Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout27 - General Plan Amendment 2000-2CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: _ = PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2000 -2 27, 2000 Patricia L. Temple 644 -3200 SUMMARY: Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. Northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaouin Hills Road: A proposal to change the land use designation and development allocation for this site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, to allow the property to be developed with a church and related uses. B. 600 St. Andrews Road (St. Andrew's Presbvterian Church): A proposal to increase the development allocation for this site to allow an approximate 54,600 sq. ft. addition to an existing church complex, which may include a youth center, classrooms, offices and a parking structure. C. Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan: The proposed Harbor and Bay Element would be an optional element of the General Plan. Under State law, a City may include in its general plan any element that relates to its physical development. This element would focus on the issues and policies relating to the uses of the Harbor and Bay and the surrounding shoreline. ACTION: Initiate the amendments to the General Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission considered these items at its meeting of June 8, 2000, at which time they recommended initiation of the requests. A copy of the report to the Planning Commission is attached, which provide the details of each request. Submitted and prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Attachments: Planning Commission staff report Draft minutes of the Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6 % 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2000 -2 June 8, 2000 6 Patricia L. Temple 644 - 32.28 SUMMARY: Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. Northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road: A proposal to change the land use designation and development allocation for this site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, to allow the property to be. developed with a church and related uses. B. 600 St. Andrews Road (St. Andrew's Presbvterian ChurchL: A proposal to increase the development allocation for this site to allow an approximate 54,600 sq. ft. addition to an existing church complex, which may include a youth center, classrooms, offices and a parking structure. C. Harbor and Bav Element of the General Plan: The proposed Harbor and Bay Element would be an optional element of the General Plan. Under State law, a City may include in its general plan any element that relates to its physical development. This element would focus on the issues and policies relating to the uses of the Harbor and Bay and the surrounding shoreline. ACTION: Recommend to the City Council: A. The proposed General Plan Amendments be initiated and staff be directed to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission; or B. One or more of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unwarranted and should be returned to the originator; or C. Action on the proposed amendments be deferred to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department workloads and project priorities. Background City Council Policy K -1 states that: "A citizen and/or property owner may request an amendment to the General Plan. Such request shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the month during which proposed amendments are to be initiated. The request should clearly set forth the reason for which the request is made, and should contain information substantiating the need. If the Planning Commission, after examination, is convinced that the proposed change is worthy of initiation, it may recommend initiation of amendments as set forth above. If not, the Commission shall forward the request to the City Council with its recommendation that initiation of the amendment is unwarranted. The City Council, after consideration of the request and of the report from the Planning Commission, may either initiate the proposed amendment and direct the Planning Commission to set for public hearing, return the request to the originator without further action, or defer action on the proposed amendment to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department work loads and project priorities." Proposed Amendments 'Northwest corner of 'MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road: The Irvine Company is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element to change the designation of this site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Governmental, Education and Institutional Facilities, and establish a development allocation sufficient to permit the construction of a church complex on the property. If approved, the amendment would provide a new site and facility for St. Mark's Presbyterian Church (currently located at the corner of Jamboree and Ford Roads), and allow Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church to expand onto the existing St. Mark's site. 600 St. Andrews Road (St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church): This request is to increase the Land Use Element development allocation for the site from 100,400 square feet to 155,000 square feet. The additional floor area is needed to accommodate an expanded youth center, additional offices and classrooms, modernization of existing buildings, and the construction of a parking structure. Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan: The proposed Harbor and Bay Element would be an optional element of the General Plan. The draft element sets forth five major goals: • Maintain a balance of compatible uses of the Bay, Harbor, and shoreline. • Maintain and enhance public access to the Harbor water and waterfront areas. General Plan Amendment 2000 -2 June 8, 2000 Page 2 J • Maintain and enhance the water quality and natural aquatic habitats of Newport Harbor and the Back Bay. • Preserve and enhance the visual character and historical resources of the Harbor and the Bay. • Provide for the ongoing administration and maintenance of the Harbor and Bay. Each goal carries with it one or more objectives, which would serve as the means of measuring the achievement of the goals. In turn, each objective has one or more policies, which would be used to achieve those objectives. Finally, each policy has one or more implementing strategies, which recommend actions and programs to implement these policies. The Harbor and Bay Element has been drafted under the guidance of the Harbor Committee, and ad hoc committee appointed by the City Council. Planning Department Workload The Department is currently experiencing continued high workload, and is operating beyond capacity in some areas. In addition to our regular workload, we are processing many major development projects, which used to be handled by a principal planner /environmental coordinator position eliminated from the budget several years ago. Because of the high on -going workload, the Department has added a Senior Planner position in this Year's budget. Additionally, the Department has retained contract project managers for some of the larger development requests. Also, we have shifted some of the work assignments of existing staff in plan check and staff level approvals, to reduce the backlog in those activity areas. In terms of the new cases which have been requested by property owners, the Department believes that they can be handled within the staff assigned to case analysis, as they will be processed as the proponents submit their related applications. The Harbor and Bay Element has been prepared by existing staff, who will continue to provide staff support through the hearing process. Submitted and prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director ,f� Attachments: Letters of request General Plan Amendment 2000 -2 June 8, 2000 Page 3 y M IRVINE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWIJF PT I::EACFI Ah1 MAY 1 1 2060 PM 7181911011111 111213141516 May 5, 2000 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Request for General Plan Amendment & PC Text Amendment Dear Mr. Campbell: The Irvine Company would like to request the City initiate a General Plan Amendment for our approximately 12 -acre property at the northwest comer of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road (please see attached exhibit). The property is presented shown in the General Plan as "Recreational and Environmental Open Space." Since we are working closely with a religious organization interested in building a Church on that property, we believe that a designation of "Government, Educational & Institutional" would be more appropriate. Inasmuch as this property is adjacent to the Big Canyon Community Plan, the most expeditious handling of the potential inconsistencies would be to have the City do a Planned Community Text Amendment to include the subject property. This would allow for the establishment of uses, building areas, development standards, etc., in accordance with Section 20.35.050 of the City's Municipal Code. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should questions arise, please feel free to call on me. Sincerely yours, Norman E. Witt, Jr. cc: Dennis O'Neil, Esq. (for OLQA) Mel Malkoff (for St. Mark Pres.) 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box 6370, Newport Beach, California 92658.6370 (949) 720.2000 A subsidiary of The Irvine Company :J Y Itl fit. 't9E 7 e� is E �8$ � ! ® ► ;;� i 44 1 Ilk 7� 0 I7 a� et U as S 'AN XW 3 \ +i•@ s J :. 1M 1V A'I r JA \4�•1±Y + w _ C\2 �) o O��U zti:� CL „O, 00 C) O Z V) w a " � c�'C �1 O a O r c! c y O O � U Qi E.r 1� "r_l 8 ti 1 Q / A 4r.. lir r JA \4�•1±Y + w _ C\2 �) o O��U zti:� CL „O, 00 C) O Z V) w a " � c�'C �1 O a O r c! c y O O � U Qi E.r 1� "r_l 8 YANDIZEW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH May 15, 2000 Patricia L. Temple Director, Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY CF NEVJPORT BEACH M.4 15 2000P FM AM 71 Big 11011111211121314IS 16 I' Subject: Request to Amend the General Plan Concerning the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Dear Ms. Temple: Request City consideration to increase the allowable building area from the present approximate 100,400 square feet to 155,000 square feet. This is an increase of approximately 54,600 square feet. The church is contemplating the replacement of an existing building with a slightly larger building to provide a Youth Center geared for primarily junior and senior high school age youngsters. Further, we are considering replacing an existing classroom building with a larger' structure to provide for more office and classroom space. We are also considering remodeling and modernizing the sanctuary lobby, information booth and breezeway. Finally, we are seeking to improve the parking situation on site by construction of a two -level parking structure (levels to be determined.) We are currently at the conceptual phrase with a designer and feasibility task force within the church. We desire to work cooperatively with the neighbors and city in this endeavor. Our contact should you need more information at anytime is Gary Hagen, Church Business Administrator. He can be reached at the church at (949) 574 -2224. Respectfully, A. R. Williams Treasurer 600 ST. ANDREWS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92663 -5325 PHONE 949/631 -2880 FAX 949/631 -3689 E -MAIL info @standrewspres.arg WEB www.standrewspres.arg I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 number of units permitted within residential area 1 of the Big Canyon Planned Community to accommodate the construction of the proposed W- units. • A resu vision application to subdivive the existing parcel creating 3 new residential c ominium units. Assistant City Manager Sharo ood stated that staff is recommending that this item be continued to June 22n . Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to tinue this item to June 22 ^d Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, , Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Gifford, Tucker SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2000 -2 Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. Northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaauin Hills Road: A proposal to change the land use designation and development allocation for this site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, to allow the property to be developed with a church and related uses. 600 St. Andrews Road (St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church): A proposal to increase the development allocation for this site to allow an approximate 54,600 sq. ft. addition to an existing church complex, which may include a youth center, classrooms, offices and a parking structure. C. Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan: The proposed Harbor and Bay Element would be an optional element of the General Plan. Under State law, a City may include in its general plan any element that relates to its physical development. This element would focus on the issues and policies relating to the uses of the Harbor and Bay and the surrounding shoreline. Chairperson Selich asked staff for a brief summary of what an initiation is and what it is not for the benefit of the newest Commissioners. Ms. Wood stated that there is a City Council Policy that describes the procedures for initiating an amendment to the General Plan. There are three cycles per year in which these amendments may be initiated. All we require from the applicant 17 INDEX Item No. 6 Newport Dunes DA No. 12 Approved [,l City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 for this step is a letter outlining what the proposal is. We bring this to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then to the City Council for action to initiate. The value of this kind of system is that it is an opportunity for the Commissioners and Councilmembers to look at a project in its initial general state to see if it is something they think they would consider. If it is something that you don't think that there is any way that the City would wish to approve than you can choose not to initiate it. This process saves the applicant a lot of time and expense before proceeding with it. Commissioner Kranzley noted that any additional theoretical traffic generated in this amendment is included in subsequent traffic study. Ms. Wood answered that if there is a project for which there is an application and it is being reviewed, at that time a Notice of Preparation on an EIR for a future project goes out, then we have to include the traffic projection from that application already under consideration. Commissioner Kranzley stated that in GPA 2000 -2 (A) it is Open Space going to be converted to a church and GPA 2000 -2 (B) we have a church that is going to be adding an additional amount of square footage and presumably trips. Ms. Clauson added that it would have to be considered as a cumulative impact analysis. It would not go into a committed project. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood stated that if you are concerned about one of these General Plan items having to account for the traffic from the Dunes, Conexant or Koll, we would be doing that if we reached the point where we realized an EIR would be necessary for these projects. At the point that a notice of preparation for the EIR in these projects was issued, we would have to count the Dunes, Conexant and Koll as reasonably foreseeable projects because they are already under review. We know what their impacts are projected to be. We would not add these projects that you are considering tonight into the analysis for the ones already under way. Commissioner Kranzley added that these projects would add generated traffic to the weekend as opposed to the weekday. I don't know what they are planning to do and it would be nice to have a bit more information in the initiation reports. Chairperson Selich added that the traffic gets confusing for example, Banning Ranch and Newport Center project. Since the Newport Center project was withdrawn, was that potential traffic been removed from Koll, Conexant and /or Dunes? Mr. Edmonston stated that in the case of Conexant, it had all of Newport Center in it. At the time we did Koll, some of the parties had dropped out but it still included Pacific Life and the Newport Country Club aspects. There is a difference in the long range between Conexant and Koll in the cumulative 18 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 because they were done a few weeks apart. Commissioner Tucker asked what uses are allowed in Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Ms. Garcia answered that in the Recreational and Environmental Open Space the City allows schools, recreational facilities, parks and park facilities. Commissioner Tucker noted a letter written by the Irvine Company wherein they suggested that they would want to have the Big Canyon Community Plan amended. Is this going to become a separate planning unit within the plan? Would it come to the Planning Commission for a site plan review? Mr. Campbell answered that it is the intention to create a separate area within the Big Canyon Plan and incorporate this area. Right now, it is part of the open space golf course area. It is to become a separate area within the plan. The development application will come forward to the Planning Department and a Use Permit will be required. The Planning Commission will see the project. At Commissioner inquiry about the San Joaquin and MacArthur parcel, Mr. Edmonston noted that there have been a number of meetings with representatives from the churches and the Irvine Company. A drive approach had been installed for the Christmas lot on the north side of San Joaquin this past year. This will be the sole access point, right in, right out. Commissioner Kiser stated that there is so little information that he intends to abstain from initiating these amendments. A lot of questions have been asked pertaining to traffic issues. There might be more information that could be provided before the Planning Commissioners could find it in the best interest of the City to initiate these amendments. I