districts. • Is more regulatory than policy in nature. • Level of specificity requires frequent amendments. This tends to diminish the policy stature of the plan. • Has minimal policy guidance related to the use of the Bay, either in the Land Use Element or the Recreation and Open Space Element. • Addresses the City's role as a visitor destination only in the context of protecting and preserving residential areas from the negative impacts from visitors. Provides no goals or policies aimed at reasonably managing or improving the quality of the visitors who inevitably will come here, and how they impact local resources. • Does not include any specific construction technique requirements as a result of the hazards identified in the Public Safety Element. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Discussion Outline January 30, 1999 BACKGROUND I. Existing General Plan Elements and Last Updates A. Land Use (1988)' B. Circulation (1988)' C. Recreation and Open Space (1998)' D. Housing (1992, Next update required in 2000)' E. Noise (1994)` F. Public Safety (1975)' G. Conservation of Natural Resources (1974)' H. Growth Management (1992) Required by State law II. Strengths of Existing Plan A. Level of specificity provides clarity regarding actual entitlement and limits of land use designations. B. Housing Element policies and programs have maintained certified compliance with State Guidelines since 1989. C. Recreation and Open Space Element focuses on and acknowledges City's largely built - out condition. III. Weaknesses of Existing Plan A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Is more regulatory than policy in nature. Does not provide a long range "vision" for the future of the community. Provides few `goals and policies on desired development patterns, community image, urban form,, etc. to guide land use decisions. TPO provides more clear direction than GP, so traffic is governing issue. Level of specificity requires frequent, detailed amendments that are closer to zoning determinations. (See Section IV on page 4 for examples.) This diminishes stature of the plan. Does not highlight Bay's importance to the City, and has minimal policy guidance related to its use. Addresses the City's role as a visitor destination only through protecting and preserving residential areas from negative impacts. Provides few goals or policies'aimed at managing or improving the quality of the visitors who inevitably will come here. Does not include construction requirements to'address hazards identified in the Public Safety Element. QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION I. Is a General Plan update needed? II. How soon should it be done? III. What approach or project scope is appropriate? IV. How would the City fund and manage a GP update along with other current priorities? V. If a GP update is done how should GPA applications in process and upcoming applications be treated during the update process? VI. If a GP update is not done, what criteria should be used to evaluate individual GPA applications? UPDATE INFORMATION I. Possible Update Approaches A. Comprehensive update, involving all areas of Newport Beach, and all required elements and additional ones if desired. 1. Major undertaking. 2. Likely to require consultant assistance + significant CC + PC + staff time. 3. Broad scope could detract from efforts to address most important issues. B. Strategic focus 1. Time and resource commitment similar to comprehensive approach, but would allow greater attention to most important issues. 2. Suggested issues include: a. Airport Area: recycling of property, upgrade of uses, related transportation issues b. Newport Center: long -term build -out, related transportation issues c. Mariner's Mile: marine incentive uses, feasible commercial uses, related transportation issues d. West Newport Industrial /Residential Area: recycling of property, upgrade of uses, related transportation issues, housing quality e. Commercial village revitalization and preservation: Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar f. Residential neighborhood recycling /preservation: West Newport, Newport Heights, Old Corona del Mar, Lido Isle, Kings Road g. Acceptable level of tourism and other commercial development h. Bay uses i. Aesthetics j. Responding to regional changes and development C. Area by area land use and circulation updates 1. Breaks project into smaller components, which could: a. Require less intense CC, PC and staff time commitment. 2 b. Spread expense and time commitment over longer time. c. Provide focus on areas in order of priority. 2. Would preclude analysis of interrelationships among areas, impacts on City as a whole, and overall City goals and priorities. 3. Possible areas include: a. Airport Area b. Newport Center c. Coastal Zone (older commercial and residential areas) d. West Newport Industrial /Residential area D. Vision process 1. Would develop broad, long range desires and goals. 2. Does not require technical information and analysis; could be done with little or no consultant assistance and more quickly than GP update. 3. Process could be customized for Council Districts, other geographic areas, land use types, age of development, etc. 4. Could stand alone or be added to GP as policy guidance for future decisions, or could be followed by GP update based on vision. II. What's Involved A. Time: Citywide update (comprehensive or strategic focus) would take about 2 years; individual areas could be completed in 12 -18 months each; vision would take about 1 year and could shorten time for GP update to follow. B. Cost: Citywide update would require about $500,000 for GP consultants and $150,000 for EIR consultants. Area studies would cost less, and could be funded or reimbursed by property owners. Vision could be done with little or no consultant assistance. One additional staff member would be needed for all approaches to allow Planning Director to manage project. C. Commitment: City Council and Planning Commission members would likely need to serve on committees, attend public forums, and review concepts and draft reports, in proportion to project scope. III. Possible Resources A. Grant funding from Coastal Commission ($500,000 Statewide) is available for work leading to LCP certification. Staff thinks most GP issues in Coastal Zone could be addressed under this grant. B. Only planning and administration portion of CDBG may be used for planning on Peninsula. This c. $75,000 is now used for grant administration costs. C. Some cities charge developers a GP update fee, based on the philosophy that an adequate GP is a prerequisite to development. D State law provides for cities to charge the cost of preparing specific plans as a fee on building permits issued pursuant to the plan. Associated GP work may be included in the fee. E. Voluntary contributions from landowners. f 61 IV. Amendments in Process A. Initiated: 1. Conexant Expansion ( Rockwell Semiconductor Systems) - 500,000 + sq. ft. 2. Koll Center Newport - 250,000 sq. ft. office 3. Pacific Club — Koll Center Newport - 15,000 sq. ft. expansion 4. Newport Dunes - increased hotel entitlement 5. Block 800 — Newport Center — 140,000 sq. ft. office 6. 1300 Dove Street — 2,349 sq. ft. office addition B. Initiation Requested: 1. 