Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 - Additional Materials Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) August 11 , 2016 Dear Planning Commission, I would like to add some additional comments to my prior comments about 150 Newport Center Dr. These comments are directed to the applicability of Section 423. As you know, I have previously expressed a belief that the conversion of 79 hotel rooms into dwelling units was erroneously not being counted in the Greenlight tracking tables. City staff now disagrees, but when this was first being discussed, it was widely recognized and agreed that making such a conversion would not be allowed by Section 423 and by implication, would need to count in the Section 423 tracking tables. I direct your attention to the following: At 04:16:20 in this Council video from June 27, 2006, City Attorney Robin Clausen is heard acknowledging that a conversion of hotel rooms into dwelling units would be inappropriate under Section 423 rules: http://newportbeach.granicus.com/MediaPlaver.php?publish id=904 a2417-7379-11 e5-8170-f04da2064c47 At 1 :46:50 in the Council video of the July 11 , 2006, Mr. Selich is recorded as agreeing with this interpretation: http://newportbeach.-granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?pubiis h id=14b4c633-737a-11e5-8170-f04da2064c47 This information has been sent to the City Council on July 28, although without acknowledgement from any councilpersons. Additionally, I was rereading the original language of Measure S (later Section 423) and idly thinking about how I would change it if I wanted to ensure that the 40,000 sq ft limits were applied to the size of dwelling units. I had written 100 traffic trips or 100 dwelling units or 40,000 sq ft." You may be interested to know that when I reread the original language of Greenlight, it states "`Significantly increases' means over 100 peak hour trips (traffic) or over 100 dwelling units (density) or over 40,000 sq ft of floor area (intensity)." Based on this language, the 163,000 sq ft of 150 Newport Center Drive far exceeds the 40,000 sq ft allowed in Greenlight and by Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) itself, requires a Section 423 vote. I recognize that this is not how the limits have been applied up until this point, but as the language of Greenlight is unequivocal in its statement, I believe that it must be applied in this case. This letter is submitted both as an individual and also as a representative of Newport 15t (formerly Stop The Dunes Hotel). Thank you, Susan Skinner 2042 Port Provence Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Public Comments - August 18, 2016 Meeting From: Georgia Foell [mailto:georgiafoell@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 1:04 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Dunlap, Bill; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Wisneski, Brenda; Nova, Makana; info(&lineinthesandoac.com Subject: Public Comments - August 18, 2016 Meeting I AM TOTALLY AGAINST ALL THE NEW HIGH RISES, ESP. MUSEUM HOUSE, AS IT WILL ADD TO THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION WHICH WELL BE INCREDIBLY WORSE ONCE THE PROJECT ON JAMBOREE AND SAN JOAQUIN IS OCCUPIED. (THAT'S 250 UNITS WHICH WILL YIELD AT LEAST 500 CARS!!!) ALSO, WE ARE IN A DROUGHT CONDITION WHERE WE RESIDENTS ARE REQUIRED TO CUT BACK OUR WATER USAGE BY 25%. HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY HAVE A MINIMUM OF 250-500 MORE PEOPLE USING WATER AND THEN ADD MUSEUM HOUSE, A MASSIVE CONDO TOWER. THIS IS TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND IS IRRESPONSIBLE TO THE CITIZENS OF NEWPORT BEACH WHO VOTED " NO ON MEASURE Y." WHO ARE THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOOKING OUT FOR; THE CITIZENS OR THE DEVELOPERS? t Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Correspondence re: PC 56 Attachments: 08.12.16 letter to Michael Torres.pdf From: Jennifer.Roy(&Iw.corn [mailto:Jennifer.Roy(8)Iw.coml Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:59 PM To: Torres, Michael Cc: CHRISTOPHER.GARRETT@LW.com; DMiller(alirvinecompanv.com Subject: Correspondence re: PC 56 Good afternoon, Mr. Torres. Please see the attached letter regarding PC 56 on behalf of the Irvine Company. A hard copy will follow by mail. Best, Jennifer Jennifer K. Roy LATHAM&WATKINS LLP 12670 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Direct Dial: +1.858.523.3984 Fax: +1.858.523.5450 Email: iennifer.rov(alw.com htto://www.1w.com This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Latham &Watkins LLP 1 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Jennifer K.Roy 12610rrigh'9111Aq Additional Materials Received Direct Dial.+1.858,523.3984 San Diego,cai Niewport Center (PA2014-213) Jennifer my®Iw.com Tel:+1.858.523.5400 Fu +1.856.523.5450 www Iw.com L A T H A M&W AT K I N S LLP FIRM/AFFILIATE OFFICES Barcelona Moscow Beijing Munich Boston New Jersey Brussels New York Century City Orange County Chicago Paris August 12, 2016 Dubai Riyadh DOsseldorf Rome Frankfurt San Diego Hamburg San Francisco VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Hong Kong Shanghai Houston Silloon Valley Michael Tones London Singapore Los Angeles Tokyo Assistant City Attorney Madrid Washington,D C. City of Newport Beach Milan 100 Civic Center Drive File No.502000.0000 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Relationship Between 150 Newport Center Residential Project (PA2014-213) and the Amended and Restated Amendment to Development Agreement No. DA2007-002 for North Newport Center Dear Mr. Tones: We represent the Irvine Company in matters related to development in the Newport Center area of the City of Newport Beach. We submit this letter to clarify the relationship between the proposed 150 Newport Center Residential Project (PA2014-213) ("150 Newport Center Project") and the existing development agreement that covers North Newport Center. The Irvine Company is a party to Development Agreement No. DA2007-002, entitled Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center (Block 600, Fashion Island, and Portions of Block 500, and San Joaquin Plaza) ("2007 Development Agreement"), which the City of Newport Beach adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-21 on December 18, 2007. The 2007 Development Agreement provides for the Irvine Company's entitlement and transfer rights within the North Newport Center Planned Community(PC-56) ("NNCPC"). Subsequent to the original adoption of the NNCPC in 2007, Block 800 and portions of Blocks 100 and 400 were added to the NNCPC by amendments. In 2012, the Irvine Company and the City amended the 2007 Development Agreement to include new residential units, and add Block 800 and the portions of Blocks 100 and 400 that were added to the NNCPC. This amendment was memorialized in the Amended and Restated Amendment to Development Agreement No. DA2007-002, entitled the Amended and Restated Amendment to Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center Concerning Addition of Properties and Residential Units to Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement (Portions of Newport Center Blocks 100, 400 and 800 and San Joaquin Plaza) (the"Amendment"). Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Michael Torres Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received August Z' Z,201B 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) LATH AM&WATKI NS«P Sections 1.31 and 1.32 of the 2007 Development Agreement define the "Project"and "Property" covered by the Development Agreement(as amended by Section 1 of the Amendment). Section 11 of the 2007 Development Agreement defines its "Development Agreement Effective Date" ("Development Agreement Effective Date"). Section 12 of the Amendment defines its "Effective Date" ("Amendment Effective Date"). In turn, Section 1.9 of the 2007 Development Agreement and Section 2 of the Amendment define the "Development Regulations"applicable to the Project and specific portions of the Property, as set forth below. • Block 600 and Portions of Block 500, San Joaquin Plaza, and Fashion Island: Section 2.1 of the Amendment defines the Development Regulations applicable to Newport Center Block 600 and the portions of Block 500, San Joaquin Plaza, and Fashion Island covered by the Amendment to include the following documents as of the Development Agreement's Effective Date: (1)the City of Newport Beach 2006 General Plan, adopted by the City Council on July 25, 2006 (the "General Plan"); and (2) Titles 15, 19, and 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Additionally, the NNCPC that the City Council adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-19 applies to these portions of the Property. • Block 800 and Portions of Blocks 100 and 400: Section 2.2 of the Amendment defines the Development Regulations applicable to Newport Center Block 800 and the portions of Blocks 100 and 400 covered by the Amendment to include the following documents as of the Amendment's Effective Date: (1) the General Plan; and (2) Titles 15, 19, and 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Additionally, the NNCPC that the City Council adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-19 applies to these portions of the Property. We understand that the 150 Newport Center Project may include amendments to the NNCPC. However, in light of the provisions in the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment described above, any such changes to the NNCPC prepared for the 150 Newport Center Project would not apply to the Irvine Company's Property under the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment, unless further amendments to the development agreement are agreed to by the Irvine Company. Finally, we note that the Irvine Company has not been given an opportunity to review the final proposed amendments to the NNCPC, even though the Planning Commission hearing is scheduled for less than one week from today. Given the complexity of the NNCPC and the extent of the potential amendments, the Irvine Company will need additional time to review the amendments and will not be in a position to adequately respond by the Planning Commission hearing. Further, the Irvine Company has still not received responses to the environmental comments raised in the Company's June 24, 2016, letter. Accordingly, we request that the 150 Newport Center Project be continued to a later hearing date to ensure proper public notice and review of the NNCPC amendments, and to provide an opportunity for the City to respond to the Irvine Company's environmental concerns. US-DOCS\70600863.1 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Michael Tortes Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received Page3 12,2016 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) LATH AM&WATKINS Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, &V& Jennifer K. Roy U of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP cc: Dan Miller, The Irvine Company Christopher Garrett, Latham & Watkins LLP US-DOCSV0600863.1 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5d Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: 150 Newport Center Dr. Thursday meeting. From: EmkaoD(d)aoI.Com [mai Ito:Emkapr)(@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 2:22 PM To: Koetting, Peter; Kramer, Kory; Zak, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray Cc: Nova, Makana Subject: 150 Newport Center Dr. Thursday meeting. Gentleman: I have reviewed the Agenda and Staff's report for this project. My main objection to the project is the significant increase in the intensity of land use and density by the request for a waiver of existing RM standards through a General Plan Amendment and approval of a small noncompliant Planned Community. Pages 7 & 8 of the Staff Report are an excellent summary of facts. The RM zoning standards are the best measure of established acceptable building standards for multi family residential projects in the City. This "one off' project is asking the City and citizens to waive existing standards. * Maximum Density of 20 units per acre is the standard for RM and the project request is for an increase to 35 units per acre. This is a 75% increase in density. * Maximum Floor Area, current RM standards are 1.75 FAL. This project is proposing a 3.43 or 4.39 FAL. Either of these would reflect a 96% or 151% increase in the FAL over and above established RM standards. * Height, this project is approximately 67 feet which far exceeds the 28 to 32 feet allowed by existing RM stands. I understand owners have to right to request a change in zoning and that the current commercial use is not the Highest and Best Use of the site, however the project as proposed does not meet the overall mission and vision of the General Plan and represents a request for a major change in land use. Please accept this letter as my request that, you as my representatives, either recommend the zoning be changed to RM which would allow new multi family development in accordance with existing City Standards or that you recommend a project modification design which is in compliance with existing RM standards. ( Options 3 or 4 of report) There is no valid reason to grant a special request for a single project which will far exceed existing standards. Spot zoning can have many unforeseen consequences and circumvents the global vision of the General Plan. Piece Meal planning will not serve Newport Beach in the long 1 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5d Additional Materials Received ten-n. I know you want to support the General Plan ,the quality of life a4aQdge"a#&erbenOR4 M14-213) City. Thank you for your time and service . Beth Kiley 2 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5e Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: RM Zoning Standards- 8/18/2016 Meeting From: Suzanne Wyrick [mai1to:suz9921@gmai1.com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 4:05 PM To: Koetting, Peter; Kramer, Kory; Zak, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Nova, Makana Subject: RM Zoning Standards - 8/18/2016 Meeting Gentleman; Please accept this letter as my request that,you as my representatives, either recommend the zoning be changed to RM which would allow new multi family development in accordance with existing City Standards or that you recommend a project modification design which is in compliance with existing RM standards. There is no valid reason to grant a special request for a single project which will far exceed existing standards. Spot zoning can have many unforeseen consequences and circumvents the global vision of the General Plan. Piece Meal planning will not serve Newport Beach in the long term. I know you want to support the General Plan, the quality of life and legacy of our beautiful City. Thank you, Suzanne Wyrick Suzanne &Bill Wyrick Wyrick&Associates www.A,STeam.com Broker, DRE oo6O473O c: 949-760-0370 - £ 949-760-0272 i Planning Commission -August 18, 2016 Item No. 5f Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) August 10, 2016 Attention: Newport Beach Planning Commission I would like to go on record to oppose the development at 150 Newport Center Drive. As you can see from the attached pictures, you are not taking the views of tax-paying citizens into consideration or the increased traffic around Fashion Island. Look at the gorgeous views the people in Harbor View Hills and Broadmoor have. We all paid a premium for ocean view properties. This development will decrease our home value and that of many