Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/2006Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 13 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn07- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Iwood Tescher, EIP, City consultant Kimberly Avila, EIP, City consultant Carlton Waters, Urban Crossroads, City consultant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Temple presented a plaque to outgoing Commissioner Tucker in recognition of his service to the City as a Planning Commissioner. Councilmember Selich commented on Commissioner Tucker and their share experiences while serving on the Commission. Following that, Commissioner Tucker gave a brief speech of farewell commending his fellow Commissioners and staff for their work. Commissioner McDaniel noted his appreciation of Commissioner Tucker's role during his tenure. He thanked him for his strength and leadership these past years. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on July 14, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO.1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of July 6, 2006. Minutes of 07/06/2006 Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve the minutes as written. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Henn HEARING ITEMS http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn07- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 Page 2 of 13 SUBJECT: General Plan Update ITEM NO. 2 All Elements and Map Final Chairperson Cole asked that Commissioner Toerge act as chairman for this item for Environmental consistency on how this item has been handled. Impact Report was t Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood noted the public hearing is on the Final recommended Environmental Impact Report, which was considered at the last meeting and continued for Approval to this meeting. Tonight, there is a draft of the Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations for review, and for the Commission to make recommendations to the General Plan was City Council. The public hearing is also for the purpose of reviewing all Elements of the recommended General Plan. for Approval Wood gave an overview of the update process, the proposed General Plan and differences between it and the existing General Plan, a discussion of public iments on the proposed General Plan, and the analysis required for compliance irter Section 423, noting: • Process began in May 2000 when the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) was appointed by the City Council. • They were directed to design and conduct a public outreach process, report on the results and recommend the scope of an update to the General Plan. • GPUC was comprised of three members of the City Council, three members of the Planning Commission, one member each of the Harbor Commission, Aviation Committee, Economic Development Committee, and Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and one Greenlight supporter. • GPUC was considered the steering committee on the visioning and General Plan update processes. • GPUC held 54 meetings from their start through early 2006, all of which were noticed and opened to the public. • The visioning process GPUC designed included a number of public participation activities and events with a total of 3,199 residents and business people participating in the process. The visioning process consisted of telephone surveys, newsletter mail back surveys, neighborhood workshops, visioning summit, etc. • The City Council appointed the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The 38 member committee was structured to provide representation from every segment of the community. • GPAC's responsibilities were to review the input from the visioning process, information provided in technical studies and draft General Plan policies, and to make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. • GPAC held 54 meetings since their appointment in 2002, all of which were noticed and open to the public. • The GPAC performed the tasks of reviewing visioning input and wrote the Vision Statement; reviewed technical reports on traffic, economics, fiscal impact, biological resources and received presentations on Housing Element requirements, regulation of large homes, fiscal impacts of visitor serving uses, the Bolsa Chica experience; reviewed Guiding Principles for policy development and developed land use alternatives for 9 sub areas. • They reviewed all General Plan policies and made recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. • There was additional opportunity for public participation during the update process with two all -day public workshops. The land use alternatives were presented and discussed in small groups during the first workshop. The second one was an open house format so that people could learn about the plan and http: / /www.city.newpoit- beach. ca. us /PhiAgendas/2006 /mn07- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 move from station to station to talk about specific issues. The Planning Commission and the City Council had,19 study sessions each at which the technical background reports, drafts, the guiding principles, the issues that we were going to be looking at were discussed as well as the policies and all of the detailed recommendations on the land use plan. The General Plan is now a comprehensive update that includes the Vision Statement, and the rest of the Elements are designed to achieve that Vision Statement. By comparison, the existing General Plan is pretty much a patchwork, as the elements came about at different times. We have now a comprehensive document where all the Elements work together as they are supposed to. The Land Use Element is the backbone and is the one that most of the time was spent on. It was most recently amended in 1988 and correlated with the Circulation Element. It did not provide guidance or policies for community character, protection of residential neighborhoods or, 'what's it going to look like ?'