Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/01/2006Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 17 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO6- 01- 06.hbn 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - Commissioner Hawkins was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Debbie Lektorich, City Manager's Secretary Elwood Tescher, City Consultant from EIP Carlton Waters, City Consultant from Urban Crossroads PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May 26, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 18, 2006. Minutes Approved Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: Hawkins Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: General Plan Update ITEM NO.2 Land Use, Circulation Elements and Draft EIR Other Land Use Alternatives Continued to June 15, 2006 1. Lido Isle Ms. Temple indicated staff recommends a cap be set for units on Lido Isle and i he concept is supported staff will complete an analysis to determine the http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO6- 01- 06.hbn 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 2 of 17 6Dnror)date number. I ommissioner Eaton asked about the method for determining the unit cap. emple responded staff would look at the existing parcels and compare to riginal tract map to determine how many units could be divided easily vs. th Which would take combining an entire block. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. McFarland, President of the Lido Isle Community Association, agreed wit Temple's proposal to analyze the parcels. He reported residents were i r of reducing the number of units however did not want to preclude th ;rtunity to subdivide in the future. Commissioner Cole asked if the resident been notified of this change. Mr. McFarland indicated all residents wer 3ed of the meeting with Planning Department staff. However, few attended. Toerge asked if the Commission agreed with the ation. Hearing no objection, he indicated staff should proceed. Balboa Peninsula /Balboa Island West Newport Temple indicated the staff recommends reclassification of the West is indicated on the map for single family use. mmission Eaton felt that once the change is made, owners may not be hap{ h the change. Commissioner Cole agreed and felt this significant chant is happening late in the process and asked if the West Newport Bea( sociation had been advised. Ms. Wood indicated the change was present( the Association where a large number of residents were in attendance. TI >idents felt very strongly in favor of this change. She added that wh( ninsula residents heard about this change they came to a GPAC meeting ice their opposition to the change in their area; no opposition was heard fro mt Newport residents. Commissioner Cole asked if the change was made the R -2 units would become non - conforming. Ms. Temple responded th w would. ;. Wood reminded the Commission that these are not new proposals, :a was discussed by GPAC, Planning Commission and Council; they ming back to make sure the Commission is still sipportive of the changes preparation of the next General Plan draft. irman Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the put ;onded. imissioner Henn didn't feel the Commission needs to reaffirm what is the ;y while redoing the General Plan, and that a certain amount of change necessarily bad. He recognizes the concerns of the other Commissione Lever, he feels the change is appropriate. Tucker agreed with Commissioner Henn, and added that http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO6- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 3 of 17 Council Member representing the district supports the change. He feels it hash been sufficiently discussed. rman Toerge agreed that the outreach in the area is sufficient. missioner McDaniel also supported the change. rman Toerge announced a consensus to support the mmendation. Commissioner Eaton asked that the record show treed with the recommendation. b. Balboa Island Temple indicated staff was not recommending any change to Balboa Island :h was supported by the residents. issioner McDaniel agreed that residents on Balboa Island know what He supported the staff recommendation. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the pu rman Toerge announced the consensus in support of the C. Balboa Peninsula Temple indicated staff was not recommending any change for this a ever, a unit cap could be established to provide flexibility. mmissioner Eaton asked how the cap would be determined. Ms. Temp icated the analysis would be more difficult in this area, it would requi ;essme,nt of how many units are on the ground today and how many thi uld have a potential for R -1 to R -2 units, and then creating the c, newhere in between. rman Toerge was not in favor of going through with the analysis. iissioner Henn was in favor of the analysis, because he felt the trend researching. ner Cole was not in favor of changing the zoning based upon by the community. :ommissioner Henn clarified that no one is proposing a zone change at me, the question is whether we should pursue the cap idea. . Temple asked if the Commission wanted to pursue a reduction. If so, A favor a cap versus a rezoning all the R -2 properties. Commissioner I icated he was in favor of pursuing the cap idea. Ms. Wood added that v ve all the properties with their existing two family designation so an j1d take advantage of it until such time as the cap is reached. Commiss http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO6- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 agreed. missioner McDaniel felt the area should be left as is. imissioner Eaton stated he was concerned about the guesswork aspect analysis; he would like to see the number when it's brought back to 1 emission. missioner Tucker was not in favor of the cap idea. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Toerge indicated the consensus was to leave the area as is. d. Beacon Bay Temple indicated staff was not recommending any change to this a fuse the existing leases do not restrict new development to single family. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Toerge indicated the Commission supports the staff recommendation. 3. Irvine Avenue Multi - Family Temple indicates staff recommends RM -B for the area. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Toerge indicated the Commission supports the staff recommendation. 4. Westcliff Drive /Dover Drive Is. Temple indicated staff is recommending CG -C on Westcliff Drive and 1 for Dover Drive. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. ;ora Newman, Government Solutions, spoke on behalf of a property owner Jestcliff Drive. She stated that the boundary for the two areas was unclear a sked the Commission to allow mixed use for her client's property. She offer Iternative language that would allow more mixed use in the area. "in order feet the intent of the policies which promote quality mixed use project, a icorporation of a variety of uses for neighborhood vitality, properties on t Jestcliff designated for CG -C which are adjacent to buildings or parking lots ie properties on Dover Drive designated MU -131, shall be permitted to inclu iulti- family residential uses subject to restrictions of the MU -131." mmissioner Tucker asked what was currently in her client's building. Page 4 of 17 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn06- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 n responded that there was a salon, the Queen Bee, some retail on with some medical; a mix of retail /office uses. irman Toerge asked what was the staffs intention for the comer parcel. id indicated it was included with the mixed use on Dover. missioner Eaton asked why the Council split up the recommendation. Mr :her indicated the discussion included the character of the Westcliff Drive being a successful commercial district and wanted to maintain the uses. actual boundary was selected by staff. nmissioner Henn indicated Capri Blue has gone out of business in the I: days. He also pointed out the uses across the street from the building 1% residential. immissioner McDaniel felt problems are caused by residential being too commercial and was not in favor of residential in the building being discs )mmissioner Tucker asked about the, configuration of the mixed i issification being discussed. Ms. Wood indicated MU -B1 was for Marine le and would not apply in this area. Mr. Tescher indicated the intent was ve a horizontal intermixing of residential, office and /or retail uses. l )duct could be ground floor retail, upper level housing; 101 ail /commercial; or 100% residential. Commissioner Tucker did not N jection to replacing the office on the second story with residential; however t the configuration of the current building was part of the problem with ling retail. Mr. Tescher indicated the correct classification is MU -A2 wh ows retail on the bottom and residential on top. iairman Toerge was not comfortable changing the Council recommendatio d felt the argument for change should be made in front of them. H pported staying with the recommendation of Council. mission Eaton agreed and indicated the boundary line makes more moving it. imissioner McDaniel agreed and stated at sometime a decision needs so e on the boundary and thinks the Council should make that decision. ner Cole also agreed. ner Henn liked the MU -A2 idea. rman Toerge announced a consensus to make no change. MacArthur Boulevard CalTrans Parcel Temple indicated the property does not have a current General Plan ig designation and staff recommends CG -B. sioner Tucker asked about the area at MacArthur and Jamboree. indicated the recommendation for that parcel was open space be( Page 5 of 17 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO6- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 area includes a wetland and it is unlikely the Coastal Commission wou v development in that area. Ms. Wood added that it is an open space si want to the CIOSA agreement. n Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Wood thought the recommendation was supposed to be CG -C. smmissioner Eaton asked why the higher FAR should be allowed on this site. Wood indicated that the thought was the kinds of uses that would go on the e would be for auto related uses. Also considered was the balance of FAR triangular parcel to the north, although a CIOSA site, has an APF signation with an FAR which gives it approximately 50,000 sq. ft. Staff wa: nking it would not be an increase of square footage, it would just be moving i a more developable site. Commissioner Eaton asked what FAR was used fo traffic model. Mr. Tescher indicated .5 and Ms. Wood thought we shoul( ay with that CG -B. Commissioner Eaton agreed. nission Cole asked if general commercial would allow for office. � ,le indicated it would allow office and retail. Commissioner Cole was of the suggestion of a higher FAR. Ms. Wood indicated that would be C airman Toerge asked how the traffic would be impacted if we move it from . 