Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes-07-13-06Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 P.M. Page 1 of 15 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \07132006.htm 08/14/20( INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - at resent. TAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Elwood Tescher, EIP, City consultant Kimberly Avila, EIP, City consultant Carlton Waters, Urban Crossroads, City consultant UBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS ommissioner Tucker recognized and commended the work done by Commission ton on the Draft General Plan Update. None OSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on July 7, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO.1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the adjourned meeting of June 1, 2006. Minutes of 06/1/2006 Motion was made by Chairperson Cole to approve the minutes as written. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent. None Abstain: Hawkins HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: General Plan Update ITEM NO.2 All Elements and Map hairperson Cole asked that Commissioner Toerge act as chairman for this item for Continued to nsistency on how this item has been handled. July 20, 2006 cting Chairman Toerge noted that there are reference copies of the Draft General Plan and Response to Comments for the use by the audience during this meeting. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \07132006.htm 08/14/20( Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 2 of 1> [All Elements >. Wood noted that the Draft General Plan of July 2006 with the strikeout and derline shows all the changes from the original Draft published in March 2006. Most those changes were made at the direction of the Planning Commission and City wrie 1. Additional changes, summarized in the staff report, were in response to mments on the Draft EIR and by the Airport Land Use Commission, errors that had en found, comments from the public, property owners and for clarification. Sent by tail yesterday, were changes that the City Council had made both to policy and to s Land Use Plan from their hearing this past Tuesday and are not reflected in the sft yet, but will be in the final. Also distributed is a potential new policy regarding rking structures in Newport Center at Commissioner Tucker's direction. Eaton asked about his emails: • Which mixed use category for the tennis club in Newport Center? • Parking for the tennis club. • Block 3 at Campus and MacArthur. • Revisions. • Policy 6.14.1 on page 3 -58 and the transferability of commercial to office. This should remain as a discretionary approval by the City Council. It is worded as a flat straight footage. This number should be reduced as it is used and language should be incorporated to reflect this use as well as not to include additional retail. Wood answered it is the same mixed use category as the rest of Newport Center ;h is H3. That was a change recommended by the Planning Commission. It will increase traffic because it will be listed in the anomaly table as sharing in the cap of dwelling units. The only other entitlement on that property would be the existing tis courts and it will not be given any additional entitlement. Temple noted the tennis club has the ability to park in Corporate Plaza West :ing lot during evenings and weekends for tournaments. Wood noted that Block 3 is noted on the distributed list. The parcel at the corner is e. A smaller anomaly parcel on the east end at Von Karman is existing commercia elopment. The revisions are clean up items and will be in the version that is being ted. On Policy 6.14.1 this was a reflection of how the City Council wanted this dled and the second concern will reflect the remaining entitlement that exists for hion Island. She then noted the process used. Hawkins asked about roles. Wood noted that she had advised the Council that the Commission had not yet t or discussed the policy changes outlined in their staff report of the 11th. They N that you will, and give them your comments. Cole asked for a brief description on the FAR changes. Wood noted that the Council made these changes with the intent to reduce peak r trips. She then went on to discuss that the analysis for Charter Section 423 sires peak hour trips to be used and trip rates that are provided by the Institute of fic Engineers. We can't use any of the local validation for how much traffic we ly have for various uses on our streets, or any of the adjustments provided in our is model. The preliminary results citywide are a reduction in the a.m. peak to be 55 trips and in the p.m. peak of 847 trips. file : //F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin \PC min etal \2006\07132006.htm 08/14/20( Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 3 of 0 sting Chairman Toerge noted that a councilmember had noted that in many cases AR exceeding .5 is difficult in these areas and in other areas it is achieved through redits and other enhancements. You still have to provide the parking and other items, ut because of the way the traffic has to be analyzed for purposes of the General Plan d for voting, it has to be analyzed for the worst case scenario. it is somewhat nmissioner Henn noted that with the Section 423 requirement there would be no A given for mixed use as in the traffic model. Switching to the peak hour analysis have ended up with a net reduction in this proposed plan versus the existing one. at is the size of that reduction? Wood agreed. It is the reduction of 1,055 a.m. and 857 p.m. trips. oner Tucker then discussed the parking structure language that he had and that had been distributed: • Additional available retail space in Fashion Island of 300,000 square feet will produce 1,000 parking spaces that will end up in a structure. • Fashion Island around the ring road is open and pedestrian friendly. • The City needs to have discretionary review. • Suggested changes to the language add ....'in Fashion Island', and... 