others. A 6 story high building with mechanical equipment on top will be a huge eyesore and contribute to more traffic and congestion at Fashion Island. This area was not zoned for residences; the city should not change that now. This building would tower over every other building in this lower half of Fashion Island. The city has built enough. Leave the residents' views alone! All of these new and proposed buildings in Fashion Island are changing Newport Beach into a large city instead of quaint beach town. The city has or is just completing new apartments and condos on San Joaquin and Santa Barbara, which have and will continue to increase traffic around Fashion Island. Enough is enough. The residents do not want this. Vacationers complain that Newport Beach is too overbuilt and too congested. Parking is difficult everywhere. Many locals choose less congested areas to shop and dine because Fashion Island is just too dense. My main issue is views. Please think about your current residents who have been good neighbors by taking care of their homes, paying taxes, and contributing a great deal to this beautiful area through shopping, dining, and business. Come over to our neighborhood and picture this building sitting in front of us. Let's see the sketches of what this would look like. We do not want to look at anymore skyscrapers. We want to enjoy the water and views of Catalina and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Please do not run the locals out. This is our home! Sincerely, 7W n® ���VE� �W Melinda Adamson 2734 Windover Drive Ira 11A Corona deal Mar pEV@IOpMENTQZ OF NVJPQ0 e • • ' e 1 F' `M � r bTTU' =Owasso 1 •• • ' 1 r 4 . ti' 2222 P, � r � �C" y�` .� �s. •F•; ,+rte y�, f ,. :r � _ �vs`\\� _ r ' ray i /E< _ r�•� , ��)� � •,ern `f ��'� � !G[' � g `�. ,. < "'� �/�� •�,J r44T ,���'� b1 7 III � F. , \. Planning Commission -August 18, 2016 Item No. 5f Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Times Community News / Daily Pilot/ News Planning Commission vote expected on proposed 6-story residential project in Newport Center A rendering shows a view from Anacapa Drive of 150 Newport Center. a proposed 65-foot tall project that would include 45 residential units in a six-story building along Newport Center Drive. (Courtesy city of Newport Beach) By Hannah Fry • Contact Reporter AUGUST 16, 2016. 10:54 AM six-story, 45-unit residential development proposed for Newport Center is expected to go to a vote of the Newport Beach Planning Commission on Thursday night. Newport Center Anacapa Associates has proposed building 15o Newport Center, a 65-fOot- tall townhome and condominium project, to replace the Beacon Bay Auto Wash and adjacent gas station on 1.26 acres the company owns along Newport Center Drive near Anacapa Drive. Planning Commission -August 18, 2016 Item No. 5f Additional Materials Received The building previously was proposed to be seven stories reaching 69 feet tall ani 1rc �i G�nter(PA2014-213) 4 residential units.The developer reduced the size in its most recent plan. However, city staff has recommended that the Planning Commission cap the building at five stories, meaning it would reach a height of 55 feet,with mechanical equipment reaching up to 61 feet.That alternative would keep the number of residential units at 45 but would increase the building's footprint, staff said. After the commission votes,the project will go before the City Council at a future meeting. As proposed, iso Newport Center would consist of a total of 15 townhomes on the first and second levels,nine units on both the third and fourth levels, eight units on the fifth level and four on the sixth level.The residences would range from 1,645 to 3,608 square feet. Amenities would include a rooftop pool, a clubhouse and a dog run.The building is designed as a single structure with two enclaves connected at the center. The exterior would have a concrete facade, stainless-steel finishes and glass,according to a city staff report. Thursday's meeting will be the second public hearing on the proposed development. During a July meeting, Planning Commission Chairman Kory Kramer took issue with sharply reduced setbacks from the street that would result from a five-story building on the site. The five-story option shows 15-foot setbacks,while the six-story version includes up to 34-foot setbacks. Commissioners also raised concerns that even if the project is capped at 55 feet, it would be taller than surrounding buildings. However,they also indicated support for residential buildings in Newport Center to help promote walkability in the area. Newport Center Anacapa Associates said in discussions with city staff that a height reduction to 55 feet would remove several amenities,including a lounge, a workout room and a catering facility that were proposed in earlier versions of the project. For the development to move forward,the Planning Commission would have to vote to change the land-use designation for the site from regional commercial office to multi-unit residential. Commissioners have expressed interest in changing the land use to mixed-use horizontal, which would limit the number of dwelling units to 33 and could incorporate restaurant or retail uses, according to a staff report. Planning Commission -August 18, 2016 Item No. 5f Additional Materials Received "The addition of non-residential floor area to the proposed residential project pr&YgypApenter(PA2014-213) parking,land use and utilities implications,which would require the [environmental impact report]to be revised and recirculated to incorporate and consider these potential impacts," staff wrote. Thursday's meeting will begin at 6:3o p.m. at the Newport Beach Civic Center, ioo Civic Center Drive. Copyright©2016,Daily Pilot Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5g Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Drive (PA-2014-213) Attachments: 150-NC_Comments_PC_160816.pdf From: Stop Polluting Our Newport rmailto:Info(cbSPON-NewportBeach.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 8:17 AM To: Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; Zak, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik Cc: Brandt, Kim; Wisneski, Brenda; Nova, Makana; City Clerk's Office Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Drive (PA-2014-213) Chair Kramer and Commissioners, Attached please find our comments regarding the Draft Resolution (PC1) Findings and Conditions for the 150 Newport Center Project. We appreciate your review and consideration of our concerns. Marko Popovich President Still Protecting Our N, o k r crmertm=� PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 VM/Text 949.864.6616 www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Facebook SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT(SPON)is a S01(c)(3)non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. 