75. Mr. Waters indicated the worse case with 50,000 sq. ft. of retail would b )roximately an additional 2,000 ADT. Chairman Toerge thought .5 is the rigl nber so he supports the staff recommendation. Tucker agreed and felt .5 is realistic. McDaniel agreed. rman Toerge announced a consensus in support of the 6. State Route 73 Remnant Temple indicated the property does not have a General Plan or zoni lnation; staff recommends it be designated open space. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Toerge announced a consensus in support of the 7. San Miguel Drive Cn Harbor View Nature Park s. Temple indicated the property was formerly used as a child care facility aff recommends the property be redesignated RM -B with no access from iguel. http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn06- 01- 06.htm Page 6 of 17 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01 /2006 Page 7 of 17 hairman Toerge asked if there was a public street other than San Miguel ;cess to the property. Ms. Temple siad it would be driveway access thn e Baywood Apartments residential project. missioner Tucker asked who owned the property. Ms. Temple indicated The Irvine Company. rman Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the rman Toerge announced a consensus in support of the 8. Pacific View Drive Senior Residential Temple indicated the staff recommendation reflects the )pment on the site as RH -D. airman Toerge asked what the difference is in traffic count. Ms. icated the traffic model always reflected the units as residential. blic comment was opened. No one from the public responded. rman Toerge announced a consensus in support of the emendation. 9. West Newport Mesa. Convalescent Hospitals Temple indicated this area had not been previously discussed by ning Commission or City Council. Staff recommends these facilities inated as Private Institution. irman Toerge asked if the property owners had been contacted. iple indicated they had not at this time. iissioner McDaniel felt the change was reasonable. However, he reed that the change would limit other uses in the future. Ms. Tel I staff would talk to the property owners about that issue. She added have not been any requests to change the use of these properties. iissioner Tucker thought it was an appropriate change for 466 Flagship Hilaria and 393 Hospital based on access to the properties. However the rty on Superior could easily become redeveloped as something else in the . He supported the change on 3 of the 4 properties. ,mmissioner Henn stated he supported the recommendation however fel ntact with the property owners should be done before making a decision. ,mmissioner Tucker indicated the Commission was making a recommendatior Council with the understanding that the property owners would be contacted. ,mmission Henn requested that the contact be made to determine their view: tore going to Council. Ms. Temple indicated staff would attempt to make http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /nm06- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 8 of 17 imissioner Eaton agreed with Commissioner Tucker that the �erties backing up to Newport Boulevard should reclassified as institi felt the property on Superior Avenue should be left as residential. ran Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the pu nded. Toerge also agreed with Commissioner Tucker. imissioner McDaniel agreed its probably the best use and would like to property owners a chance to respond. The Superior Avenue pro ild be left as residential. immissioner Cole agreed to leave the Superior property as it is currently signated. Unless the property owners agree to the institutional use, he :ferred it staying the way it is. Commissioner Eaton pointed out that the rrent designation is commercial /office at a high FAR. He felt the possibility o it type development on these properties might cause a problem. immissioner Cole agreed with the conflicts office use might create, but he )ught the existing designation was multi - family residential. Ms. Woo( nfirmed the 3 properties backing up to Newport Boulevard are classifie( ice, and the one on Superior is residential. man Toerge announced a consensus to redesignate to the PI design; properties along Newport Boulevard and maintain the exi . nationzoning on the Superior location. However he encourages rty owners to come and talk to the Commission about the change. Use Policies Transfer of Development Rights Is. Temple indicated current transfers in the proposed General Plan have verl trict limitations addressing transfers in Newport Center only. Staff is asking fo irection from the Commission about including more areas of the City. iairman Toerge asked if the intent would be to have transfers apply ;alined regions or citywide. Ms. Temple indicated the current code appl ly to properties within 1,000 feet of each other. Ms. Wood thought the 1,( is too restrictive. However, she suggested keeping it within a statistical ai within a specific traffic impact zone might be more suitable. ,ommissioner Tucker felt this may help in areas where the lamd uses permitte( n the new plan might be higher than what would be built. He asked staff to give ;xamples. Ms. Wood indicated the areas staff thought about were Mariner,, Ale and Corona del Mar. In Mariner's Mile, it could allow development on the )ayside that leaves more open space in exchange for moving some residentia levelopment to the inland side. Chairman Toerge asked if it could work it everse. Ms. Wood indicated that would be prohibited with