'site design'. Eaton asked: • Potential development in process for this area. • The use of an implementing ordinance or resolution requiring discretionary review. • When will the General Plan be effective? Temple answered: • No project for this area is in plan check to date. • Development plans have been discussed and location of such future development were suggested. Attorney Clauson answered: . When the General Plan Update is completed looking at it as a single General Plan Amendment, which it is, if any of the Section 423 items are triggered then the entire General Plan may end up going to the voters. It will not become effective until after the November election. Wood asked if policies would become effective pursuant to Council action. Clauson noted they would not become effective because those approvals would b4 tingent upon voter approval. The other Elements could become effective; however General Plan amendment will be the Land Use Element changes and is the ment that is triggering the changes under the Section 423 vote, not the other vents. We need to wait to get the final numbers. Discussion continued. wing the discussion on a policy regarding a parking structure in Fashion Island, it approved by straw vote. file: / /F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \07132006.htm 08/14/201 Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 4 of 13 (Commissioner Tucker then noted: Development Agreement for additive units in the airport area and Newport Cente is handled fine. The Development Agreement for conversion of hotel rooms has been deleted because it would add dwelling units beyond the 450 units allowed. The prohibition against new residential sub - divisions in Policy LU 4.2 on page 3- 19 looks to be broader than it needs to be. ing, Commissioner Tucker noted this prohibition should apply to planned nity zones where there is actually a plan as opposed to standard zoning that He then gave some examples. Wood answered that if this policy wasn't applied citywide then we would run into a )lem with Charter Section 423 because the way the land use map is structured it Ns either the existing density or number of units in every case. Gregg Ramirez added: • The land use map shows single unit development, two unit development or multi - unity development. • The multi -units on the map will either have a specific dwelling unit count or a density. • All those units have been accounted for in the analysis for the 423 provisions. • If we don't restrict future sub - divisions without a general plan amendment we could have a situation where we could unintentionally allow more dwelling units without properly being analyzed against the 423 requirements and the Measure S guidelines. • The only way to do that is to have a pool of dwelling units that is open for future sub - divisions that is beyond what is shown on the map. followed. Commissioner Tucker then noted: • Under the PR zone (pg 3 -19) and the issue of the golf course maintenance facility, is this a re -draft? He was answered yes. • He then suggested - switching the two sentences in the last paragraph so that the facilities that are described are not included in the square footage for those types of uses in the PR zone. Staff agreed. • He questioned when the anomaly table will be presented for discussion. He was answered at the next meeting. • Harbor Day School of FAR .35, where is that? He was answered that it is found on the map. Eaton noted: • Two commercial areas on Balboa Island on Marine and Agate are designated as water front uses. • It seems that a mixed use vertical would be a better designation. Ramirez, noted: . There were no discussions for changing the FAR limits or the dwelling units limits file; //F:\Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min ctal \2006 \07132006.htm 08/14120, Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 5 of I!) because it is currently mixed use for Balboa Island, for Marine Avenue and a small portion of Agate Avenue. • We found a designation, a mixed use water designation, that fits the existing densities and intensities as allowed for with the existing plan. • Right now it is a variable FAR of .5 and 1.0 and the only way to get to a 1.0 is if you have a low trip generating use. • Any of those uses that are built over .5 are mostly retail or restaurant, which are higher trip generating uses so most of them are non - conforming already. That is the case for a lot of the mixed use commercial areas all over town. • That category references the mixed use vertical for the types of uses but also allows marine type uses, • We could create another mixed use category just for Balboa Island in the vertical, but we think the water one fits okay. Wood then noted that the introductory language for mixed use water says the MU- designation is intended to provide for commercial development on or near the bay. y don't need to be water front and since it reflects the existing General Plan gnation it was not our intent to make changes, this is the appropriate way to go er than creating another new category for such a small geographic area. imissioner McDaniel added we don't need anything special, this fits very well. No will be concerned, even though it is not on the water, it is on the island. Marine nue is close to the bay and leaving it the way it is, is the best we can do for it. Hawkins noted: • Reason for these changes is that the mixed use categories were to be descriptive. • These two areas are not near the water. • Either some other horizontal or vertical category would be better than water related. . Most of the Balboa Island is water fronting. vote: agreed to leave language as is. comment was opened on the General Plan proposals by City Council or ge in parking structure. George Schroeder, local citizen, thanked the Commission for their discussion on subdivision of lots noting it is an important issue. comment was