1 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5g Additional Materials Received _ --` 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) N Still Protecting ur Newport9= anown� Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 OFFICERS PRESIDENT August 16, 2016 Marko Popovich VICE PRESIDENT Dorothy Kraus Planning Commission TREASURER City of Newport Beach Dennis Baker 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 SECRETARY Allan Beek RE: 150 Newport Center Drive (PA-2014-213) Dear Chair Kramer and Members of the Planning Commission: BOARD MEMBERS Nancy Alston With regard to the Draft Resolution (PC1) Findings and Conditions for this project, Bruce Bartram we offer the following comments. Don Harvey Donald Krotee Section 2. CEC+,A determination. Andrea Lingle Elaine Linhoff 3. In reviewing the Responses the Comments, there is no adequate explanation Bobby Lovell that the project will have a "less than significant" impact on the environment. Jennifer McDonald The cumulative impacts are clear in that this project sets the precedent for a Jeanne Price change of use and significant height, bulk, mass and density impact in Block 100 Melinda Seely and surrounding blocks in the lower portion of Newport Center. The argument Jack Skinner that there is a precedent for such heights, bulk, mass and density fails in that no Nancy Skinner Jean Watt project has been forthcoming or exists adjacent to this project. Portia Weiss Terry Welsh STOP o A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H ouA www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach 1 Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5g Additional Materials Received _ --` 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) N Still Protecting ur Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 August 16, 2016 Page Two 150 Newport Center Drive (PA-2014-213) Section 3. Required Findings. Amendments. 1. This project is being undertaken with a waiver of size from the 10 acre requirement for a Planned Community Development. The very fact that this is a PCD begs the question of findings to be made for additional height. Incorporating this project into the North Newport Center PCD seems to be just a broad reach to try to justify the project based on the total of Newport Center when, in fact, the southerly portion of Newport Center has always stood alone since the earlier Newport Center Site Plane was established giving residents and voters the belief that the properties below Newport Center Drive are intended to be of a low-rise, low-intensity use as they approach Pacific Coast Highway and nearby neighborhoods. 2. The requested General Plan Amendment change is a significant change in character and density of the lower portion of Newport Center. The voter approved 2006 General Plan did not anticipate any of these changes— use or height. The writers of the Draft EIR have falsely stated that heights in this area are consistent as they compare them to heights in the upper portion of Newport Center where heights have always been anticipated to be higher. The statement that Newport Center has a higher demand for residential development has no basis in fact or documentation as there are currently 524 apartments yet to be finished and occupied. 3. The statement that this project is consistent with General Plan Goal LU6.14 is again a stretch of language trying to make the case that the project site is located in an area of Newport Center where multifamily uses are encouraged and that the size, density and character of the proposed dwelling units complement existing land uses. The statement of findings could not STOP o A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and S environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H ouA www.SPON-NewportBeach.org 1 Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach 1 Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5g Additional Materials Received _ --` 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) i NStill Protecting ur Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 August 16, 2016 Page Three 150 Newport Center Drive (PA-2014-213) be further from the truth as these statements rely on consideration of the whole of Newport Center as the adjacent property. The fact is that this project, located in the lower portion of Newport Center is not only historically considered to be the lower section but the current land use is consistent with the historically intended low-rise land uses. Also, there is no evidence or documentation to state that adding dwelling units on the site would accommodate population needs. If there are such population needs they could only be met by lower cost apartments to serve the needs of workers nearby. 4. The proposed Planned Community District does not meet the intent and purpose for a Planned Community including required findings. Height Increase: Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.30.060(c)(3) requires findings which cannot be made. Required Finding: The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure and existing adjacent development. We find it unbelievable that this statement is made when in fact this project will stand out abruptly in height, bulk, mass, and scale in relationship to what currently exists on adjacent land. To make the claim that adjacent land includes the northerly section of Newport Center above Newport Center Drive is simply not a fair and reasonable comparison upon which to judge this project. This claim does not do justice to what voters believed when approving the 2006 General Plan. STOP o A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and S environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H ouA www.SPON-NewportBeach.org 1 Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach 1 Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5g Additional Materials Received _ --` 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) N Still Protecting ur Newport9= Moll Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 August 16, 2016 Page Four 150 Newport Center Drive (PA-2014-213) Site Development Review. This analysis must be made for compatibility with the site and surrounding land uses. The finding cannot be made that there is a "harmonious" relationship with other adjacent development. There is no compatibility in terms of bulk and scale and height. This project represents an "abrupt" change from what exists on adjacent properties. This project also represents and abrupt change from the voter-approved 2006 General Plan. Thank you for consideration of our comments and please find that the findings cannot be made to justify this project. There is a perfectly sufficient allowance for use of this property under the current General Plan and Zoning. If significant changes are to be made in the lower section of Newport Center, the voters should be allowed to review that whole area with a broader scope General Plan review. Sincerely, / �%�cvu¢4 �0�'Al1CCl2 President cc: See next page STOP o A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and S environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H ouA www.SPON-NewportBeach.org 1 Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach 1 Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5g Additional Materials Received _ --` 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) i NStill Protecting ur Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 August 16, 2016 Page Five 150 Newport Center Drive (PA-2014-213) cc: CNB Planning Commission Kory Kramer, Chair kkramer@newportbeachca.gov Peter Koetting, Vice Chair pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov Peter Zak, Commissioner pzak@newportbeachca.gov Bill Dunlap, Commissioner bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner bhillgren@newportbeachca.gov Raymond Lawler, Commissioner rlawler@newportbeachca.gov Erik Weigand, Commissioner eweigand@newportbeachca.gov CNB Community Development Staff Kim Brandt, Community Development Director, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov Brenda Wisneski, Asst. Community Development Director bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov Makana Nova, Assistant Planner mnova@newportbeachca.gov STOP o A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and S environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H ouA www.SPON-NewportBeach.org 1 Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach 1 Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5h Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Aug. 18, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(oo)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 5. 