would like to have more information before I could raise my hand to say any of these items would be good for the City. Chairperson Selich stated that the idea is to have this early review and not have the staff do a lot of work to provide us a lot of information. Ms. Wood noted that this is not giving any indication that the Planning Commission or the City Council would approve of these amendments, it is just to get the analysis process started. You reserve all your rights when you have all the information presented to you. However, Commissioners Kranzley and Kiser are raising something that the Planning Director and I have been talking about and that is to look at ways to amend the City Policy. We think that the three times a year does not make a lot of sense because applicants want them initiated so they can be in line and not have to wait a few months to get back in. But then, the applicants sometimes do not file a complete application or don't get them going for years and we are working on GPA's that have very old case numbers. We are not sure what that cycle achieves for the City so we are thinking of 19 INDEX to City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 changing it to allowing people to request initiations at any time during the year. As part of that, we would also look at perhaps outlining some additional pieces of information that the Commission would want in order to feel more comfortable making these decisions. The law provides that you can amend each element of the general plan no more than four times a year. However, we are a Charter City so that probably does not apply to us. In my mind this initiation process doesn't accomplish that for us because it bears no relationship to how many general plan amendments we approve in a year which is what the state law addresses. Commissioner Kiser clarified that he is not asking for a lot more work to be done before these GPA's are put in front of the Planning Commissioner, but to the extent that work has been done, that at least in some basic way that gets into a report that can be considered. For instance adding 54,600 square feet to an existing church raises so many questions. If this process is just to have staff analyze it my answer would be yes to all of them based on the quality of staff. However, to initiate amendments if it suggests some kind of a go ahead to a project, that may be the wrong type of use to that area. If we base an initiation decision or a yes on so little information, the less information to base a decision on even to start analyzing the more chance that down the road you may realize that there is some problem with the initiation. My comment would be that a summary of all information that has been gathered by staff in meetings and such should be included in the General Plan Amendment initiation. Public comment was opened. Bernie Rome, President of the Big Canyon Community Association that includes 468 residents, stated that issue A, which is the re- zoning of the corner, has only one entrance /exit that is being proposed. We had a good example of what this does to the traffic during the time the Christmas trees were sold there. That corner was a terrible traffic problem. The residents in Big Canyon are always complaining about that problem and here we are going to add something that will make it worse. I am amazed that any religious organization would consider this site for a church. It doesn't make sense but the open space area does. The City was able to acquire the Bonita Canyon area from the City of Irvine. We allowed ourselves to have what might be considered a church row, as there are several churches already in that area. There could be a better place for a church site than along this corner that is being proposed due to traffic. Barry Eaton stated that Queen of Angels drives this issue as they are in need of a larger sanctuary and hope to get St. Mark's property. Queen of Angels went to the Irvine Company and asked for a site to relocate St. Marks's to and this is the only site that was offered. St. Mark's is just starting the internal process of evaluating this site and if it would be appropriate for church use. This is not a done deal by any means. Commissioner Tucker noted that this is the initial stage. We can turn it down if it doesn't make any sense and that is what we are going to look at. It seems that 20 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 INDEX everything that comes before us, everybody complains about how terrible traffic is in their part of town and that is why we do these traffic studies. If the use in question will conflict with the current traffic patterns, a traffic study will show it. If the Irvine Company and the church want to explore that option, I feel like it is something that they ought to be able to do with no assurances that we are going to approve it. Public comment closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan 2000 -2 A, B and C. Ayes: McDaniel, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Abstain: Kiser Noes: None Absent: Gifford RR} ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood stated that no Planning issues were b.) O report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Develop1ment Committee - Chairperson Selich reported that the EDC is doing a iew of the City's overall economic development policy and w.. probable a making recommendations to City Council on some clarification an anges on the policy; the EDC is reviewing the Fiscal Impact report on OQQexant which will be presented to the Planning Commission at the next eetina. C.) Matters that a Planning C missior subsequent meeting - Commis ' ne done on a study of traffic in Car Edmonston answered that work has stages. d.) Requests for excused absences - excused from June 22nd meeting. RR} ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 P.M. �r would like staff to report on at a Ashley asked if any work had been i del Mar on Coast Highway. Mr. i8gun on this, but it is in preliminary CommMigner Tucker asked to be Adjournment LARRY TUCKER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION R lIR