. The Land Use Element of today has only 12 policies. Five of them apply Citywide, and seven address specific issues areas, but there are no policies for any given geographic area. It is more a quantitative land use manual. The new Land Use Element recognizes that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community and what we have heard from the citizens during the visioning process is they want to have their residential neighborhoods protected. This General Plan does not change the residential neighborhoods but we have added many goals and policies that deal with neighborhood preservation, community character, buffering residential neighborhoods from adjoining commercial areas, and regulating residential care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by the Law. We have four goals and over 30 policies that address these kinds of issues. There are nine sub areas identified by GPUC in their scoping of the General Plan update. These are the areas where some change is proposed, in part, because we thought that is where change would be likely over the 20 year life of this General Plan and partly because these are the areas that the residents told us, during the visioning process, that they would be willing to consider a change. It is not a wholesale change but builds on what we have today. The airport area has the greatest change with the introduction of some residential use but it still keeps the basic types of uses that are there today. One of the major changes in this General Plan is a significant reduction from the existing General Plan for Banning Ranch where the number of residential units has been reduced and the amount of non - residential square footage has also been significantly reduced. The Circulation Element and Land Use Element correlation have been maintained in this General Plan, which is the State Law. We've used the traffic model and the results from the EIR to a great extent to make some changes to the originally proposed land use plan so that we can reduce the amount of trip generation. Where we stand now is that the currently recommended land use plan at full build out would generate nearly 30,000 fewer trips than build out of the existing General Plan. That number will go up with an analysis of the most recent changes made by the City Council at their July 11th meeting. The existing Circulation Element includes policies to construct improvements so that our traffic service level is as close to Level of Service D as possible, but it is not a firm standard. In this Circulation Element we have set the standard of Level of Service D for all of but 8 intersections, 3 of them within the City along Coast Highway and 5 that are at the border with the City of Irvine where they have the Level of Service standard of E. With the improvements proposed with the Circulation Element and the land use mix in the Land Use Element, our intersection performance will be better with this General Plan than with the existing General Plan. The number of intersections that operate at a level of service worse than D in the existing General Plan is 18 Page 3 of 13 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn07- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 and under the proposed Circulation Element it will be 8. • The Circulation Element of today lists circulation system improvements that will be built over the life of the plan. It talks about funding sources but doesn't have any policies that address the quality of life or trying to reduce trips. The proposed Circulation Element does have a number of policies for the City to be a strong advocate for the 19th Street bridge, to improve traffic signal circulation, and to provide water transportation. • The Natural Resources Element replaces the existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element, which is the oldest element we have, dating from 1974. The new element is greatly expanded in terms of the topics discussed, with separate sections on various kinds of biological resources. The Water Quality topic has three goals and 28 policies in this Element; and Biological Resources are addressed with seven goals and 35 policies. • The Harbor and Bay Element has not been changed much but is better integrated into the General Plan. • The Housing Element identifies more sites to meet the fair share of regional housing needs. • Historic Resources and Arts and Cultural issues are addressed for the first time. • The Recreation Element includes priorities for the development of parks so the City has a clear guide as to which ones come first and what we should be working on first. • The Safety Element is updated and now conforms with State law and continues the City's strong position on the John Wayne Airport. , then referenced the new draft General Plan that includes all the changes through Planning Commission meeting of July 13th. Outlined in the staff report are a few of newer revised policies that were new from that meeting or had not been discussed )re, one of them addressing a new State Law requirement. then noted a memorandum distributed that has the General Plan Errata. • The first one regards the Land Use Table LU1 referencing the number of residential units for Newport Center. • The next is a correction to the policy for the conversion of retail use in Fashion Island. • We found a couple of other places in Newport Center where we missed providing the square footage for clubhouses. The existing General Plan did not have square footage for them, but we have them now. • We have corrected the housing unit projection in the Housing Element. • There are policies repeated in the Natural Resources Element and the Harbor and Bay Element regarding water quality studies and having professionals review them so that we know the scope of work and the project reflects what the City is looking for. • There are a number of other fairly minor revisions that were requested in the latest letter from the Airport Land Use Commission. She noted that this afternoon she was at the hearing of the Airport Land Use Commission where they reviewed the City's General Plan again and approved it and found the City to be a consistent agency pending final approval of the General Plan by the voters in November. Commission inquiry, she noted that the tennis clubhouse has 24 courts and the untry club has some number of acres. The actual footage will be filled in the General in numbers. The resolution has been drafted to make those minor corrections. ing, she noted: Page 4 of 13 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn07- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 The Implementation Program has undergone several revisions. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the General Plan without the Implementation Program. We will add it later when staff is satisfied with it and that approval will not take a formal amendment to the Genera Plan. Public Comments on the General Plan have been addressed during the process of the EIR review. These responses are provided in the staff report. A letter from the Environmental Affairs Committee is included. A number of their comments were on the General Plan. Their issues are that the General Plan should address air pollution from water craft; and, that the Plan endorses the current level of charter boat activity. They felt a date should be set for the banning of leaf blowers or the requirement to meet standards for leaf blowers. They did not think there was compelling reason to change the land use designation for the former child care facility on San Miguel, which was recommended to be changed to residential. A letter from Costa Mesa has been received. They have reviewed the Response to Comments on the EIR and have asked that if we do additional traffic analysis that we include some of the intersections in their City and also express a joint effort on regional facilities such as the Santa Ana River crossing and the extension of SR -55. Distributed separately to the Commission is the required analysis of the General Plan pursuant to Charter Section 423. The conclusion on that is the proposed General Plan would increase the number of residential units by 1,166 over the existing General Plan. It would have a decrease of non - residential floor area of 514,498 square feet and peak hour trips would be reduced by 1,157 in the a.m. and 998 in the p.m. Detailed spread sheets are attached. Eaton noted his concerns of: The policy on Fashion Island - Transferability not to be included in the newly added square footage. Ms. Wood answered that by having adding the maximum of 213,257 square feet, so that is what is available today before the approval of the General Plan Update, only those square feet can be converted. The policy requires that the Director of Planning revise this number upon approval of every transfer or conversion so that this number will be kept up to date. Page 3 -102 - LU6.15.3 you have added the date of December 19, 2002 and on the next one N3.1 you have crossed out December 19, 2002. Ms. Wood answered that is in error. The language should reflect the JWA Master plan date. Reduction of inclusionary percentage from 20% to 156/6, with reduction of available housing down to 1,000 units, as compared to the existing plan, is this still viable. Ms. Wood noted this percentage analysis was done on the total number of units above what exists on the ground today that we have the capacity for, what we have in the existing General Plan plus what we have in the proposed General Plan. Discussion continued. r Tucker, referring to page 3 -17 in the General Plan, asked about the PR He noted the word 'traditionally' should be excluded. Tescher stated that when you calculate the floor area ratio, it is based upon :upiable square footage. The norm in the Planning business is not to include non - upiable, storage kinds of facilities that do not generate employees residing on site an extended period of time that results in trips. ng a brief discussion staff agreed to strike the word and will re -work that Page 5 of 13 http: / /www. city.newport- beach.c.a.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO7- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 Tucker then asked: • Where the Harbor Day change made from FAR .3 to .35. Staff answered it is on the map LU13 • The language for the parking structure design to be discussed following the break. Henn noted: • Reduction amounts of the Irvine Company associated with particular items. • Can a grand total be made for the Irvine Company reductions for these columns? Staff answered yes. Wood, at Commission inquiry, noted that City Council Policy All 8, which comprises guidelines for implementing Measure S, requires that the staff report to the fining Commission and City Council provide information on Section 423 analysis. Chairman Toerge then discussed the letter from EOAC: Watercraft - The City does not regulate watercraft; however, the Harbor Commission would be the venue to hear these types of issues. Leaf blower - A Policy in the Noise Element (N4.8) addresses the regulation of the use of mechanized landscaping equipment. It was determined that this should be regulated by the City Council and not regulated in the General Plan. Former child care site - this facility has been demolished. ;ommissioner Hawkins discussed the comments by the City of Costa Mesa and their squest of traffic analysis of certain intersections. He asked if this is something that will iappen in the final model run? Do we contemplate a further project modification for the nal traffic model run? Wood answered that no further project modification will be run. Waters of Urban Crossroads added: The model does include the level of traffic analysis zone detail in Costa Mesa tha is consistent with the level of detail that has been used in studies such as the Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative Studies. The data that is included for the City of Costa Mesa is a disaggregated version of the most recently