150 NEWPORT CENTER (PA2014-213) Since the Commissioners have to wade through what look like roughly 800 pages of staff report (including July 21, 2016) plus 347 pages of Draft EIR (and many pages of appendices thereto), I don't want to add to their burden, but I do wish to bring the following comments to their attention: 1. Bad Existing Height Precedents for Block 100 Since the allowed heights in the interior of Block 100 are being offered as a justification for increased heights at 150 Newport Center Drive, the Commissioners asked staff for a better explanation of how the interior became entitled to greater heights than the four corners. The staff report (paragraph at top of page 5) promises to provide that history, but if it does, I am unable to find it. The 50 foot height provision for the interior of Block 100 is a bad precedent, since it was simply snuck through the Planning Commission and Council as part of the much larger 2009 consolidation of a number of pre-existing Irvine Company owned planned communities into the North Newport Center Planned Community: see page 2 of the Item 4 staff report on the City Council's November 24, 2009, agenda. As the 2009 staff report says, 50 feet was chosen for no reason other than it was the maximum allowed for a Planned Community within an area with what is now called a CO-R/OR land use designation per the then and still current height increase rules described in the following comments. Based on a careful examination of the available public records and recordings, there was absolutely no public discussion of why a height increase for the interior of Block 100 was necessary or desirable. Moreover, the required findings for granting a height increase were not made or even considered, and the action was declared completely exempt from CEQA analysis because "the City" declared there was no possibility an increase in building height could have a significant impact on the environment (in light of the current controversy, how the latter conclusion could have been reached is beyond me). It might also be noted that although The Irvine Company now appears to have this erroneously granted 50 foot height entitlement (plus now another 10 feet for "architectural features") for the interior of Block 100, it applies only to commercial (not residential) development, and even for that it is of little practical significance without further discretionary approvals. This is because the total floor area of development allowed within the Block 100 PC subarea is strictly limited and it is already fully used up by the existing low-rise office buildings. In other words, although building higher is theoretically possible, there is no floor area available for doing so. Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5h Additional Materials Received August 18, 2016, PC agenda item 5 comments - Jim Mosher 150 ted&nter (PA2014-213) 2. Erroneous interpretation of Current Height Ordinance Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) of the NBMC contains, in Subsection C.1, a grandfathering clause, added in the 2010 revision of Title 20, stating "Height limits established as part of an adopted planned community shall not be subject to this subsection"—that is, planned community height limits established prior to adoption of the maximum height limits in Section 20.30.060 remain valid even if they are in conflict with them. In recent years staff has been interpreting this as a blank check to set completely arbitrary height limits within declared to be a "planned community" (and at the July 21" hearing it was established this was the only reason for asking decision makers to call 150 Newport Center a planned community). That interpretation is wrong. The maximum heights specified in Section 20.30.060 are, and always have been, the maxima to which heights can be raised with the approval of a planned community Oust as with various other discretionary approvals). This restriction and intention was explicitly stated in the earlier version of the Planning and Zoning Code ("in no event shall the development[in a Planned Community] exceed the height limits permitted in the height limit zones"—see former Section 20.65.50), and the 2010 revision was adopted with the stated understanding that it was making no changes to height restrictions in Newport Beach. Hence the greatest heights that can be approved in a planned community are the specified maxima for the underlying land use designation, and even increases within that range can be granted only with all the findings enumerated in the current Subsection 20.30.060.C.3. Any height greater than the maxima stated in Subsection 20.30.060.C.1 would require a variance from the Code based on unusual physical circumstances. It must be noted that staff's position and interpretation regarding the Planned Community height issue is self-contradictory. On handwritten pages 26-28, the findings of Subsection 20.30.060.C.3 are identified as required findings of approval, yet in the response to public comments, the public is repeatedly told Planned Communities are exempt from 20.30.060.0 (for example, Response K-5, page 428). 3. Erroneous Traffic Impact Conclusion Decision makers and the public are being told approval of this project will reduce traffic. Whether or not that is a conclusion consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, it is a conclusion that defies logic. The project eliminates a car wash, but it does not eliminate cars that need to be washed, nor the trips involved in doing so. Indeed, it adds new people and new cars to be washed. It is logically impossible to add people and cars without an expectation that you will be adding traffic. 4. Erroneous Growth Inducement Conclusion Common sense is similarly defied by the City's conclusion that the growth-inducing impacts of an approval are too speculative to even consider, and that"reasonably foreseeable impacts" are not"reasonably foreseeable" until a development application is actually in hand and approved. While that conclusion may be consistent with CEQA Guidelines, logic and substantial evidence suggest the domino effect of growth-inducing approvals needs to weigh Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5h Additional Materials Received August 18, 2016, PC agenda item 5 comments - Jim Mosher 150 $tcUnter (PA2014-213) on the discretionary decision making process: the improper approval in 2009 of a height increase for The Irvine Company's properties in the interior of Block 100 is being used as a justification for even larger increases at 150 Newport Center Drive, and the City already has in hand the letter from The Irvine Company saying that if 150 Newport Center Drive is granted further increases, TIC should receive the same (handwritten page 397). While that may need further approvals, the domino effect is not speculation. It is a reality, for which this proposal is a poster child. 5. Questionable Evaluation of View Impacts One of the largest visual impacts, and I presume one of the primary reasons for the General Plan's insistence on a downward tapering Newport Center is the preservation of ocean views from the Fashion Island shopping center. Staff is largely dismissive of these as not being "public" views (Response P-1, page 504). If they are not public it would seem to me they must by "private," but I'm not sure who the City thinks they are private to, since I wasn't aware access to the shopping center was restricted. On the contrary, it would seem to me a shopping center is very much a public area and the preservation of views from it is an important public consideration. 