Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/2007"Planning Commission Minutes 02/08/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 9 "file:/lN:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn02- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren all present STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Daniel Campagnolo, GIS Analyst Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner Hawkins congratulated Commissioner Hillgren on his appointment and welcomed him to the Planning Commission. He then congratulated and the None Commission recognized Mr. David Lepo as the permanent Planning Director. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 2, 2007. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of January 4, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 Commissioner Eaton asked about the difference between an amended motion and Approved substitute motion. Mr. Lepo answered that there are two different types of amendments, one that involves the insertion of phrases and deletion of phrases by motion, and if the majority carries, the changes then become the new motion. The other type is substitute motion where someone wants to replace the original motion with substantially different motion, and if the majority votes on that and if the majority carries, it becomes the original motion. Commissioner Eaton then noted that the minutes state a substitute motion which carried and the main motion was voted on and that should be an amended motion. Mr. Lepo agreed and noted that change will be reflected in the revised minutes. Commissioner Hawkins asked if he could vote on the entire minutes as he recused himself from deliberation on one item. [Assistant City Attorney Harp noted that Commissioner Hawkins can vote on the minutes even if he recused himself from an item as the minutes reflect his Page 1 of 9 "file:/lN:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn02- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/08/2007 bstaining from voting on that item. ommissioner Toerge noted edits to page 4. Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Eaton to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, and Toerge Noes: None Abstain: Hillgren OBJECT: Santa Ana River Vision Plan —Advisory Committee Formation ITEM NO. 2 Santa Ana River The Planning Commission is to appoint a member to serve on the City's Santa Vision Plan Ana River Trails Advisory Committee. Appointment Chris Marcarello, Administrative Analyst, noted: • The Vision Plan is funded by the Wild Lands Conservancy. • This Conservancy awarded the City a Grant to develop a vision plan for the City's portion of the Santa Ana River. • This vision plan will be combined with other plans from surrounding communities to develop a master vision for the entire length of the river. • The goal of these plans is to help position communities to restore and enhance the riparian environment and passive recreational elements along the trail. • The City Council is supportive and approved this Committee and appointed different groups to be involved in the process, one of which is the Planning Commission. • The Committee met for the first time on January 30th and discussed perceptions of the river. The Committee will meet about 4 -5 times over the next six to eight months. • Once the Vision Plan is determined, the Committee will be disbanded.. Commissioner Hawkins asked if any regulatory body had jurisdiction over the entire reach of the river. Mr. Marcarello answered that the County of Orange controls the trail adjacent to he river. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Following a discussion on time and dates of the meetings, Commissioner McDaniel was appointed to the City's Santa Ana River Vision Plan Committee. !t4 Page 2 of 9 " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\Internet \PlnAgendas \2007 \mn02- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/08/2007 Planning Commission E -mail Policy a policy for a -mails relating to Planning Commission Agenda items. Lepo noted this item was in response to concerns from Commissioners in the m of a -mails and mailings that are submitted after the Planning Agenda ie �tributed. The concerns had to do with the need to have open meetings, have public involved and accessible to the leaders who are making these decisions d for there to be no Brown Act violations. The existing "Rules and Procedure: the Planning Commission, Paragraph G," already purports to cover hard copies it are submitted to Planning Commissioners less than seven (7) working day; or to the date of the hearing on the matter in which event the Planning immission may continue the matter and the applicant shall be deemed to have nsented to such a continuance. aff proposes similar language for a -mails as well as criteria that allow the anning Director discretion as to which receive responses from the Planning rector. For example, if it is a factual clarification, the Planning Director wil spond. But, if the e-mail gets into any substantive issues, as suggested by thk )[icy, a hard copy will be sent to the Planning Commissioners and will be made A of the administrative record, and anybody in the audience will be aware of the ormation contained in the e-mail. couple of changes have been suggested by Commissioner Hawkins and ve been distributed. missioner Hawkins noted his concern about the use of blind carbon copie the potential to create either a Brown Act violation or providing informatic de the context of the public hearing process. He noted he appreciates all tt ills that he has received from the Commissioners, but his concern is the way truncate the public review and public meeting process. He suggeste sting a -mails to a designated person in the Planning Department who wou the determination as to whether or not to distribute hard copies to tF ning Commissioners. Maybe the proposal by staff will cover this concern. mmissioner Toerge noted his concern about the public. Getting this informatior e -mail or separate cover after the item has been agendized does not allow the 3lic the opportunity to review the information because members of the public are in our e-mail system. I think what staff has recommended is fine. The policy prepared by staff, is adequate. Cole noted his concern that the applicant shall be deemed to to such a continuance; will this be clear to the applicant? Lepo answered that if a communication is received from the applicant an( is not copied, but instead receives a copy of the e-mail from a Commissioner, that would trigger our response to the applicant stating the adopted polio) giving the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the information, or take < ice that the item will be continued. imissioner Toerge noted the operative