341 La Jolla Dr. — change from Single Family to Two Family Residential 2. 3000 Lafayette and 520 3151 St. (Cannery Restaurant and parking lot) — change from Retail Commercial to Single Family Residential (11 lots) 3. 260 Newport Center Drive — 323 sq. ft. office expansion 4. Big Canyon Planned Community — Area 1 (Sea Island Condominiums) — increase dwelling unit limit to allow conversion of an existing tennis court to 3 dwelling units 5. Harbor Day School — increase floor area limit to allow addition of a gymnasium V. Recent Update Discussions A. EQAC raised concern re: number of amendments and recommended update, resulting in City Council direction for staff to prepare outline of update process. EQAC continues to comment on need for comprehensive plan when reviewing individual GPA amendments. B. EDC Strategic Planning Subcommittee has discussed two -step process: 1. Development of long -term vision 2. Update of General Plan consistent with vision. C. Harbor Quality Committee recommended committee to develop harbor plan (possible GP element), resulting in City Council establishment of Ad Hoc Harbor Committee. D. TPO Working Group reached consensus that significant changes to TPO, e.g., different traffic standard for Airport Area, would require comprehensive planning. E. Planning Commission discussion of recent CPAs included concern about their impacts on the ability of other property owners to use existing entitlements, and lack of policy guidance in GP. F. EDC discussion of TPO included comments that both TPO amendment and vision process /GP update should move forward. City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 INDEX in knowing what leeway the City has in using these funds. If the City is going to be getting into more dredging and dealing with the contaminants in the bay and the waterway systems, the City will need asdd't'onal sources of revenue and it is important to be up to date in the beTraisal information on whether the City is receiving fair market value cKe the lease or permitting of the tideland areas. He said he would also 1 e staff to provide more detail on residential permits and the rights to use he tidelands and noted that there is a certain body of law that reeulate that and he would like to have that available on the 22nd. Council Me ber Debay requested that staff make some calls prior to the meeting on Fe nary 22 ^d to find out what kind of source control there is for the watersh d — �vho has the responsibility to check the different outflows in differ t areas so that if there is something harmful coming from a certain area hat it can be tracked back? Jim Turner, 409 Baysi a Drive, said he would be interested in knowing the ownership of the hannel in front of his house and who is responsible for dredging. Mayor O Neil requested that staff provide a map on the 22.d showing wh re the City tidelands are, where the County tidelands are, and where the 'ty has jurisdiction. Council Member Debay requeste that the staff bring back information on where the feds are dredging in th lower bay. Steve Barrett said he feels there wil ver be a reserve. He addressed concerns with toxic sludge and the co t to remove it. He said the boaters are accused of dumping their \tin t in the bay, and he represented that he has never witnessed ttwenty years . He said he feels there are other ways to get inc revenues and use it directly for the bay. Charles Griffin said that living on the island he ha had salmonella and addressed the duck problem and said it needs to be c ptrolled. Council Member Ridgeway noted that years ago there s a large pipe from the bay at 15th Street to the ocean to help facilitateNflushing and also a pipe in the Newport Island area to the ocean to facilit 1e flushing. He asked that this be placed on a future agenda for review. \ General Services Director Dave Niederhaus announced that earls r this week staff was called to the Grand Jury of Orange County. The GXand Jury is studying the storm drain and run -off problems and will e issuing recommendations to all the cities. • General Plan Update Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood stated that the idea of updating the General Plan originated at EQAC based on some frustration and concern with the number of General Plan Amendments that they are being asked to review in the environmental process. She noted that the Economic Development Committee has reached a similar conclusion and for them it started with some strategic planning and they feel there needs to be some comprehensive planning done even if it begins with the Volume 52 - Page 317 11 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 INDEX vision process. Referring to the outline provided as part of the staff report she noted that it contains the strengths and weaknesses of the General Plan as identified by staff, some approaches that can be taken to update it and how to fund that. Also listed are some questions for the Council's discussion. In summary, she explained that the existing General Plan is so specific that there needs to be a number of amendments made. As staff, the Planning Commission and the Council look at the amendment requests there isn't very much big picture policy guidance to assist with evaluating the amendment requests. In practice, TPO and traffic have been the governing factors and most of the time is spent on those issues. If there isn't a traffic problem then in all likelihood the amendment is approved and if there is a traffic problem it may not be approved or it is scaled back. As there are many amendments coming up, it may be appropriate for the City to consider whether that kind of a system should be used to evaluate changes to the General Plan or should there be some policy guidance on larger issues, such as how much intensity of development does the City want to have, and how much tourism related development does the City want to have, and does the City want to consider future development in terms of how services are paid for that are provided by the City. She noted that the report provided by Public Works on infrastructure states that in order to keep up with the infrastructure the City would need $6.5 million per year. If the City Council wants to proceed with a General Plan update of some kind there are a range of approaches that could be taken. She stated that the comprehensive update would cost between $500,000 - $600,000 and would take between 2 -3 years. She indicated that staff would favor an approach that focuses either on strategic questions or specific geographic areas where there is the most concern. Even doing that it is a big undertaking and that needs to be understood before proceeding since it will require a lot of time and outreach. If the approach is to do something more quickly with fewer resources and still also be valuable in addressing individual projects as they come through, perhaps some kind of visioning process would assist staff and Council as the projects come up. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Thomson, Ms. Wood explained that the Housing Element is the only component of the General Plan that has an update requirement. The state requires that it be updated every five years, however it has been delayed because the state has not funded the number - crunching for the regional housing units. In answering questions on priorities, Ms. Wood said that the Housing Element has to be a priority because it is required and staff should be able to handle that without additional resources. She noted that on Friday a grant application was submitted requesting approximately $400,000 to assist with the harbor element. She said she thinks that most General Plan issues in the coastal zone can be addressed under this grant as well. She noted that staff is hearing from a lot of sectors that the interim TPO revisions are items that can go forward without the more comprehensive planning. Planning Director Patty Temple reported that she has been Volume 52 - Page 318 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 INDEX communicating with the Coastal Commission staff in San Francisco as the LCP grant application has been developed and specifically talked about the idea of a harbor element and interweaving it with a public access plan. It really addresses how the competing stakeholders for the harbor can be addressed in a comprehensive fashion and not just in the financial areas, but on what kind of uses occur in the harbor, how they are allocated, what level of intensity is allowed, how they interact with the uplands, and how the uplands provide support facilities such as parking, restrooms, trash facilities, etc. for all the uses in the bay. She noted that the Coastal Commission staff member was extremely interested in the idea and stated that she was excited about the prospect because at no time has any agency ever suggested doing something of that nature absent a developer specific project submitted for approval. Council Member Adams asked for staff's thoughts regarding annexation and asked if the Council is going to consider a General Plan update or even updates in just certain elements and should that happen after or before annexation. Ms. Wood said that the greatest concern would be the time commitment of City Council and staff and whether there are enough people to work on both issues. She noted that Newport Coast is already addressed in the existing General Plan and she doesn't believe the City is talking about potential changes to the development pattern in that area, therefore she doesn't see that as an issue area to be addressed in an update. Council Member Adams noted that in addition to the cost for the consultants; the cost for staff time would be tremendous and would probably far exceed the cost for consulting time. Ms. Wood said that she too believes it would take a significant staff commitment and if this is to be pursued an employee would probably need to be added to the Planning staff at the Principal Planner level who could take care of the day to day things and free up the Planning Director to manage this project. Council Member Adams says he believes there is a perception from the community that there is going to be some magic revelation that is going to come through a General Plan update in regard to circulation and land use. He said he thinks the City will be setting themselves for a huge disappointment if that is what the expectation is, because that won't happen. Right now, he said he thinks it makes more sense to take on the harbor element and incorporate that in the General Plan through the LCP process. He said it probably makes more sense to look at specific plans, particularly an airport area specific plan, in lieu of a comprehensive general plan update and maybe consider an updated Circulation Element. Ms. Wood said she has some concern with taking on geographic areas separate from one another. Council Member Adams noted that the land use areas that the City will probably want to look at are the airport area and maybe Newport Center Volume 52 - Page 319 .n City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 INDEX and when that is done CEQA will require that the impacts on the entire City be looked at. He said he doesn't think it is right that traffic has become the only thing that is considered when making land use decisions. He said he thinks it is more a matter of policy and the way the Council disciplines themselves in looking at decisions that may need to be changed, however isn't sure that it necessitates a complete General Plan update. Council Member Ridgeway said he has been a proponent of a General Plan update, especially the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element. He concurred that the City has been a regulatory city and not a policy driven city on the land use decisions and yet years ago an attempt was made to identify the airport as a commercial business center and it has been regulated highly because of traffic. He said he believes the piecemeal approach that is being used at the airport and Fashion Island needs to be dispensed with. He pointed out that as he has stated in the past he feels the TPO is out of sequence with the General Plan update or the two elements he referred to (Land Use and Circulation). He concurred that most of the community is largely built - out. He noted that the Bonita Canyon annexation has created an unintended consequence and that is a lot more traffic than was originally analyzed. He said that the Council needs to establish a larger policy for what needs to happen and in doing that, the residential and commercial interests can best be balanced in a broad policy statement, and a Master EIR needs to be created that gets supplemented if somebody wants to change it at a later date. Another side component of doing it that way is if the Council agrees from a policy perspective that there is a greater amount of square footage needed in the airport area and the quality of life can be maintained, then the City needs to look hard at a circulation system and perhaps redesign it and reestablish the fair share fees. He said he thinks the City is remiss if they don't proceed fot -ward with a General Plan amendment, albeit it Circulation and Land Use Element at this time. He said he thinks the City can focus geographically on the airport area, Newport Center, and probably Mariner's Mile. Referring to the TPO he said he feels it is inappropriate to have exempt intersections without having a complete General Plan update. Council Member Glover noted that all of the exempt intersections are in either Mariner's Mile or in the airport area. She said she feels the Council has too much on their plate to do the General Plan update and feels the annexation is where the priority should be. She said it is important to have the new city manager on board before doing anything. She noted that she distributed her idea about a City visioning program which she feels should be implemented for the upcoming year and each of the Council Members should meet with their constituents to discuss it. She concurred that the City's projects are based on traffic and not what is best for the City. It was the consensus of the Council to table the General Plan update discussions for a couple of months until the new city manager is on board and the City Council can provide that person with specific direction about a visioning plan. While doing this, the TPO and LCP will continue to move through the process. Volume 52 - Page 320 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1999 mot, was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt a resolution of intent to amend ter 20.80 of the Zoning Code. There will be two ordinances for consideration. on include the convenience market with a specified size and one without the con aience market concept. Ayes: Fuller. Ashley. Selich. Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Kranzley SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 99 -1 Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. 341 La Jolla Drive: A proposal to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential to Two - Family Residential. B. 3000 through 3012 Lafayette and 514 through 520 31" Street (Canned Restaurant and corking lot): A proposal to change the land use designation from Retail and Service Commercial to Single Family Residential for 11 lots. C. 260 Newport Center Drive: A proposal to increase the development limit to accommodate a 323 square foot addition to an existing office building. D. Big Canyon Area 1 (Sea Island Community Association): A proposal to increase the dwelling unit limit to allow the construction of three residential units on an existing tennis court. E. 3443 Pacific View Drive (Harbor Day School): A proposal to increase the development limit to allow the addition of a gymnasium to an existing school facility. F. 1009 Bayside Drive (Shark Island Yacht Club): A proposal to change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to allow construction of an office building. G. Newport Center: A proposal to increase the development limitation for several areas of Newport Center as follows: > Fashion Island: Increase the permitted development by 100,000 square feet. Item 5 INDEX I 9 [ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1999 Block 5W: Increase the permirrea aevelopmenr Py 45u,000 square feet. . Corporate Plaza: Increase the permitted development by 69,000 square feet. Corporate Plaza West: Increase the permitted development by 101,000 square feet. > Block 600: Increase the permitted development to allow the addition of 150 residential /resort units. Avocado North: Establish entitlement to allow the development of day care and college uses. Chairperson Selich proceeded to explain the initiation and timing of the General Plan Amendment process. 341 Lo Jolla Drive: A proposal to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential to Two - Family Residential. Public Comment was opened. Mr. Bouche, 405 Santa Ana Avenue representing immediate neighbors stated his opposition to this initiation. Referencing the exhibit pointed out the adjoining lots noting that the addresses referenced in the property owner's letter regarding the R -2 Zoning are on another Street (Catalina). He stated that the street is very narrow. Parking already is problematic. Public Comment was closed. Commissioner Fuller, agreeing with the spokesman, noted the absence of the applicant. He stated that the slope is an additional issue in the R -2 designation that is not present on this lot and most of the residences on La Jolla Drive are single family residences. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to recommend denial initiation of this request. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 3000 throuah 3012 Lafayette and 514 through 520 31" Street -(Cannery Restaurant and Parking lot): A proposal to change the land use designation from Retail and Service Commercial to Single Family Residential for i l lots. Commissioner Kranzley recused himself from deliberation on this matter. It was confirmed with legal staff that all that is needed is three out of four votes for action. 10 r ..�Y INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1999 Public Comment was opened. INDEX Russ Fluter, Cannery Village Realty, 2025 W. Balboa Blvd. spoke representing the applicant noting that it is the intent of the owner to demolish a 10,000 square foot restaurant which sits on eleven lots. The current zoning allows a mixed use with the residence upstairs but they are asking to have eleven custom homes. The replacement of the high intensity Cannery restaurant /bar with these homes would be an impetus of a renaissance of the village. At Commission inquiry, he stated that the Commission could remove the four lots across Lafayette in consideration of this matter. Public Comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to initiate this amendment but remove lots 11, 12, 13 and 14 from consideration, noting that they could be used for other than residential uses. Lots 1 thru 7 can be explored as single family residential use. Chairperson Selich noted that the single - family lots are out of context of Cannery Village, the Specific Plan adopted and the current land uses. We are not into debating the merits, but this is completely out of the context. These homes would be 30 or 40 feet across from at least two bars that have been the source of a lot of problems. There are a lot of quasi - industrial marine types of uses that just do not seem compatible with single family homes. The homes on Lido Park Drive orient away from this area onto the other channel. He added that if we are going to look at making these kinds of changes, there ought to be a broader based study of the Cannery Village, and not just these lots. Consequences would be that there would be these 7 or 11 single family lots that would be out of context of what the City's plans for that area for years. Other consequences would be that we would end up walling off more of the bay from public access. This should be looked at within the entire concept of the village, rather that spot zoning. These would be costly homes and people will have a high level of expectations of what their environment is going to be. His recommendation is to look at the entire area, not just these eleven lots. Commissioner Gifford noted her agreement that the Cannery Village needs to be looked at within the whole context of the Specific Area Plan. Commissioner Ashley expressed his support of Chairperson Selich's comments concluding with a recommendation to look at this area through a general plan update as to the best use of the whole area, not just a portion. Chairperson Selich called for the vote on Commissioner Fuller's motion. 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1999 Ayes: Fuller Noes: Ashley. Selich. Gifford. Kranzley Absent: None Abstain: None INDEX Commissioner Ashley asked for. and it was agreed. to continue the vote to later in the meeting. 260 Newport Center Drive: A proposal to increase the development limit to accommodate a 323 square foot addition to an existing office building. Commissioner Kranzley took his seat on the Commission. Public Comment was opened. Bill Goring. 2372 Azure Avenue representing the owners of 260 Newport Center Drive asked that this item be initiated. He stated that this is a distinctive building dating from 1972. The maintenance has been deferred and the new owners wish to update and remodel and expand the lobby. The remodeling will include a mailroom, snack area and addressing the ADA issues all within the existing footprint of the existing building. The building was constructed as a cantilevered type of structure. so the expansion will be underneath the second floor area. The lobby will be expanded by 100 feet on each side and the front entrance will be changed to the westerly side. Public Comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to initiate this request. Ayes: Fuller. Ashley. Selich. Gifford. Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Big Canyon Area 1 (Sea Island Community Association): A proposal to increase the dwelling unit limit to allow the construction of three residential units on an existing tennis court. Public Comment was opened. Marie Luna. 31681 Camino Capistrano. Suite 105. San Juan Capistrano spoke representing the Sea Island Community Association. She noted the following: • Existing tennis court is located in a remote location of the community and very rarely used. • Community has been plagued with maintenance and drainage problems in the parking structure located below many of the units. • Association fees are high. In excess of $400. that make the units difficult to 12 . .'x �;m:az airt _ui_ r�:L.�: ya��slgr. ,4� •,r,:; - - .. . � - .- 3..$�.�.�.:1a�s..'ir:A�: �: �i<•e�s.'r:.' - -'..; ads..; . ..�ia`4- •'eBZ.:...:.:7ii(I'^�r' � .koe ®_.S+�Pe� ��4`i`i �r �a�a5 .., .. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1999 sell. many of which are undervalued with these fees. The bulk sum of monies from the sale of the three new units would be used for the needed maintenance repairs. The Community wishes to maximize the use of this property. Commissioner Ashley noted his concern with the removal of a tennis court and the addition of three new units. There are five single story units with private garages that were always the most valuable units in the Big Canyon Town Homes. Ms. Luna noted that the majority of the homeowners were aware and in favor of this happening as poled by the Board of Directors. A prospectus has been done for the properties. Currently some of these units are for sale ranging in price from $219,000 to $289.000. which seem to be below market given their location. The Board of Directors feel that the tennis court as not being used could be turned into three new units. The profits would be used for maintenance on the parking garage in particularly. She noted that the Planning Commission could make a condition to the Site Development Plan to specify that the monies from the sale of these three new units would be specifically for the maintenance and repairs. Ms. Luna was unable to provide any cost estimate information as asked by the Planning Commission. Public Comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to initiate this request. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley. Selich. Gifford, Kronzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 3443 Pacific View Drive (Harbor Day School): A proposal to increase the development limit to allow the addition of a gymnasium to an existing school facility. Public Comment was opened. Sidney DuPont, Headmaster of Harbor Day School spoke in favor of this application stating that they would like to enclose two basketball courts and replace with a new building due to scheduling problems. Public Comment was closed. 13 INDEX ` r1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1999 INDEX Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to initiate this request. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 1009 Boyside Drive (Shark Island Yacht Club): A proposal to change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to allow construction of on office building. Ms. Temple noted that without concurrence of the fee property owner, it is inappropriate to initiate the amendment, since the property owner's concurrence is required. The item was then removed from consideration. Newport Center: A proposal to increase the development limitation for several areas of Newport Center as follows: Fashion Island: Increase the permitted development by 100,000 square feet. > Block 500: Increase the permitted development by 450,000 square feet. Corporate Plaza: Increase the permitted development by 69,000 square feet. Corporate Plaza West: Increase the permitted development by 101,000 square feet. Block 600: Increase the permitted development to allow the addition of 150 residentialfresort units. Avocado North: Establish entitlement to allow the development of day care and college uses. Public Comment was opened. David Neish, Culbertson, Adams and Associates spoke representing the Irvine Company. This proposal came about at the request of the City Council. At Commission inquiry he noted the following: • Avocado North as a site is around three to four acres and with the transit facility around eight or nine acres. • Block 500 - the proposed increase will be in a multi -story tower, located immediately behind the two existing Irvine Company towers which may be removed at least in part. A parking structure will be necessary to accommodate the additional office development. • Corporate Plaza - Mr. Neish presented an aerial picture with the proposed additional square footage development overlayed. He explained where the site(s) are proposed to be. • Corporate Plaza West - there is no specific designation; it will be evaluated 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1999 INDEX if this amendment is initiated by City Council. The specific site plan will be brought back that may have the option to encroach within the circle of palm trees. Block 600 - The Four Seasons Hotel is in this block. It is the desire of the Irvine Company to situate there, some type of residential villas or caritas associated with the hotel. They would be within the vicinity of the parking lot immediately west of the Wells Fargo tower. It would be a maximum of 150 units. Concluding. Mr. Neish stated this is the first step of the process. If the City Council initiates this, we will then begin in cooperation with the staff to prepare all the environmental evaluations, as well as traffic studies and more precise plans of what is being proposed. Alan Beek stated his concerns: • Newport Beach has an inconsistent General Plan. • Rejected a freeway going through Newport Beach and don't want it coming in through the back door. • Every expansion of the Land Use Element makes more traffic and makes the conflict worse. • EQAC is calling for a review of the General Plan to resolve the conflicts. • Expansion (if any) will be addressed through the Land Use Element. • Premature to consider these new proposals for office tower. • The Irvine Company is very forthright to bring this proposal forward. • Piecemeal expansions only add to the difficulty of cleaning up the General Plan. • SPON Steering Committee has declared: Newport Beach's main problem is an unbalanced General Plan. Making the General Plan balanced and honest is the first priority. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance is the only safeguard, for the General Plan has failed. Making adjustments to the TPO is second priority. The Land Use Element should in no case be amended to allow even more development. This would add extra local traffic on top of the traffic authorized by the present Land Use Element, plus future regional traffic. Some of our neighbor cities choose to locate traffic generating developments right on our borders, where Newport Beach must bear the brunt of the traffic. We should apply to the County to have a portion of those neighbors' Measure M funds diverted to Newport Beach. Public Comment was closed. Commissioner Ashley noted his concerns: • Need a thorough study of what is transpiring in this area. • What would the full impact be with approving these in an incremental way? Chairperson Selich noted: • City Council has elected not to do an overall General Plan Amendment 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1999 hNaS £i update for the City that has been recommended by the Planning Commission as well as other bodies in the City. The Council's decision is to focus on Newport Center /Fashion Island and the airport area. It is not incremental or piecemeal planning to take on area of the city that is geographically large enough with a degree of homogenous characteristics it is not inappropriate to do that. You don't have to do the entire City. A General Plan Amendment in Newport Center has to go beyond what the Irvine Company is requesting here. There is a pending request from Pacific Mutual Plaza. which should be included. The smaller general plan amendments such as the lobby expansion. and an earlier tent permanent status on Pacific Mutual should be taken out. The Land Use Element is almost like a zoning ordinance. Most cities have a Land Use Element that is general. There is a terrible parking problem in the 400 Block where all the medical buildings are that has on impact on Newport Center. Our recommendation to Council should be that they take a comprehensive look at all of Newport Center. not just the items that the Irvine Company is requesting. there is a bigger picture here. Newport Beach Country Club is rumored to be wanting further development. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to recommend to the City Council that they take an overall comprehensive planning effort look at all of Newport Center. not just the items that the Irvine Company is requesting. Public Comment was opened. Mr. David Neish stated that The Irvine Company does not own all of Newport Center. There are certain parcels in Fashion Island that they do control. There is only so much that can be done and processed by TIC. These proposed amendments are a response to the Council. Maybe they should make this some request to other property owners in Newport Center. It doesn't mean that the other property owners want to do anything at all or this is a time frame that they would. Chairperson Selich stated that a comprehensive study should be done on the Center. Discussion followed regarding the application for the Local Coastal Program funding and the application of these to the coastal area. the airport area. the Newport Center area and the interrelationships. Chairperson Selich restated his Motion that Item G Newport Center be approached on a comprehensive basis and take into account the Irvine Company request. all existing pending requests for general plan amendments in Newport Center with the exception of Pacific Mutual request for the tent and 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1999 INDEX the 260 Newport Center Drive request, not just the land owned by the Company. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kronzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Commissioner Kronzley recused himself from further deliberation on the Cannery Village. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to recommend to City Council that Item B, Cannery Village be initiated as an amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan as an element for o larger all comprehensive review for Cannery Village. Public Comment was opened. Mr. Fluter noted the following: • The Snug Harbor Bar and the old boat yard that surround the property are controlled by some of the partners doing this Cannery renovation. They have mode o commitment to improve those properties if this project goes forward. The lots in question are 9 and 10, 6 and 7. Public Comment was closed. Chairperson Selich called for the vote. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kronzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to tying the airport area general plan, the Newport Center general plan and the Coastal Planning Program together. Commissioner Ashley voiced his concern about tying these three plans where there may be o lock of resources. Chairperson Selich noted that the Economic Development Committee is taking an action next week to recommend to City Council that the 1999 -2000 and the 2000 -2001 budget cycle the City budget funds to do a General Plan Amendment and Master EIR in the airport area. Two of the City Councilmembers who are on the EDC Executive were in attendance during this discussion and are in support. There will be some discussion in the EDC as to whether the City can foot the whole bill which we are estimating at $300,000 to 17 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1999 INDEX $500.000 or whether it should be something to be split among property owners in The airport area and the City. The motion is not inappropriate. rather what the Planning Commission is doing and what EDC is doing. support each other. The timing of the LCP application and getting underway. if the Council approves funds in this year's budget cycle they would occur at the same time. Ms. Temple noted that the funding cycle is the fiscal year 1999 -2000. It should not be assumed that we are going to receive the full funding we have asked for from the Local Coastal Program Grant. Chairperson Selich noted that the Council should be allocating money to the airport area. if we don't start laying foundation for this. it won't happen. We are actually encouraged by the Councilmembers at the EDC meeting to put this on the agenda and present it to the Council as a full body. With these three areas together the rest of the City is developed. Mrs. Wood suggested a change in the verbiage of The Commissioner Gifford's motion to read: Recommend to The City Council that the studies include the interrelationships between Newport Center. the Airport Area. and the LCP planning area. in the event all three planning programs move forward. This was agreed upon by the Commission and the vote was called for. Ayes: Fuller. Ashley. Selich. Gifford. Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Additional Business a.) City Cou Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City ouncil actions related to planning - It was reported that at the meetinigof February 8' "' the Planning Director submitted a grant application in 1 amount of $400.000 for the Local Coastal Program that would include morket study of the commercial areas. Additionally, the Council adopt the amendment for the Holtze and Lennor Partners project and confinqed the Planning Commission appointments to February 22A0 when full Council will be in attendance. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative 1bthe Economic Development Committee - Chairperson Selich reported th the EDC will be taking final action on the Traffic Phasing Ordinance h is scheduled for March le Planning Commission meeting. The EDC h 18 ..._.:�ce,r �.