6. Adding Housing at Wrong Time The Response to Comments 1-1 (handwritten page 410) makes the rather startling (at least to me) assertion that the project objectives, such as adding luxury condos to Newport Center, have been set not by the applicant, but by "the City." In other words, City staff has determined that luxury condos need to be added to Newport Center, and this application merely provides a vehicle for doing so. How staff came to that conclusion is baffling to me, since no shortage is identified in the General Plan. Moreover, Response K-3 (handwritten page 428) acknowledges the City faces no current RHNA requirement, and will get no credit toward future RHNA requirements for housing build prior to 2021. Wouldn't it be wiser to approve new housing when there is a requirement and the City will get credit? 7. Erroneous Economic Viability Conclusions Decision makers and the public are repeatedly told that a continuation or modernization of the existing car wash use is economically unfeasible as are any other uses consistent with the current zoning. However, the examples given (handwritten pages 419-422) demonstrate only that such uses would not generate sufficient return on the applicants' rather arbitrary investment, which seems predicated on the assumption the property could be re-zoned for something more profitable. That in no way demonstrates such uses would be unprofitable or unfeasible, but only that the applicants paid too much for the property considering the range of uses allowed on it. Had the applicants paid $500.00 million instead of$11.75 million, would City staff conclude the only economically feasible use of the property would be a 500 foot tall, million square foot casino? In other words, if someone pays an erroneous price, an erroneous zoning has to follow? Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5h Additional Materials Received August 18, 2016, PC agenda item 5 comments - Jim Mosher 150 Ntc&nter (PA2014-213) 8. Erroneous Greenlight Conclusion The proposed General Plan Amendment continues to suffer from an incorrect Charter Section 423 (Greenlight) analysis (July 21, 2016, PC packet, handwritten pages 16-17). In essence, Section 423 requires voter approval to add a total of more than 100 dwelling units to a neighborhood over a 10 year period. Newport Center is closer to that limit than staff acknowledges because in 2012, 79 dwelling units were added, without a formal GPA, to the 450 approved by voters in 2006. Staff snuck this dwelling unit increase through without informing either the Planning Commission or the City Council of any possible Greenlight issue, now claiming the 79 units do not count because of a purported provision in the 2006 General Plan allowing the conversion of voter-approved hotel rooms (a non-residential use) to non-voter approved dwelling units without a GPA and without counting them toward the Greenlight totals. Yet staff is unable to point to such a provision in the GP, or to any other document in which voters authorized such conversions. And it has since been found that the idea that the 2006 GP could even theoretically contain a provision allowing post-voter- approval conversion of hotel rooms to dwellings was explicitly discussed and rejected by the City Attorney and Council as inconsistent with Greenlight at the time the 2006 GP was being developed (see Additional Materials Received 5a). Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5i Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: development in Fashion Island From: Nancy Otis [mai Ito:nrotisCcbearthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 10:48 AM To: Kramer, Kory; Dunlap, Bill; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Biddle, Jennifer; Campagnolo, Daniel Subject: development in Fashion Island Dear Planning Commission, As a home owner in Newport Beach for the past 50 years, I am extremely distressed about the huge, dense living accommodations you are allowing to be built in our city. As if the buildings on Jamboree in Fashion Island are not enough, now I am aware you are considering more of the same on the Car Wash site. Come on!! Is the city so in need of money that you are willing to sacrifice our lovely area to more and more traffic and hordes of people everywhere? Everyone I talk to is so upset over this decision! Please, please give some thought as to how we can preserve Newport Beach not ruin it with more unnecessary development. Sincerely, Nancy Otis 721 Larkspur Ave Corona del Mar,CA 92625 1 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5j Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: 150 Newport Center Proposed Residential Project Attachments: Ronald Schwartz Letter re 150 Newport Center dtd 8-18-16.pdf From: Ronald Schwartz [mailto:rbschwartz@wintrials.coml Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 4:15 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: 150 Newport Center Proposed Residential Project Dear Ms. Nova, Attached please find a letter regarding the 150 Newport Center Drive proposed residential project. Thank you, Ron Schwartz Ronald B. Schwartz LAW OFFICES OF RONALD B. SCHWARTZ, APC The Muldoon's Building 202 Newport Center Drive, 2nd Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-644-7283 phone 949-644-2159 fax Website: www.wintrials.com PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail (e-mail) is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and is protected from disclosure. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis- transmission. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive e-mail for the addressee), you are hereby notified that you must not use, disseminate, copy it in any form or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this e-mail message. You must also not take any action in reliance on this e-mail. If you think you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at the Law Offices of Ronald B. Schwartz, APC immediately by reply e-mail at the address specified above or by calling (877) 640-0100. Please delete this e-mail and any copies of it as well. Do not disclose the contents to anyone. The Law Offices of Ronald B. Schwartz reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Thank you. 1 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5j Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) To: Newport Beach City Council, Planning Commission & City Staff Attention: Makana Nova, Associate Planner mnova C@newportbeachca.gov Subject: 150 Newport Center Proposed Residential Project– Objections Final EIR – Comments Dear Ms. Nova, My name is Ron Schwartz. As mentioned in my June 27, 2016 letter to you, as well as Sindi Schwartz's letter of same date; my wife and I own the Muldoon's Building and Muldoon's Irish Pub located across the street from the proposed 150 Newport Center project. We like to think of ourselves as being generally welcoming people who don't make waves. However, as I noted in my previous letter to you, we cannot welcome this project. I raised my issues and concerns previously, but as neither the City nor the developer bothered to respond in a meaningful way, I feel that I must write you again. The fact that the developer seeks waivers, exceptions, and modifications to almost all applicable development regulations should tell you something. Those rules exist for a reason. A development that needs as many exceptions to those rules as the 150 Newport Center project just doesn't fit. Although the project has been scaled down, it is still completely out of place with the neighborhood. The parcel is commercial, has operated as a car wash for years, and is consistent with the commercial nature of the area. A massive residential project is simply out of place in this area of Newport Center. The neighborhood was never intended for residences, and impacts from the ongoing commercial uses make the project inconsistent with the area. Take a minute to think about life at 150 Newport Center. Imagine that you buy a condo for many millions of dollars. You settle into your first night at your new home...and then it starts. First, you hear people coming and going at the Edwards Movie Theaters in a continuous stream until lam. Then you hear the revelers leaving Muldoon's Irish Pub at 2am. All the triple glazed glass in the world cannot mute the noise—particularly since you want to leave your windows open to enjoy the sea breeze. You are bothered not just by the noise of all the conversations, car doors and car engines, but also by the headlights shining into your bedroom. Sleep does not come as easily as you imagined. You grow frustrated. Then, just a few hours later, it begins again. You hear truck deliveries and noise associated with janitorial activities starting as early as 6am. These deliveries can be very noisy. Between the braking, beeping, idling, opening/closing of gates, and banging on steel ramps, it's hard to salvage your nights' sleep. Your frustration grows. Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5j Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) When you finally do wake up and head out in the morning, you find that the commercial and office traffic creates headaches when exiting the building. Your frustration reaches a new high. You start to look for someone to blame. By this point, the developer will be long gone, likely having sold the project to another developer eager to take advantage of valuable Newport Beach entitlements. Plus, I have no doubt that the developer will include so many disclosures, indemnities and waivers in their transactions with the homeowners that they may be the only ones sleeping soundly at night. So who is left to blame? Me, I'm afraid. I am the building owner and bar owner, and the biggest target for the inevitable angst of the homebuyers. This is why I firmly believe that residential uses should be located in residential areas where the noise and environment are appropriate. I understand that my past comments on these issues were not addressed in the revisions to the environmental impact report for the project. As those comments and the ones made here identify environmental impacts regarding noise, traffic and light, I request that they be formally addressed and responded to by the City before the Planning Commission acts. Thank you. Very truly yours, Ron Schwartz ISRARIMMON0.1-50.1 MINIMUM I 15o Newport Center trr II'' ■'■1111 '�_��• � � 11 11, _■■INT � ■Mlle. , I i'Mai �''•', Y �IIkQ u ,_1� '7�ulq .eE IS i;0� 1�1�1— �.�• �',�� Le I. r'a.�i�l :�h+�w•�i��',i�l(i7�R�l4iM�s�a�} ����!����� _� f,III I_ � �ii�� l I ' sEi� , ' etl ��� _ ����-ial tl �) i � !�V I. a +� • I N{Illsl Planning Commission Public Hearing �► (PA2014-213) August 18, 2o16 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) Introduction iso Newport Center (PA2014-213) ■ General Plan Amendment No. GP2O14-003 ■ Code Amendment No. CA2014-008 ■ Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2O14-004 ■ Site Development Review No. SD2014-oo6 ■ Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-003, County Tentative Tract Map No. 17915 Development Agreement No. DA2O14-002 Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-002 Location: Newport Center area Southwest corner of Anacapa Drive and Newport Center Drive 15o Newport Center Drive Community Development Department - Planning Division 2 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) jp till K. i .ia. ♦ A4 � 202 Z.,Y d°p � y i i STT ^^^ n 3L y.' "40 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) Applicant"s Revised Project Description 45 condo dwelling units (38. 8 du/acre) Height: ■ 65-ft 6- inches in height to top of roof (6-stories) rl69 feet 6- inches to top of mechanical appurtenances Setbacks : ■ Building z4' NCD, 22 . 5' Anacapa, 22' south, 14' west ■ Podium : 15' NCD, 15' Anacapa, 7' south, o' west Parking : All code required parking is provided on-site in a 3- level basement 07/21/2016 Community Development Department- Planning Division 4 Planning Commission - Augusti 2016 Item No. • • • . • Presented . • 13) East Elevation '■,■Illlf'rllll'!r1111'■��������� __ _ ����I������ "�Illhrllllr'rlll�r'r; p' I�i� ..1 IrLl�i�fl�l�rll�■_�_• I__I 7 =,:� - - _--. — -. -' I__I 1___f �Irf lrl�If rllrl�I�rl_I. �J�1 f■4!!R'�i■ I!!! '_'!!!!' !!ll�il!r!„gr"Ilr!■I���IIII�I Ig�1lllu1 rlIII"!1„flll g■!IEl��!!!!��!!!!■■��lrlf:■i i .7lyti i■yyy ! 6Sti i yy�■� 9� y� ti�■�I�Illll�llll�llll�l�•fl� lI� !vr y� ■rl�l�l� �A� �i�lll■i■ I�1111■iri ■■ "I■■ ''1 " fl � 1�1 ,1II ■ s■ III■1 11 II g•■ 11■ 11■ ■I■'.1r fl■I I■■� if! ! rl!! !,i ■! ■! rl,fi�l���Igll••�r!!�!�„d ,. !!__!! ■■_Ir! 114r !!!„1 ! I,� ii59ti iiillb�l � yyy I S�I�I■� y� yi' y�'ifi����l lilt IL �.. '�11�.. 1111 •tl��l �1111I��.1.,._.ii._.ii.�ii._. � Nlll��U����� .. ��������� l�.le�l���; i1•..rr•G7r7n����allrrr•r.r1 TUM..—Lf__ 7.:N' 7!!•. rlr� � _ ,_ ��•1!!.�'�1l+.!•�I�r�� � �! !w sr-�!/� SII HIM I ,,SII. gi1 1 �� •j , 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 5 ��,R 7! eCi�_r`�a-n. �ssn.a��s' T I �Y.' • 3 � e•�w�7 ■ .tl ■ t� '_. alll�lllai�l I �'��Ila nlhl��+�k Yi }x :. �_,E1-��l� I•�tl�,�I�fdu .,!a!`�1.-�I, �_ 1_'��J71�I11171���,�1�•�:j �F � - ' �i Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) Staff Recommendation 45 condo dwelling units (38 .8 du/acre) Height: N 55-ft in height to top of roof (5-stories) 61 feet to top of mechanical appurtenances Setbacks: Maintain applicant's proposed setbacks Building z4' NCD, 22 . 5' Anacapa, 22' south, 14' west Podium : 15' NCD, 15' Anacapa, 7' south, o' west Parklnn : All code required parking is provided on-site in a 3- level basement 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 6 Planning Commission - Augusti 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) Staff Recommended Height I H■ I I i■�jr��ii�Ss9 S6U' Sd .II��'��i�����i���fl1ls:�. :�: :�: !:�.l�fi 'I�!��■■ 9y 5y i.G� li� iid iai it A�i��� (L� w.lAl■ ■_�I■ ■ ■■ lu ��I�� I��Ilii�.!..��■II�■■III==.� 1.11„� �`� '�.r.�r..y 4• A 9 � �_� (�.. ��� 11�z� ��•� �p.���l� .� 1 �7iTi�: �q _ I.nia, S Ir.. ! 1171 ISI . ISI "tY LSI■ISI a $ �I�I■7�1 u ■I Ivf�e: ISI oC a Iri.l . .,!i,. _° iii ,moi __ iii a I i i�ui�i €� _-�1��11��������I�i�l'=� i�i■i�i -I?I S ' i� iii Ii�1 _, ---- N� .I �I �nl i .I i�il I, _ II�!,!�II��I�i��Jch.���,� �■ Planning Commission - Augusti 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) Staff Recommended Height r1H�I��� l Q,:• ! e^ • �=' .. _�� 3i-� ��. ----��.�. v I 'i I h ,,il �.'�'j' i i .; �a�a.. .� _ _ `I u��il�i. Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) Presentation Outimine 3.- Land Use/Zoning Menu of Options 2. Height ■ Planning Commission to Provide Direction 3. Environmental Impact Report 4. Development Agreement ■ Planning Commission to Provide Direction 5. Site Development Review and Tract Map o8/18/2o16 Community Development Department - Planning Division 9 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) Public Comments To- date, 11 public comment letters have been received since the prior Planning Commission meeting on July 21, 2o16 . o8/18/2oi6 Community Development Department- Planning Division 10 I Zoning Code Amendment and Planned Community Development Plan Options 07/21/2oi6 Community Development Department- Planning Division 13. Planning Commission - Augusti 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) Zoning Land Use Map -SAN w .> .. In a• PC Sfi �. •. no PC 47 �' . Zone Change: ' ♦ ,. Office Rego inal Commercial OR to `, \\ Planned Community(PC-60) �� �.`� � LU 07/21/2016 0 12 s Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) :LSo NC Planned Community ■ 45 dwelling units (38 . 8 du/acre) Helght: 55 feet (measured from existing grade) to top of roof 61 feet to top of mechanical appurtenances Setbacks : Building 24' NCD, 22 . 