the policies in place iow. She added another possibility in Corona del Mar would be to provide more http: / /www. city . newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn06- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 if someone wanted to give up their development rights on a lot and would allow them more density on another property. airman Toerge asked if existing buildings had a higher FAR than al uld be transferable. Ms. Wood indicated it would be a policy decision, it one of the limitations. issioner Tucker pointed out that this concept works in Los Angeles and flexibility. However, it may be difficult to describe the program. ommissioner Eaton indicated he had seen development rights work in oth 'eas and thought the program should include: 1) normal limits would apply )th parties, and 2) it should be a discretionary approval, not a right. He felt tl cisting General Plan makes it almost "by right" in Newport Center. Ms. Temp arified that in Newport Center it did require an action of the City Council and affic assessment. In the Zoning Code, which would apply everywhere else, currently through the discretion of a use permit. Commissioner Eaton thoug was a useful tool and would be worthwhile, providing it was discretionary. imissioner Cole indicated he would be in favor of pursuing it to some felt it would be useful in Corona del Mar. Toerge agreed. missioner Tucker thought the policy would need to be very precise and ily written. He felt it would be time consuming to develop the program. J indicated the details didn't need to be included in the General Plan the details could be worked out in zoning implementation. -nan Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the nded. Toerge announced a consensus to support the staff recommendation. 2. Balboa Village Non - Conforming Structures Temple asked the Commission if a policy should be added for the & ge Commercial District similar to the Corona del Mar policy rega nstruction of non - conforming structures. lissioner Cole asked what made the buildings non - conforming. Ms le responded that parking, height, FAR are the three most dominan ns. iissioner Eaton pointed out that State law required specific plans an( al plans to be consistent, so if this change was not made in the Genera we would have to change the Specific Plan. Ms. Temple agreed. issioner Eaton supported the change in the General Plan. Toerge agreed to support the change. Henn was concerned about rebuilding Balboa Village exactly Page 9 of 17 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO6- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 it is now. He had a problem with the policy if this would, by right, !rs that ability. nmissioner Tucker recalled voting against the policy in Corona del Mar, hi: cern was that we should be trying to get structures to conform with codes. felt if the building was tom down voluntarily it should be rebuilt to code. ,mmissioner Henn asked if there had already been a change in Balboa Villa allow more flexibility for redevelopment. Ms. Temple indicated the propos :neral Plan designates a large portion of the area for mixed use, however t rrent General Plan allows the same. She added most of the non - conformi ildings are commercial properties with no parking and apartments on the :) r. Tucker suggested letting the Council make the decision on nissioner Eaton supported the change because the Specific Plan to be changed if this recommendation is not approved. Cole supported the change. McDaniel did not support recommendation. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the pu Toerge indicated the vote was split 3 -3 on this recommendation. 3. Floor Area Ratio for Corona del Mar ;. Temple indicated the staff was recommending eliminating the special the land use element and regularized with the rest of the CN -B cat ich would allow up to .75 FAR. She added that this would not signific ange the traffic generation from the traffic model. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the pu in Eaton was hesitant, due to the non - conforming flexibility however he felt if the traffic model was based on .75 then it has for. n Toerge announced no opposition to the staff recommendation. 4. Public Facilities and Private Recreation Land Use Categories Public Facilities Ramirez indicated staff had looked at the current Government Educ tutional Facility designation and broke it into 2 categories: I tutional and Public Facilities. Public Facilities includes City facilities, http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO6- 01- 06.htm Page 10 of 17 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 >ols and public utility sites which are not required to adhere to land nations. Staff is proposing to not assign an FAR to these, and just ind applicable" for the purpose of the General Plan. > mmissioner Tucker asked if the table in the staff report would replace a tal the draft General Plan. Mr. Ramirez indicated the table was associated w next topic, Parks and Recreation. Mr. Tescher indicated it would replace and 3 -48. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the nmissioner Eaton opposed taking out the square footage. He felt the tab uld reflect what is on the ground. He thought both public utilities and Coun lities do have to comply with local zoning as well as public school facilities used for educational purposes. nissioner Henn was concerned that the City should retain control jurisdiction's decisions about land use. r. Harp explained the City could exempt itself from regulations. He added tl State facility used for State purposes is exempt, but a State facility being us r commercial use would be regulated. Typically the County is exempt if faci ,ed for their own purposes. Ms. Wood added that the State Water Co ovides independence to water and sewer agencies so the City is not able aulate them. airman Toerge asked about the downside of leaving in the square footage. . Wood explained that a General Plan Amendment would be required if the / wants to add a restroom at a park if the square footage listed was what wa., the ground today. And if we wanted to allow for some growth we would be issing at what that might be. Toerge announced a consensus in support of the stion. b. Parks & Recreation Ramirez indicated staff is proposing language which would provide y for public or private uses in this designation to add incidental build! )ut a General Plan Amendment. Private uses in this designation are in naly table and would have to adhere to the those limits otherwise. missioner Tucker supported the staff recommendation. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the publ Toerge announced a consensus in support of the Page 11 of 17 http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn06- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 12 of 17 circulation Element Review Wood pointed out the staff report included an amended version of 1 Juction to the Circulation Element. The corrections were made for clarity. ,ommissioner Eaton had a concern about the changes to the LO: iescriptions. He understood the reasons for changing the previous definitions However, he felt the new language was too technical. He suggested usin( anguage from other EIRs instead. Mr. Waters indicated the previous iescriptions were taken from the chapter on uninterrupted flow facilities fo reeways; the change was made to focus on the intersection level facilities. :ommissioner Eaton indicated he has seen language describing traffic flow: aking into consideration more than one signal phase to get through ar ntersection. Chairman Toerge indicated he was in favor of the new language. .ommissioner Tucker indicated the people who care about what level of service s should understand the language. nmissioner Eaton asked why the language is struck from the first parag page 7 -5. Ms. Wood indicated if it was added back, the language A e to be modified to reflect projects over a certain threshold. Commis Dn asked to have it added back in. rman Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the mmissioner Eaton had questions about the Circulation Policies distributed Commission. Page 16, Policy 3.1.6 was deleted, he asked if it was until or staff deletion. Ms. Wood indicated the Council deleted it becau )rmation was received regarding the amount of tolls collected and it was h it wasn't worth posing the question and starting negotiations. immissioner Eaton continued with Page 21, Policy 7.1.1, asked why the erence to parking facilities which would deem feasible commensurate with the tual cost to provide off street parking was deleted. Ms. Wood thought 7.1.E iy cover the issue and the Council would set the fee after conducting a study. immissioner Eaton thought the goal would be more meaningful if the language is included. Chairman Toerge agreed and thought the language could bf ded to 7.1.2. Commission Henn recalled discussing how the cost would bf termined. Commissioner Tucker indicated he was reluctant to have a policl it includes the actual cost of the off street parking; it could be a very large mber. Chairman Toerge indicated he would regret creatinj an in -lieu parkin( angement generating fees that are inadequate to create the needed parking. immissioner Tucker indicated he would not want policies that were no Kible. However, he acknowledged areas of the city where there is not enougt rking. :)ner Henn asked about page 13, CE 2.1.1 (e), it indicates LOS E I Avenue and currently the intersection is at LOS F. Mr. Wati LOS F appeared in an earlier draft of the document and th J the correct designation was LOS E. He added that we are i LOS F anywhere in the City. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn06- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 13 of 17 Rich Edmonston reviewed the issue on MacArthur Boulevard addressed by the - larbor View Hills Community Association. He indicated the Public Works Department has no plans of making any changes there and the suggested :hange does not make sense as an operating policy. Chairman Toerge clarified :hat the suggested change would make it more difficult to improve that road to :hree lanes all the way through from San Miguel to Coast Highway. Mr. dmonston agreed that if the suggested language was added, it would limit the Dity's ability to correct problems. Chairman Toerge was not supportive of any ;hange that would make it more difficult for the City to make changes in the 'uture. Commissioner Tucker agreed and asked if added to the General Plan, an amendment would be required to take it out in the future. Commissioner =aton asked if the current language restricted the City's ability to re- stripe the ;treet. Mr. Edmonston stated he thought it does and recently a change was nade which was considered a localized improvement. However, more is seeded. Chairman Toerge suggested no change be made based on the letter, and the Commission agreed. Implementation Plan Or. Tescher recommended revising the implementation plan to be a more generalized description of futue zoning ordinance