�!7ca StR��"�6' � ®Ytio�vrµwrr►fa�irriiJhr��.. �%- City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 INDEX system; and authorize staff to accept proposal of Bill's Sound and Security Voting /Sound Systems for installation of a new voting system for the City Council Systems `Chambers. (38) 11. BALBOA ISLAND FERRY RESTROONIS. Direct staff to proceed with BA -048 the refurbishment of the Balboa Island Ferry restrooms at a cost of $29,100 Balboa Island and approve a Budget Amendment (BA -048) for $9,200 to supplement other Ferry Restroom funding sources used to complete the project. Refurbishment (40/44) MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 12. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 18, 1999. Planning Receive and file. (68) 13. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -047) IN BA -047 THE A- -MOUNT OF $20,000. Approve appropriation of $15,000 to cover Administrative Acting Pay in the Administrative Services Department during the City Services Dept. Manager's absence and an additional appropriation of $5,000 for additional (40) contract accounting services utilized to fund staffing underuns during this time period. 14. Item removed from the Consent Calendar.. by Council Member Ridgeway. 15. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Debay. CON Motion otion by Tern Pro Te Thomson to approve the Consen't'-Calendar, except for those items removed (14 and 15). \\ \Vithout objection, the motion carried b acclamation. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 14. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99 -1 — REQUEST TO INITIATE GPA 99 -1 AMENDMENTS TO THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AS 341 La Jolla Dr./ FOLLOWS: a) 341 LA JOLLA DRIVE; b) 3000 THROUGH 3012 3000 to 3012 LaFayette LAFAYETTE AND 514 THROUGH 520 31sT STREET (CANNERY & 514 to 520 31st St./ RESTAURANT AND PARKING LOT); c) 260 NEWPORT CENTER 260 Newport Center/ DRIVE; d) BIG CANYON AREA 1 (SEA ISLAND COMMUNITY Big Canyon Area 1/ ASSOCIATION); e) 3443 PACIFIC VIEW DRIVE (HARBOR DAY 3443 Pack View Dr./ SCHOOL); f) 1009 BAYSIDE DRIVE (SHARK ISLAND YACHT CLUB); 1009 Bayside Dr./ AND g) NEWPORT CENTER. Newport Center (45) Council Member Ridgeway, referring to Item b), stated that the Planning Commission recommended that the Cannery Village Speck Plan be looked at overall in conjunction with the project. Council Member Ridgeway recommended, instead, that the project itself move forward as originally applied for, without first reviewing the entire Specific Plan. In reference to Item g), Council Member Glover recommended that the applicant have an environmental impact report (EIR) performed for the Volume 52 - Page 365 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 INDEX project. Mayor O'Neil stated that staff will also conduct an initial study to determine if the project has significant impacts. Council Member Glover additionally stated that the Newport Center area has four parts to it: those areas that are built -out, those that are entitled, those that are in the General Plan process or those being discussed at the current meeting. She stated that with the completion of these four moving parts, Newport Center will be completely built out. In addition to an EIR, Council Member Glover also recommended that the applicant hire an urban design firm to look at the entire Newport Center area. She stated that this should also include a look at the new development on Coast Highway and properties that are not owned by The Irvine Company. She stated that she wants to know if all of the elements are working together. Council Member Glover stated that the Newport Center area is one of the biggest contributors to the City, and she wants this to continue. She wants to make sure that the additional traffic caused by the new development does not deter customers from continuing to patronize the retail establishments. Council Member Glover also expressed her concern for Special Land Use Restrictions (SLUR) and the long -term implications. She is concerned that new owners may have to share their profits or receive approval from The Irvine Company to make changes to their properties. Mayor O'Neil confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that staff understands the City Council's desire for an EIR for Newport Center. City Attorney Burnham further stated that it is staff that determines if an EIR is required for a project and that staff will return to the City Council if one is not found to be required of this project. Mayor O'Neil further confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that the recommendation for an urban design firm could be made as part of the General Plan amendment process. Council Member Ridgeway stated that, at a bare minimum, the land use element and circulation plan would have to be addressed. Council Member Adams pointed out that the action is to initiate the General Plan amendments based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission, which includes a comprehensive planning effort. Motion by Council Member Rid¢eway to initiate the amendments to the General Plan as follows: a) 341 La Jolla Drive: Not to initiate a proposal to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential to Two - Family Residential. b) 3000 through 3012 Lafayette and 514 through 520 31•t Street (Cannery Restaurant and parking lot): To initiate a proposal to change the land use designation from Retail and Service Commercial to Single Family Volume 52 - Page 366 ' Mask .- .�.i+,r..,v.� > �i3x;,�....tl ✓�: B[..' ., . .bug.: b'raNk,'s_'�- ativ^'sa..�� y.. � - . City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 Residential for 11 lots, without waiting for the Cannery Village Plan to be completed. c) 960 Newport Center Drive: To initiate a proposal to increase the development limit to accommodate a 323 square foot addition to an existing office building. d) Big Canyon Area 1 (Sea Island Community Association): To initiate a proposal to increase the dwelling unit limit to allow the construction of three residential units on an existing tennis court. e) 3443 Pacific View Drive (Harbor Dav School): To initiate a proposal to increase the development limit to allow the addition of a gymnasium to an existing school facility. f) 1009 Bayside Drive (Shark Island Yacht Club): Not to initiate a lease- holder proposal to change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to allow construction of an office building. g) Newport Center: To initiate a proposal to increase the development limitation for several areas of Newport Center as follows, incorporating the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Council Member Glover with regards to a comprehensive planning effort for the area; and including a study of the interrelationships between Newport Center, the Airport Area and the LCP as recommended by the Planning Commission: • Fashion Island: Increase the permitted development by 100,000 square feet. • Block 500: Increase the permitted development by 450,000 square feet. • Corporate Plaza: Increase the permitted development by 69,000 square feet. • Corporate Plaza West: Increase the permitted development by 101,000 square feet. • Block 600: Increase the permitted development to allow the addition of 150 residential/resort units. • Avocado North: Establish entitlement to allow the development of day care and college uses. Council