closed. ronmental Impact Report Chairperson Toerge asked for comments on the Environmental Impact Report. Wood noted that The Response to Comments (RTC) has been distributed. She introduced two consultants from EIP and Urban Crossroads. Eaton noted: • The decisions made by the Council will reduce the numbers as illustrated in I Table 8 -1. • He requested that this Table be refined and re- distributed. file: //F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \07132006.htm 08/14/20C Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 6 of 1 jhe're s. Wood noted that the information for Mariner's Mile had been repeated in Lido lage. The exhibit distributed tonight shows the corrections. She then answered will be a final run of the traffic model with the final version of the plan. That will e the information requested. At Commission inquiry, it was noted the citywide totals ould be reduced even more. Commissioner Eaton noted: . Page 9-4 - reductions to the institutional square footage. How will they stay in the model if they are removed from this table? Temple noted that for many of the public facilities, there are no applicable FARs. t square footage is still carried in the traffic model. Wood added that it is part of the base line and whenever the traffic model is ated, then the base information is updated as the first step. , Commissioner Eaton noted: . Page 9 -11 - what is being amended in Policy 3.1.5? Wood answered - it is the final clause that is being added as well as another ise in the final version, ...'consistent with all requirements for environmental review.' Commissioner Eaton noted: . Page 9 -17 - reference to coastal view maps - is it MacArthur Boulevard or Avocado or both that are coastal view roads? Wood answered the map is correct and the correct road will be noted. . Page 10 -56 - responses to Costa Mesa comments - page 7 and 8 appears to be missing from the document. iberly Avila, from EIP, noted that there is a page missing, and it will be added in the it version. Commissioner Eaton noted: . Page 10 -70 - response B -5 did not address reduction in population or dwelling units and if it was enough to take it out of unavoidable significant impact category. Avila answered that no calculations on the currently conceived plan have been s. Clauson noted it is only about an increase of 1,300 residential units multiplied by 19. -r Eaton noted if this does not end up being a remaining impact due to the it should not be declared. s. Clauson answered we were responding to the comments as to the EIR and xplaining those numbers. In the process of going through the approvals and any final eterminations on impacts there may be changes so that there is no significant impact file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006\07132006.htm 08/14/20( Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 7 of 15 (because we have reduced the numbers. Avila noted that in the findings all the conclusions will be checked against what the iced plan is. mmissioner Tucker noted that the purpose of the environmental review is to make e that the decision makers catch the big picture. There are a lot of comments that rect little things, or that are inconsistent, but what is important is that the public has understanding of what the impacts are on the environment of the project, and that decision makers have an understanding as well. We have been looking at the ails of this plan for a long time and the public has been given the opportunity to nment as well. Personally, he feels he knows what the impact on the environment project will be. This is a program document as there is no specific project and we not looking at any particular development. It has served its purpose. He asked ff for a briefing on significant issues that had been raised in the RTC and then the mmission should discuss them and then wrap it up. Hawkins noted: Page 10 -141 - N -3 Banning Ranch alternatives and the agreement to be made. LU 6.4.1 what sort of agreement is envisioned with this land use policy? Clauson answered an agreement that would make the property available for ;hase for open space purposes. Wood added a set period of time for that opportunity and also provisions on how property would be valued. nmissioner Hawkins noted this pre- supposes annexation of the property, so if it is an annexation agreement is it going to be in some other agreement for purchase sale of the property? Clauson answered yes. iissioner Hawkins recommended that it is important to specify the nature and of the agreement. Clauson answered it is not important within the terms of the environmental continued. nmissioner Hawkins then asked about response SA -22 on page 10 -186. How will General Plan comply with Charter Section 423? He then read the answer listed on e 10 -186. He noted the analysis should be included in the defined analysis. Wood noted the question asks how the update will provide effective means to ply with Charter Section 423. It doesn't limit the question to this update, it is oral. The response tells us that we have enough information in the way the land map and tables are provided so that the City will be able to comply not only for this ate but for future amendments. comment was opened. comment was closed, file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \07132006.htm 08/14/206 Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 8 of I ommissioner Tucker then asked staff to comment on the most significant comments lat were made by EQAC, S. Genis, Greenlight and J. Vandersloot. He asked if there ere any comments of substance that would require additional material to be provided s iat it relates to land use planning and traffic. He stated he is looking for a public record demonstrates that on the more significant issues the Commission received a Clauson noted: . The master responses were to the issues that were raised the most such as the analysis of the 99th Street Bridge; the difference between this environmental