adopted regional forecast. They show adopted regional growth, but it would differ from a City of Costa Mesa General Plan data base. It is possible, but I do not know if the results are what the City of Costa Mesa necessarily is looking for. i. Wood stated that staff is planning on doing a model run on the modifications done far, but there are no further modifications planned. nmissioner Hawkins commended the work done by all participants on this project. noted the proposed General Plan is a project that is far better than the current feral Plan. comment was opened. Offing, local resident and member of the EQAC, noted: Page 6 of 13 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn07- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 The boat charter activity is a concern of the EQAC members as to the size of boats that are allowed into the harbor and bay. Due to the pollution from these boats, they are very concerned. They felt that these issues need to be addressed somewhere. mmissioner Hawkins noted that there is a Harbor and Bay Element. FIB 4.3 providq support and operation of tour boats subject to reasonable regulations designed to sure that the operations don't have an adverse impact. That is all you could expect City to do given the fact that the City does not regulate boats; however, this is the icy that the City has. ing Chairman Toerge noted that perhaps EQAC could address this issue with the •bor Commission during their process of re- drafting their codes dealing with the inances regulating uses in the harbor. rt O'Hill, local resident and owner of Newport Beach Tennis Club and Country noted: He had submitted an application over a year ago to do a PC zone change. His concern of proposing an increase to the tennis club house of 6,879 square feet and an increase to the golf club house of 9,472 square feet; there will not be additional members, there may be less. He noted that this would not be an impact on traffic as there are no additional members, yet the proposed General Plan does not accommodate those increased square footages. Wood noted that we proposed to add to the Anomaly Table LU2 the existing age of both buildings and not provide for any addition. Temple noted that the current application requires a General Plan Amendment and subsequent application following this update of the General Plan also requires a feral Plan Amendment. 3 Chairman Toerge noted there may not be new members, but there may be new or expanded facilities. Until we see the plan, we can not take any action on this Wood noted it would impact the Charter 423 analysis because it would be tional square footage. That additional square footage might not result in an aase in membership, doing the calculations for the 423 analysis it may increase the Hawkins noted we are not adding square footage at this time.. Tucker recused himself from deliberation on this topic. Baker, Newport Heights resident noted a letter in the packet that had been sent by ants in the area. This letter addresses their concerns with the adjacent nercial to the residential neighborhood in Newport Heights. Staff had nmended that a letter be sent to the Commission documenting this concern of the ct on the neighborhood. He discussed their concerns and asked that the General or the Code, address these issues. Wood noted staff responded to that letter on page 9 of the written report. Some of issues raised are operational and the letter has been forwarded to the General Page 7 of 13 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn07- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 Page 8 of 13 Services Department and to the Code and Water Quality enforcement division. Some of the concerns regard future development. We have noted that there are policies in he proposed plan that deal with these issues (LU 5.2.2 and LU 5.6.1) and in the Circulation Element (CE 7.1.1). McDermott, representing the Newport Beach Marriott, noted: • The map following page 3 -98 in the General Plan depicting the anomaly 43 is the Newport Beach Marriott site. • The last time the map showed this area as mixed use. • The change to visitor serving reflects the hotel as it exists, but the anomaly refers to the 611 rooms that the hotel is entitled to. • Their assumption was that the mixed use would allow hotels and or possibly residential because we have a segment of that site that, like the Lennar property, that could be developed for residential. We could end up with a residential component on either side of the hotel consistent with the way hotels are being developed these days. • There has been an evolution from mixed use to visitor serving and discussion on the ability to convert hotel rooms to residential was eliminated. • The understanding the Marriott had was that they could be eligible for some of the 450 residential units whether under the mixed use or transfer of development rights for the difference between the number of hotel rooms that exist versus the number of hotel rooms that have not yet been built. • She asked for clarification and support to allow some of the residential on that site because all of the hotel units have not been utilized and they have been anticipating through this process that would be a possibility. . Wood answered this was a change made by the City Council at their last hearing July 11th. The rational was partly trip reduction and reductions in areas The Irvine mpany was willing to offer from their existing entitlement. For Newport Center, the V Council was willing to look at reductions in residential and retail development that Irvine Company was willing to make but only within the Newport Center traffic )act zone. The Council noted that since The Irvine Company had given up other itlement in order to be able to do the residential development, that the residential in wport Center should be on the properties that the Irvine Company owns. ling Chairman Toerge noted that the Planning Commission does not have the ability change this and that this is an issue that needs to be brought up at the Council Tucker recused himself from this item discussion. Henn asked what is the remaining number of rooms to be developed? Temple noted that it is between 60 and 70 that are un -built because in their most nt renovations, they had actually reduced the number of rooms from what had iously existed. comment was closed. Chairman Toerge called for a recess to review the Final Impact Report Errata Findings and Facts Statement of Overriding Considerations. meeting resumed following a brief recess. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn07- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 Page 9 of 13 Kim Avila, EIP consultant, gave an overview of the Findings of Fact/Statement f Overriding Considerations that the Planning Commission had just reviewed. • Primary purpose is to insure that the City is making a statement about the significant and unavoidable impacts that have been identified in the EIR and that you can make one of three findings. • The three findings are that: the significant unavoidable impact has been reduced through changes in the project or through the adopted mitigation measures; that the impact can not be reduced because it is outside the City's jurisdiction; or, that there are specific economic, social, or other considerations that make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR. • These findings have been made with respect to significant unavoidable impacts identified in the draft EIR. • Rather than producing another revised draft EIR that would look at the current General Plan, that process is done through the findings looking at the impacts of the significant unavoidable. • She then gave examples from table 2 -1 regarding the impact statement, impact summary and findings for Impact 4.2 -1, Impact 4.6 -7, and Impact 4.9 -5. • The impacts that are known to be reduced due to additional policies in the revised General Plan as it is now are Impact 4.1 -3 and Impact 4.10 -1. brnmissioner Hawkins noted Impact 4.10 -1 only increases the dwelling units ,000. Yet, we are saying this impact is significant, that is, we are reducing ubstantial growth in an area. Is it a specific area like the airport that you are ilking about, or is it citywide? As. Wood answered that roughly 1,110 unit increase is the difference between he existing General Plan and the proposed General Plan. The Environmental mpact Report is comparing the proposed General Plan to the existing :onditions on the ground today. The increase in dwelling units from 2005, is ),789 that is multiplied by 2.19 to get a population number. With that we have a 90% increase in population over what exists. nmissioner Henn asked about the wording in Impact 4.10 -1. Staff will make appropriate change on page 2 -9. >n Cole noted that even if we added zero units, we are going to have unavoidable impact versus the existing conditions. Is this correct? Avila answered that CEQA does not do a plan to plan comparison. So ing at the existing General Plan and the current one, even if we have a stive situation, we still have growth. We are comparing it to the 2002 ulation as mentioned, so it is around 30 %. iirperson Cole asked if the finding that is allowed as no feasible mitigation is ilable. Is this allowed? Avila answered that it should read, "..no feasible mitigation is eaeilable Bible." Staff agreed. Tucker, noted: http: / /vwvw.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn07- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 • Aesthetics and Visual Quality - lighting as a significant immitigable impact because no matter where it is that you have vacant land that becomes land that is developed, you end up with lighting. • Air Quality - during construction is always an issue. • Cultural Resources - not in a category that is a major deficiency. • Hazards and Hazards materials - not in a category that is a major deficiency. • Land Use Planning - with the 65 dBA out, this is a non - issue. • Noise - falls in the same category as lighting and those types of things. Wherever you have development that you didn't have it before, you are going to end up with some noise issues, especially during construction. • Population and Housing - this is a big increase that may get built over time but as we have seen from our Housing Element updates, this comes with the territory. There is going to be growth in California and the City is going to be allocated residential growth by the State. This is an impact but some of them are significant and some are not. • Traffic and Transportation - we have some issues here, but I think we have a good plan with fewer issues than what we otherwise would have and if we ever get the 19th Street bridge, that would help a lot. • In order for us to make a recommendation to the City Council, it is all these impacts that are listed that we know can be expected. Looking at the statement of overriding considerations, and if there is a reasonable justification, can we make a recommendation to the Council, knowing the significant immitigable impacts, that the project is such that the City is willing to accept these impacts and recommend that the Council certify the Environmental Impact Report. Eaton noted: Page 2 -7, finding under noise - City standard is 65 not 60dBA. Staff will make that change. Page 3 -7, Alternative section - remove Old Newport Boulevard. Staff will make that change. Page 4 -12, under findings, have you evaluated mitigation measures themselves? . Avila stated the General Plan is a self mitigating document. We could add ne language where we identified impacts as it is a circular review so that the n could be revised. Eaton asked if this particular wording fits with that circular review was done. ;. Wood answered that we could add, "the City has evaluated all feasible Ligation measures and project revisions and alterations with respect..... It was reed. Eaton verified the map of coastal views. emission Hawkins noted his agreement with Commissioner Tucker's ments on the Statement