Member Debay clarified a couple aspects of the motion. Without objection, the motion carried by acclamation. INDEX 15�--REPORT FROM MAYOR O'NEIL, COUNCIL MEMBER GLOVER AND Airport Funding COUNGILI`MEMBER ADAMS REGARDING AIRPORT FUNDING and Giants AND GRANTS —, (54) Council Member bebay complimented..the subcommittee for their work and apologized for her absence at the last two biff -Gouncil meetings. She stated that, after some initial comments, she would be maki'irg- a;;;ecommendation for some minor modifications to the subcommittee's reeominendpLtions. :) Council Member Debay expressed her desire for the entire Council to a "gree Volume 52 - Page 367 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 INDEX on, and understand, the airport issue. Council Member Debay handed out a memo to the City Council from Deputy �. City Manager Ducey, dated August 24, 1998, which provided information on the instructions given to Hill & Knowlton and Fleishman - Hillard. Council ll- iember Debay pointed out that the consultants carried out all of the requirements. She stated that she wants the current City Council members to understand that there is much about the airport issue that they may not be aware of, such as the result of a consultant's contract or some of the discussions by prior City Councils that were not made public. Council M6pber Debay stated that her involvement with various outside agencies (including Southern California Association of Governments, Orange County Council of Governments, Orange County Sanitation District and Orange County�League of Cities) has provided her with the opportunity to hear from City Council members of other cities. She stated that she has seen a drastic change iri' ,other City Council members' involvement in the El Toro Airport issue, and that she gives credit to the outside consultants for this shift. She expressed Tier belief that the show of unity and strength is very important to the airport'issue. Council Member Debay cohtinued by stating that she sat in on a meeting with Don Saltarelli, one of the outside consultants, and Bev Perry, Brea City Council Member and PresidenG:of the Orange County League of Cities. She said that it was interesting to hear how Mr. Saltarelh presented the pro - airport stance to other cities and agencies, and the types of questions that he is being asked. Council Member Debay stated that the El Toro Airport Alliance has brought in a whole new group of people that have ,' not been involved with the airport issue in the past. She said the Alliance•:is brand new and, among other things, could be very important in fighting the Anti -El Toro Initiative being proposed by South County. 141, Council Member Debay disagrees with the subcommittee's recommendation to sever its tie to the Alliance so soon, before it hag. received full funding or staffing. She recommended a two -week delay in the City Council's action. She said that this will allow more time to gather information and make sure that no moves are being made prematurely. Council Member Debay stated that she would prefer that the support of the Alliance beLphased out rather than just cut off. s Mayor O'Neil stated that the subcommittee's recommendations * -qre similar to what Council Member Debay is recommending, and he agregd that the consultants have accomplished their goals. He stated that the subcommittee does not want to do anything that will thwart the ability of the Alliance to do its work. Mayor O'Neil stated that the subcommittee's recommendations are positive and support an airport at El Toro. ilk 1, Council Member Glover stated that the subcommittee operated from what was presented at the City Council's goal setting session on January 30, 1995,, She stated that the subcommittee is highly complimentary of the outside' Volume 52 - Page 368 Newport Center BLOCK O Corporate Plaza PC General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Recreational and Environmental Open Space Zoning: PC -17 (Adopted 03124/75) BLOCK 100 (GATEWAY PLAZA) General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Zoning: APF District BLOCK 200 (DESIGN PLAZA) General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Zoning: APF District BLOCK 300 (THEATER PLAZA) General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Recreational and Environmental Open Space ! Zoning: APF District BLOCK 400 (MEDICAL PLAZA) General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Recreational and Environmental Open Space Zoning: PC -28 (Adopted 02/13/84) BLOCK 500 (COMPANY PLAZA) General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Recreational and Environmental Open Space Zoning: PC-45 (Adopted 08/28/95) BLOCK 600 (FINANCIAL PLAZA) General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Recreational and Environmental Open Space Zoning: APF District 1 L BLOCK 700 (INSURANCE PLAZA) General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Zoning: APF District BLOCK 800 (PACIFIC PLAZA) General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Multi - Family Residential Zoning: PC -23 (Adopted 04 123/79) BLOCK 900 (HOTEL PLAZA) General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Zoning: APF District CIVIC PLAZA Civic Plaza PC General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Recreational and Environmental Open Space Zoning: PC -19 (Adopted 12/22/75) Chevron Service Station General Plan: Retail and Service Commercial Zoning: APF District Land Rover Automobile Dealership General Plan: Retail and Service Commercial Zoning: PC -20 (Use Permit) Police Station General Plan: Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities Zoning: GEIF District Fire Station General Plan: Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities Zoning: GEIF District 2 ,r CORPORATE PLAZA WEST General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Recreational and Environmental Open Space Zoning: PC -40 (Adopted 08/24/92) BALBOA BAY TENNIS CLUB General Plan: Recreational and Environmental Open Space Zoning: PC-47 (No PC Text) NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB General Plan: Recreational and Environmental Open Space Zoning: PC -47 (No PC Text) AMLING'S NURSERY VILLA POINT SEAISLAND General Plan: Retail and Service Commercial Zoning: PC -47 (No PC Text) General Plan: Multi - Family Residential Zoning: PC -30 (Adopted 05/29/84) General Plan: Single Family Attached Zoning: PC -21 (Adopted 03/03!77) FASHION ISLAND General Plan: Retail and Service Commercial Zoning: PC -35 (Adopted 11/23/87) NEWPORT VILLAGE General Plan: Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities Administrative, Professional and Financial Recreational and Environmental Open Space Retail and Service Commercial Zoning: PC -27 (Adopted 10/24/83) 3 OTHER Granville Apartments General Plan: Multi - Family Residential Zoning: MFR District Granville Office General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Zoning: APF [5000] District Chamber of Commerce General Plan: Administrative, Professional and Financial Zoning: APF District 9 �_ 0 Newport Center { Statistical Area Map L \} \k \\ \\ O / uƒ § u= S R . \ , j »\ / A $ @2 § u \ _ u - - ) / § m qu 7 _ \ \ ' - \ ��� L i2 /2± 0 0E uj.4 ± a �� /; w wk § u c� (\■ !& u��� m $k § ) \ $ 7 2 § 7 2 ;{ um k \)) ) -a <