word is 'may', and he is comfort that. There have been a number of items and most of the time they do to the level of needing a continuance, but there have been a couple of tii we have just gotten volumes of a -mails two or three days before and even of the meeting. ITEM NO. 3 Approved Page 3 of 9 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn02- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/08/2007 missioner Peotter asked how long it will be before we have current age staff reports posted on the Web page and, as you distribute these e- you deem important that go to the entire Planning Commission, could be posted on the Web Site? Varin answered that the agenda and staff reports are placed on the Web I same day that the packets are delivered to the Planning Commissioners has been the case for almost ten years. Lepo answered that we can see if the a -mails can be put on the Web. was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by to adopt the policy as written by staff. nissioner Hawkins asked if the only proposal before us is the language 2 of the staff report, since Section X, Paragraph G currently is in our rules. Lepo answered, yes. Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded Hawkins to accept Commissioner Hawkins's proposed language. Toerge asked how it would work? nmissioner Hawkins noted it would be easy to work. All Planninc nmissioners direct a -mails to the Planning Director or his designee. Then at discretion of the Planning Director, or his designee, they can distribute tc fining Commissioners those that are to be distributed consistent with the )osed policy. If, in fact, we are going to adopt staffs proposal, it sounds to me staff may not be responding to a whole host of a -mails that deal witl- stantive issues until the respective hearing. If it is just a minor deal then yon respond to the Commissioner, if it is substantive, you will not respond until the ring. Lepo answered that is correct. oner Hawkins noted his additional wording would not be necessary does not favor the motion. tant City Attorney Harp noted that if the concern is blind copies, the nission can make it part of the policy that a -mails to the Planning De not be blind copied to other persons. Cole noted that Commissioner Toerge is saying that the addition is not needed. Would the maker like to withdraw the substitute motion? maker of the Substitute Motion withdrew his motion. comment was opened and closed. on Main Motion: Page 4 of 9 yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None bstain: None "file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2007\mnO2-08-07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/08/2007 Page 5 of 9 "file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2007\mnO2-08-07.htm 06/20/2008 SUBJECT: Planning Department Web Site ITEM NO.4 Dan Campagnolo made a PowerPoint presentation demonstrating the strides Discussion Item made in updating and expanding computer applications to enhance the efficient and accessibility of the Planning Department's operations. The presentation highlighted: • Web Page • Permit Plus application • GIS on -line maps and aerial photography of the City • Plan Check status for both Building and Planning Departments. • Electronic plan check form. • Links to project activities • Forms now on -line • Current Case Log • Land Use Overlay • Zone Overlay • Search capabilities • During the presentation, there was discussion on the plan check process and the Planning Commission being provided access to the City's Intranet site so they too could use the tools that Dan covered during his presentation. Mr. Lepo is to affirm this with the City Manager's office and Mr. Malkemus, the City's main Web page co- coordinator. Public comment was opened and closed. he Commission congratulated Mr. Lepo and the Department for the presentation, he changes and the im rovemenis. SUBJECT: Standard project conditions of approval. ITEM NO. 5 Mr. Lepo reported that at previous meetings, the Planning Commission had Approved requested that staff identify, in the conditions of approval, "standard conditions" for each case as "project specific conditions" for the case in the staff report. He noted that Commissioner Hawkins sent in a couple of comments and those have been printed and distributed. Commissioner Toerge asked, if Commissioners can expect that a staff report conditions of approval will be in two different groupings: "standard conditions" here the verbiage does not change from project to project, and, the "proje pecif ic conditions" that do change with each project. If that is what this will do, i ill be a great improvement; however, he has gone through the list and some do Page 5 of 9 "file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2007\mnO2-08-07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/08/2007 Page 6 of 9 t appear to be standard as they require particular numbers. I would think th en though they are standard verbiage, that they would need to be pulled out standard listing and placed in the project specific listing when referencir mbers of parking spaces, hours of operation, etc. Continuing, he note nditions 2, 9, 11 and any other condition that requires a specific number shou listed in that category. ssioner Peotter noted that standard conditions could include "build Discussion continued on conditions such as "comply with Uniform B and whether to include such conditions. nmissioner Peotter proposed to have the "build per Codes" conditions, if tl going to be included, to be separated. Project specific conditions could toted by an asterisk so that we can identify each as a standard condition wl are going through the list. immissioner Toerge noted his concern of having to go through a list of over nditions and hopes condition reorganization will be a significant time saver Commissioners. continued on: • Their requirements for updating and reorganizing the Planning Depar standard and project - specific conditions of approval; • These conditions are not only used by the Commission but Departments in the City that deal with these project. • All standard conditions with blanks are to be included with the specific conditions. . Comfort level of the Planning Commission. . The use of bold and underline when there is a change in a condition. • Dates need to be verified and recorded on the plans given with particular case. • Standard template format adhered to that works for everybody is key. Lepo noted that this dialogue is important and is needed to help him with h k that he is doing with his staff and other City Department members. We w this up so that everyone can use this same format. Hawkins noted that the agenda item tonight is not to adopt standard con rather this is a proposal that is evolving and that this is a receive and file. Commission needs to decide to highlight, underline or asterisk the standard litions that have fill -ins that Commissioner Toerge highlighted, or whether we to keep them in the two categories that staff has proposed. The consensus to highlight the changes. nmissioner McDaniel noted the blanks to be filled in need to be se :ifically by the Commission. Any condition that is project specific, we want them, and the rest can go as boiler plate. imissioner Peotter suggested that the Planning Director take sement the input from the Commissioners and come back with how he to work with his staff and communicate with us for further feedback. Lepo noted he could do it either way. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn02- 08- 07.htm 06/2012008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/08/2007 comment was opened and closed. wing discussion on the organization of conditions, bold any change in ition and new language issues Motion was made by Commissioner Hawki seconded by Commissioner Peotter to receive and file this item and a missioners who have language edits should forward them to the Ptanni yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Peotter and Hillgren Noes: Cole, McDaniel and Toerge bstain: None Update on Planning Department Organization 6 Lepo noted that the City Council has authorized the addition of four new sta Discussion Item tions. As part of the re- organization there will be two different career tracks. plan check process is the most common experience that the citizens have our Department rather than the projects that are heard at the Planning emission. The current plan check scheme does not work and one of the ions is structural. Following was the typical progression of a Planner initial) gned to plan checking: • A new person comes in as an Assistant Planner and works at the counter. It takes at least 1 -1112 years to become proficient at ans questions . • That person also does plan checking. . That person was then promoted to the second floor with the planners work on items that go before the Planning Commission, creating con turnover. Lepo explained other current conditions and contemplated changes as . We have one person who likes plan check and has stayed in that since she hired on. . With the new recruitment we have created new job specs for Plan Revie Specialist I and II, with pay similar to an Assistant Planner, although tt positions do not require a Planning Degree. We prefer some college and year of experience. • We have contacted some of the local Community colleges and they excited that we are interested in their students. . There will be some remodeling on the first floor that will increase the area new workspace for Planning staff and additional public counter area. . There is a new schedule whereby the Assistant and Associate Planners the second floor will each be spending 8 hours a week downstairs worki at the front counter. The idea is to free up time for the plan checkers process plan checks and to have senior staff mentoring the junior staff. . The Building Department Director is now under the supervision of Sh Wood as is the Planning Department. We've had task force meetings "file:/IN:1Apps\WEBDATAVntemetNPInAgendas\2007\mnO2-08-07.htm Page 7 of 9 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/08/2007 all departments that are involved in the development process and it is coming together to improve the current workflow. The first report on proposed inter - departmental work flow improvements is due to the City Council February 23rd. • We have a draft Procedures Manual. • The process for modifications will be changing and we are looking to cut that work load by 20 -25% in the next couple of months. Therefore, we are working on Strategic Zoning Ordinance Amendments that will go forward before the comprehensive re -make of the Zoning Code. • The Department has been re- organized. We have divided current planning responsibilities to two Senior Planners. We will give you a new organization chart when we have it. Public comment was opened and closed. SUBJECT: Isla Vista Homes (PA2004 -123) ITEM NO. 7 1499 and 1515 Monrovia Avenue PA2004 -123 Continued from Planning Commission Agenda of January 4, 2007. General Plan Removed from Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, Tract Map and Modification Permit to Calendar develop 44 detached residential condominium units on a 3.25 acre site. The general plan designation would be changed from General Industry to Multi-Family Residential and the zoning district would be changed from M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) to MFR (Multi - Family Residential). The applicant has requested hat this item be removed from the agenda. Public comment was opened and closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - none. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Hawkins noted that at the nex Executive meeting, Professor Donald Shoup, will be making a presentatio on parking requirements on February 21st. C. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Genera Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee - Commissione Eaton noted the Chairman is Councilmember Selich. The most interesting item so far is that an RFP was approved to go out to consultants for a re- write of the Zoning Code and proposals are due at the beginning of March. The City Council has decided that there is to be a set of Residential Desig Guidelines in place by April. This matter is on the Council agenda for nex Tuesday the 13th. The staff report notes the Committee decided to bypas the Planning Commission; however, it was the Chairman who poled the other two Councilmembers at the Committee, who deferred to him, and the Chairman decided that it would go to the Council and bypass the Planning Commission. These Guidelines are proposed to be adopted by Ordinance and have 9 criteria that staff would use in evaluating plans for plan check. Page 8 of 9 "file:NN:\Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn02- 08 -07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02108/2007 Mr. Lepo added that they will be bringing in an architect to train staff in vocabulary of design so that staff can implement the new de: guidelines. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a agenda for action and staff report - none. Project status - The pending agenda has three items. No other Commissioners were interested in signing up for the 2007 Institute & Mini Expo. March 2nd, the City is hosting a Local Go Symposium dealing with Group Homes and all Planning Comn have been signed up to attend. - none. p. M. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION RNMENT Page 9 of 9 "file:HN:lApps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007\mn02- 08 -07.htm 06/20/2008