document and the City's use of environmental study areas versus environmental sensitive habitat areas. Avila, noted that the master responses were to the issues that had been raised in 'ent forms in the letters. She gave an overview of each of the listed items: Master Response A: Inclusion of 99th Street bridge in EIR Analysis. The issue is that some of the surrounding jurisdictions oppose the construction of this bridge and therefore, may not always include it in their analysis or object to its inclusion in this analysis. In this document, because it is on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County, and because funding for transportation improvements is tied to including the adopted Master Plan of Arterial Highways in the City's General Plan, Newport Beach has always included the 19th Street bridge. It is important to note that an analysis done by Urban Crossroads of not including the 19th Street bridge is part of this transportation study and is not something that is included in the EIR, but it was included inasmuch as it is in the Appendices and is in the transportation study, which we studied with and without its implementation. Wood added that the change to the policy in the Circulation Element adding, 'or r alternatives subject to environmental review', was to help with the response to e comments. Master Response B: Cumulative Analysis Methodology. Comments were made that perhaps the analysis of cumulative impacts did not include the correct geographic location or did not account for the argument that has come up a lot recently with CEQA cases. Essentially, if you say we are adding one drop of water to the ocean, we don't have a cumulative impact because we are such a small percentage of a big problem. That is something the cumulative analysis avoids. So some were questioning did we use the drop of water analysis? What we provided in this response was actually going through each environmental topic and re- identifying the geographic context that was used for the analysis and describing why that was appropriate and adequate. There were specific comments about population and housing analysis as well as sewer run -off. For example, population and housing, the comment concern was that we were sayinr the increase in population would be just a very small proportion of Orange County's growth, so while one drop in the ocean is not always appropriate it is no necessarily wrong. So with regards to population and housing we described why it is appropriate in this instance. Master Response C: Use of 2002 Baseline. Some comment letters asked why this was used. We described in our response that the General Plan process was initiated years ago. The transportation analysis was initiated in 2002. We explained that the process was started in 2001 and that was the appropriate time for Urban Crossroads to do their work to identify existing conditions within the City and also to do an analysis of various land use alternatives. Also, this file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \07132006.htm 08/14/20( Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 9 of 15 process has been constant. The City never stopped the General Plan process, it has been a continuous process so that all the analysis and technical reports have built upon this comprehensive data base that was established with the Technical Background Report, which forms a part of the Environmental Impact Report. It has always been a continuous process and adding more knowledge. In addition, it is also a conservative analysis by evaluating changes from 2002. What has happened in the City since 2002 to 2006 is considered part of our project because we are using the 2002 baseline. Inasmuch as we identify impacts, they are larger than they would be if we used the baseline of 2006. Master Response D: Analysis of Impacts Beyond City Boundaries. Several comments were raised with regards to impacts on adjoining jurisdictions. What we went through was to describe our process for how we scoped the EIR. In developing the EIR we started with the Transportation Study and traffic modeling that was begun in 2002 and at that time we identified what our scope of work would be, and what our study area would be. We evaluated all the core intersections; our analysis was consistent with the approaches that were taken bi two adjoining jurisdictions, which are identified in this response. The approach was not a surprise to anyone who had been following the General Plan process, our technical background report which was published in 2004 or our initial study, published in 2006 which said what we were going to study. issioner Eaton asked how the professional judgment was arrived at that ctions further away from the joint intersections in common with other jurisdictions not be impacted. How was this analysis determined? Waters, Urban Crossroads, noted: That opinion was based upon quantitative information that was available in the various traffic studies that had been prepared during this process. In the case of Irvine, at the intersections along the major arterial Campus Drive where we actually share a boundary, what we found was we needed identical improvements at the intersections at MacArthur and Jamboree Road for either the currently adopted General Plan or the EIR with project scenario. That is one piece of evidence we considered in establishing that professional opinion that the impacts are no different than impacts that have previously been discussed and disclosed in various traffic studies including studies by the City of Irvine. We have the same impacts and we didn't think it likely there would be additional impacts beyond that. We also had daily traffic volumes that were shown for the roadways that cross the boundary between Irvine and the Newport Beach side. The daily traffic volumes changed minimally. typically 1,000 vehicles a day or less. So, those combined factors led us to reach that conclusion. mmissioner Tucker