changes, which would streamline the document and not reiterate the policies. He indicated if the -ecommendation was approved, staff would bring back a revised document for - eview. Chairman Toerge asked if the references already completed would lave to be revised. Mr. Tescher indicated the references would be retained, iowever the detail would be more generalized. Commissioner Eaton asked if he implementation was required in the State guidelines. Mr. Tescher indicated ;ities are required to show how the plan is being implemented. Commissioner =aton agreed with the recommendation, as long as the new document met the guidelines. Chairman Toerge supported it as well. No opposition was %Xpressed. Draft EIR :hairman Toerge read the following statement for the record: The purpose of the hearing on the General Plan Update EIR is to review the E- R's adequacy, including proposed mitigation measures, comments and ultimately responses to comments which are and will be provided to the 'tanning Commission. Our responsibility is to review the draft EIR and final EIR or adequacy. If we find that the final EIR adequately addresses the potential mpacts to the environment of the development and land use threshold set forth' n the General Plan then we should recommend that the Council certify the final =1R. If not, we will make a different recommendation to the City Council. Certification of the final EIR is not an approval of the General Plan, merely he final EIR adequately summarizes the affects the development and land hresholds proposed within the General Plan would have on the environr after mitigation measures are implemented. The Planning Commission w ike the administrative record to demonstrate that a discussion of the issues )lace at the Planning Commission level and that we understood http: / /www. city .newport- beach.c,a.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn06- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 sequences of the project before us for consideration. The Planr emission intends to demonstrate that understanding by discus; stantive issues raised in the EIR, the public's written comments to the E responses to comments as well as credible and relevant verbal Gomm( i the public. The foregoing will provide the basis for the Planr emission to make a recommendation to the Council and, as required A, will be based upon substantial evidence in the record. Many issues will be discussed tonight and at continued public hearings on tf :IR. Please keep in mind that not every impact is a significant impact. The El addresses what is significant and what is not, and how significance letermined. Some of the effects are judged on empirical data such as trafi ind noise and some of them are judgment calls. Substantial evidence lefined by CEQA. Substantial evidence does not include personal opinions th ire not supported by fact, no matter how heartfelt. The Planning Commission sound by CEQA to disregard arguments, speculation, unsubstantiated opinic ind other evidence which is not credible. After we initiate our review of tf ssues, we will take public testimony. Each and every one of you speakers o here may raise EIR related issues which the speaker believes merit furth liscussion. After members of the public have commented we will close tf )ublic hearing and bring the matter back to the Commission to provide ar :omments a commissioner has on the issue. After that we will continue tf searing to allow the proper responses to be prepared, circulated and discuss( )efore the Planning Commission. At a continued public hearing in the futui after the responses to comments are considered we will decide whether or n ecirculation is necessary. Finally we will vote whether to certify the final EIR f the final EIR is certified and thereafter challenged in court, the administr( :cord will include an actual verbatim transcript of our hearing. We want ;cord to be complete and to demonstrate that the Planning Commis nderstood its responsibilities under CEQA and that the Commission considf II substantial evidence that was presented to us before we reached ecision. Thanks to the diligence of our staff and consultants and Dphistication of the commenting public, I believe we and the public will e: e able to understand the consequences of the project and the General I ipdate which, of course, is the goal of the hearing." Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the pu imissioner Eaton indicated he had read the complete document nitted his comments in writing and, therefore, he expects to have ments to be included in the response document. Ms. Wood indicated imissioner's comments would be included in the response document. mmissioner Tucker indicated he prefers to start with the comment letters an( ponses which identifies the issues and then review the full document. airman Toerge thought that was a reasonable approach, and indicated then uld be additional hearings on the EIR to allow everyone to comment. 