5' Anacapa, 22' south, 1.4' west Podium : 15' NCD, 15' Anacapa, 7' south, o' west ■ Project could be modified as recommended by Planning Commission 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 13 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Ph 3) Residential in Newport Center Existing Developments 0 San Joaquin Hills Apartments ® The Colony Apartments @ The Meridlan Q Sea Island +7 _ 0 Villa Point S d Granville C Entitled Developments � NB Country Club Bungalows Proposed Developments 150 Newport Center 0524 units GC Museum House 100 ung (L e, FJ �: 0 + `.A 245 units b "-> un 4r 132 unkacs - V4.Pork 228 ��/`��,; 67U ' 45 units - ''+rQ,vr..ae vg4P c F �'4$T Ptti, aP4y \G Dvg.. rk 07113/2012 \C 4� h 14 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) Z N • • opts • Zoning Option Maximum Nonresidential Height Maximum Notes Residential Building Floor Units Area 1 New Site Specific 45 du 0 sq ft 55 feet to top of roof,61 feel to top of Proposed Project Planned Community mechanical appurtenances (measured from average grade) 2a Add to PC-56,New Sub 45 du 0 sq ft 51 feet 6 inches, 10 feet for Option as provided in Attachment PC No.6 Area architectural and mechanical appurtenances(measured from finished surface) 2b Add to PC-56,Block 45 du 0 sq ft 50 feet, 10 feet for architectural and Option as provided in Attachment PC No. 7, project redesign would be 100 mechanical appurtenances necessary to reduce the project height. (measured from finished surface) 3 RM(Multiple Unit 25 du,(20 0 sq ft 28 feet flat roof/33 feet sloped roof, Significant project redesign would be necessary to reduce the number Residential) du/acre) no additional relief for mechanical of dwelling units and project height. equipment 4 Add to PC-54 Santa 23 du,(18.4 0 sq ft 65 feet(measured from finished <10 acres cumulatively, site is not adjacent,significant project redesign Barbara Condominiums du/acre) floor, no additional relief for would be necessary to reduce the number of dwelling units (Meridian) mechanical equipment 5 Add to PC-30(Villa 20 du, (16.6 0 sq it 32 feet flat,37 feet sloped, 50 feet Site is not adjacent, significant project redesign would be necessary to Point Apartments) du/acre) flat/55 feet sloped with a site reduce the number of dwelling units and project height development review,no additional relief for mechanical equipment 6 Add to PC-21 (Sea 10 du, (8 0 sq ft 32 feet flat,37 feet sloped, 50 feet Site is not adjacent, significant project redesign would be necessary to Island Apartments) dulacre) flat/55 feet sloped with a site reduce the number of dwelling units and project height development review 7 Mixed-Use Horizontal 45 du, (as 8,500 sq ft or 0 32 feet flat,37 feet sloped, 50 feet A General Plan land use change is also required for MU-H3.This is a (add to an existing PC defined in sq ft(as defined flat/55 feet sloped with a site horizontal land use designation and the site is constrained. or establish a new site GP for site) in GP for site) development review Recirculation of EIR required to analyze more intensive development speck PC) associated with nonresidential land uses, unless land use is limited to residential only.Additional land use,traffic, noise,utilities,and parking implications.Significant project redesign would be necessary. Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) SeparatePCm56 ( North Newport Center) Sub - Area 45 dwelling units (38 . 8 du/acre) Helght: ■ 50' to top of roof (measured from finished surface at high side of slope) 60' for mechanical appurtenances and architectural projections Setbacks: E Comply as proposed Project redesign is not required As provided in redlined resolution, ability to add specific standards applicable this project 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 16 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting ELEVATOR OVZ1Nftport Center (PA2014-213) i % ROOF OF LAST OCCUPIED SPACE i H W i 2 O 7 m TOWER 40 MUTORUDURPPARIp SYR--- - - - UREE FINISH GRADE STREET Example of building height measurement on sloping terrain Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Ph 3) PC = 56 ( North Newport Center) i • • • Sub -Area 45 dwelling units (35.7 du/acre) Hejaht: ■ 50 feet in height, project redesign is not required ■ (measured from finished surface at high side of slope) to top of roof ■ 6o feet for mechanical appurtenances and architectural projections Setbacks: - Setbacks are less specific, 15' from NCD and Anacapa Dr. As provided in redlined resolution, ability to add specific standards applicable this project Director has the ability to review project design 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 18 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) RM ( Multiple Unit Residential ) 25 dwelling units ( 2o du/acre) Hei ht : 28 feet in height (flat roof) 33 feet in height (sloping roof) Setbacks : Building would comply with setback standards Podium would need a variance for relief from setback standards Project redesign necessary 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division ig Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) PC = 54 (Santa Barbara 23 dwelling units (18 . 54 du/acre) Heicht: ■ 65 feet in height — 4 stories over a podium (measured from finished surface) Setbacks : Project as proposed would comply with setback standards (15' front, 7' sides, 13' rear) Project redesign necessary 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 20 I Pc - 54 Meridian I fJ Mr Y'.• R �` 1YYY f �` FI 5 ,< F I Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) Comparison of Residential Communities Attachment No.PC 6: Residential Communities in Statistical Area Lt -Development Standards Comparison PC-21 PC-30 PC-47 PC-54 PC-56 PC-56 RM New Proposed PC Sea Island Villa Point Newport Beach Santa Barbara North Newport Center: North Newport Center: Apartments Apartments Country Club Condominiumsl Villas Fashion Island The Colony Meridian Granville 150 Newport Center PC Acreage 28.8 13.7 6.98 4.26 16.05 6.4 12.3 1.26 Dwelling Units 226 226 5 entitled/unbuilt 79 524 245 67 49 Density du/acre 8 16.6 0.7 18.54 32.6 38 5.5 38.8 Floor Area N/A" N/A" N/A" 245,578 873,033 414,328 WA" 163,260 Floor Area Ratio N/A" N/A" N/A" 1 1.32 1 1.24 1 1.47 1 N/A" 2.99 2 stories(32750' 2.3 stories 50'+apurtenances(200' Height max. 32'/50'max. Unbuilt(39'max.) 65"(65'max.) 65"(65'max.) max.) 18'(28'!33'max.) 69-6- Setbacks:"' Front 20 from rights-of 20'from rights- N/A 15' 15'from rights-of-way 15'from rights-of-way 20' 24'from NCD way of-wa Sides 5' 5' 3' T 0' 0' 8%lot width 22.5'from Anacapa and 14'westerly PL Rear 5' 5' 1 5' 13' 0' 0' 10' 22' NOTES: Height is measured from finished surface,as opposed to average grade " Floor area information is unavailable Building setbacks only 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 22 PC - 56 The Colony .�)� r,.,., • �.. { r►.• •.its _yt,�°rip• - ; ;r n. _. , �'�. , '� . �'._ FA -�•_.4 :4 1 17 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) a i u - fzO w 0713 --7T— z4 r 46 *i NI a ti 4 M I _ For more information contact: - Makana Nova,Associate Planner 949-644-3249 — mnova(a new port beach ca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) Floor Area Requested : 163, 26o sq ft as requested ( 2 . 98 FAR) Recommended 131, 878 sq ft ( 2 . 41 FAR) 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 26 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 13) Planned Community = Purpose Residential in proximity to existing commercial office, retail, and recreation uses Minimizes sprawl, reduces traffic impacts, and locates housing near jobs in Newport Center. Coordinated as a component vision already set forth for the Newport Center area . Diversifies existing land uses in Newport Center PC creates more enforceable and specific standards . 07/21/2oi6 Community Development Department- Planning Division 27