of Overriding Considerations. He noted he did not the discussion for the rationale of the override. It is clear that the reduced act, even with these significant and unmitigated impacts, has significant Page 10 of 13 http: / /www. city . newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO7- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 Page 11 of 13 (benefits to the City and the environment so that the reduced project should be . Avila answered page 4 -13 and 4 -14 lists the proposed project benefits. It is rth stating that certain significant unavoidable impacts that we have identified •e are due to the nature of the project being a program document. Without ject details, we do not know the exact extent of impacts to various ources. In this circumstance, the program document assumes there will be impact. mmissioner Tucker noted that when you look at these impacts, they are not nificant. When you get to the project specific analysis, when a project comes then you find out better what you really have. blic comment was opened. fillip Bettencourt, speaking for Banning Ranch, noted the concerns raised on ht issue and unavoidable adverse impact. This site is an operating oil field. its is an understatement of the current condition, and to find the potential for banization and that light adverse any undeveloped property in the City would subject to the same standard. In terms of the project benefits some insideration should be given to the discussion in the reduction of project :nsities and impact and the elimination of the commercial and industrial :signation, and the reduction in the amount of the potential dwelling units :cause that environmental advantage is not listed on this current schedule but in the rest of the administrative record. imissioner Tucker noted once this is certified, your client will be able to e in with a plan and use this program document and not have to deal with on a project specific basis. He is not in favor of adding the reasons for the At as it is not necessary. is comment was closed. iissioner Eaton noted the added Whereas in the resolution does not go far h after their review of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. It I say we have reviewed this document and found them to be accurate and to the findings and reasons. Wood noted this approach was advised by legal counsel as the Planning nmission does not have a responsibility to approve and adopt the findings, City Council does. Additionally, we are continuing to review this draft )lution before it goes to the Council. :ommissioner Hawkins noted his agreement with Commissioner Eaton. These re the statements of overriding findings that are presented to the Commission. he Commission is not making the final determination with respect to the dequacy of either of those, but we are simply recommending that the Council nd them adequate. If there are changes, staff can tier off these documents an, )cus at the Council level to the extent that there are changes. He proposed iat, "Whereas, the draft Findings of Fact and the draft Statement of Overriding , onsiderations were considered by the Planning Commission, and found to be atisfactory and adequate, the Planning Commission hereby recommends their http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /lrm07- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 Page 12 of 13 adoption to the City Council. " Acting Chairman Toerge asked the Commission if they felt there was a need to re- circulate the El R. A straw vote was taken, no. Motion was made by Acting Chairman Toerge to approve Resolution No. 1692 recommending that the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2006011119 be certified by the Newport Beach City Council including the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Commissioner Tucker brought up the language for the new parking structures in Fashion Island that will be put in the General Plan. Referring to page 3 -98 in the General Plan the language change would be placed un LU16.14.8. Following a brief discussion including discretionary review, it was straw voted to use the following language: "New parking structures in Fashion Island shall be located and designed in a manner that is compatible with the existing pedestrian scale and open feeling of Newport Center Drive. The design of new parking structures in Fashion Island shall incorporate elements (including landscaping) to soften their visual impacts." Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Acting Chairman Toerge to approve Resolution No. 1693, recommending approval of the General Plan to the City Council of the comprehensive General Plan PA2006 -195. Ms. Temple noted that the reference on page 4 of the resolution Item b child care social services be removed, so that the title reads, Social Services and the Homeless. The motion was amended to modify section 2 b heading. Commissioner Hawkins noted section 2c regarding the self mitigating character of the project. Ms. Wood added the language, "....alterations to the plan that reduce or avoid environmental impacts." c eting Chairman included that in his motion. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None bsent: None bstain: None DDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /nmO7- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/20/2006 City Council Follow -up - no meeting. 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 future agenda for action and staff report - none. Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - Commissioners McDaniel and Tucker noted they Id not be here for the August 3rd meeting. irman Cole took this opportunity to thank Commissioner Tucker for his work on the emission and expressed his appreciation for his leadership role. He noted that it been a privilege to serve on the Commission with him and that he would be Page 13 of 13 BUSINESS I ADJOURNMENT: 9:20 p.m. I ADJOURNMENT I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PhiAgendas/2006 /mn07- 20- 06.htm 06/23/2008