3sioner Tucker asked Commissioner Eaton if he saw any signi in the document. Commissioner Eaton indicated there were no http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO6- 01- 06.htm Page 14 of 17 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 15 of 17 s that could not be corrected. He was critical about the schools irr ion. He added that the revised project needs to be described compl, to all the changes that have been made, including the traffic generation. ,ommissioner Tucker asked how the final EIR would be handled. Ms. Woo( ndicated it would be the draft EIR with comments and responses. ,ommissioner Tucker clarified that the document that will be certified is th( )riginal EIR as opposed to the changed project. Ms. Wood confirmed that fact and indicated that certifying that document would allow for approval of a projec A lesser intensity with lesser impacts. nissioner Eaton asked that the traffic data includes existing and propose( rt. Ms. Wood indicated that there will be traffic information, includini ng uses, current General Plan buildout, the original project and the fina rt data. However, this information will not be complete until August. nissioner Tucker pointed that the final project would have reduce( Hers from the original project. Ms. Wood agreed with the reduction of trip: rated and added that it may not change the mitigations or circulatior ovements needed to obtain the LOS standards. mmission Tucker asked for a summary of the overrides needed. mmissioner Eaton responded that he had included three overrides in hi: nments, one in hazards, one in land use and one in noise relating to th( ;sibility of residential in the 65 CNEL in the Airport Area. He asked if takin( mixed use out eliminated the need for override for those items. He adde( re were 2 or 3 overrides based upon exceeding the SCAG populatior imate. In his comments, he asked if the numbers had been reduced enougt be within the SCAG limits. Ms. Wood thought Commissioner Eaton wa: rect with the airport area residential, however was not sure of the outcome arding the SCAG projections. nmissioner Tucker asked about the certification process. Ms. Woo( rated there is the certification of the EIR, which says the EIR was prepare( ording to CEQA guidelines and is adequate. Then there is the action o roving the project; which says that we did an EIR, we considered the EIR know there are significant unavoidable impacts in these areas, but will stil rove the project because of these overriding considerations. She added tha it stands now, there are unavoidable impacts in air quality, noise ulation /housing, and transportation. Is. Wood reported that the public review period was scheduled to end June id staff received a letter requesting to extend the review period 45 days. S :sponded that the period had been set according to CEQA guidelines and e State Clearinghouse at 45 days. However, because the Council had a pu Daring scheduled for June 13th, and they will be accepting comments on IR, the comment period for written comments was extended to June 13th Land Use Element: Review of Policy Revisions immissioner Henn suggested adding "non -water dependent marine relate sinesses" to the second bullet point of LU 3.3. Ms. Wood suggested adding where industrial uses are permitted. Commission Henn agreed. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn06- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 16 of 17 ission Tucker, asked about LU 6.15.24. He thought the Commis: I "unless City Council makes appropriate findings for an override." indicated the Council added it back. However, it might be deleted at ;e there is no need after taking the mixed use out of the 65 CNEL and ;an of the ALUC does not like the phrase. mmissioner Tucker continued with LU 6.19.8, he felt this section H 'using. Commissioner Eaton agreed and added that only one or two wo; al changed, but it made it different. Ms. Wood indicated the Council thou! was clearer because access could be achieved through a view corridor :ss could be achieved on the waterfront from other properties. missioner Eaton asked about LU 4.1 (d). It refers to Appendix A ialy table. It was his understanding that table was to be moved up f hat would require a change in the language. Mr. Ramirez agreed. missioner Eaton asked for clarification regarding several sections regard ged wording and deletions. imissioner Eaton asked where the new goal /policies came from on Mr. Tescher indicated the addition was due to the findings of the EIR; ierly were mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, and were m the plan as additional policies. irman Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the F ;onded. ion was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item to June 15, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and None Hawkins BUSINESS: BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council continued the permit for Sober Living by the Sea hearing to June 27th; reviewed the Land and Circulation Element policies; and, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian r to amend their existing Development Agreement as part of their Master update. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Committee - no report. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Eaton gave an update of the subcommittee meeting or commercial designations, FARs, caps, traffic model numbers and entitlement. Ms Wood noted emails received that had been distributed to the Commission possibl, as a result of a newsletter sent out a few weeks ago. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn06- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none. Project status - Ms. Temple noted the EIR for the Bridgeport project is about to gc into circulation as is the environmental work for Our Lady Queen of Angels. Discussion then followed on the schedule of the regular Commission. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Cole asked to be excused Page 17 of 17 ADJOURNMENT: 10:05 p.m. J ADJOURNMENT I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn06- 01- 06.htm 06/23/2008