noted that while we are not specifically reviewing the traffic study light, we have had several meetings where we spent a lot of time on the traffic idies, but that would not be included in transcripts of prior meetings that were not par the EIR hearing process. It is appropriate to have a little description of the traffic idy analysis that we have had, as well as the detail look at the traffic generated from ch area. Hearings that we have gone through, starting from when we did the initial aring in December, would be good to put on the record because the traffic is what is vine this General Plan. Avila continued: . Master Response E: Level of Environmental Analysis. This was a question of I I whether we did a project or program analysis. A General Plan update is file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \07132006.htm 08/14/200 Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 10 of 15 appropriately evaluated at a program level and we described that. Subsequent projects that may occur under the General Plan may require additional environmental review. They will go through an initial study to make sure that they are all in accordance with the assumptions that have been made in the draft EIR. nissioner Tucker noted that the commenters are always disappointed that they get into the project level. It is a natural gray area, the difference between a am and a project level analysis. Temple added that many times when comments requesting the more specific ailed analysis, we simply do not have the specifics that could be used to actually do h an analysis. In other words, you can't do a shade and shadow analysis without e a building, location, height and massing. You just can't do it. It is a simple mple between a program and project level analysis. Waters, Urban Crossroads, noted: • The traffic analysis process goes back many years. • The City has maintained a traffic model continuously since the late Vs. • This specific process began prior to the initiation of the General Plan process as the traffic model was updated in anticipation of the General Plan process in the period of several months to a year prior to the formal initiation of the General Plan process. • The first document brought to the Commission for consideration was actually brought long before December in the form of the baseline report specific to traffic and transportation published in 2004. • Subsequent to that document, the next major document that was brought forward was a preliminary alternatives analysis that was guided by the visions of the GPAC, Planning Commission and City Council about a broad range of different development alternatives for the sub -areas where change was either anticipated or encouraged. That step in the process concluded in 2005 and was the point in the process where we looked at conditions without a 19th Street crossing of the Santa Ana River. One of the findings that was presented for consideration by the general plan update team was based on the model that was done at that time, that eliminating the 19th Street bridge would require an additional through lane on Coast Highway through West Newport at each of the key arterial intersections that were being analyzed. That was one of the technical quantitative findings that led to the subsequent inclusion of the 19th Street bridge on the basis of impacts that would be considered disproportionately impacting the City of Newport Beach. • The City Council and Planning Commission, with input from GPAC, had deliberated and found a preferred with project alternative for the Draft EIR and that represented several more months of effort making sure that we represented the land use data adequately. • We brought forth, during December 2005 and since, a minimum of two to 3 dozen public hearings or GPAC meetings where the information about potential impacts of these land use decisions and policy decisions have been discussed. Input from each of the decision making bodies have been considered as a matter of finally moving forward to the City Council to the ultimate and ongoing decisions. nissioner Tucker asked how many times he had appeared at the Planning nission in the last year, about 6 -7 times? Mr. Waters agreed. Continuing, iissioner Tucker noted the Commission has spent a lot of time looking at traffic ; before we finally got to the report tonight. We've been through this traffic issue times. We have a series of 4 intersections we need to have improved and we one change on a level of service (LOS) in Corona del Mar. Does the smaller n of the plan mean we have to make any fewer improvements other than those ied in order to mitigate the impacts of the project? file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \07132006.htm 08/14/20( Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 11 of 1.) Waters answered it is possible but hesitates to say any more until the land use plan s been finalized. The next time the traffic model is run, it will answer that question. e also know that of the improvements that are required based on the existing plus Dject analysis, that half of the intersections for with project conditions don't need provements at all (there is no regional growth). Another 3/4 of the intersections tually have a reduced improvement need. The converse of that, if you will, is if there no growth in the City, improvements would be needed for over half of the ersections just because of regional growth even without a single new office building retail center or home being constructed in the City. nissioner Cole noted there were several comments related to Level Of Service E hated at intersections that we reduced from 5 to 3. There is a question whether aft EIR would allow that given the current Traffic Phasing Ordinance does not for that in the City. Can you address that? ;. Wood answered regarding the intersections that would remain at Level Of Service )S) E as opposed to LOS D or better - a few of the commenters were under the pression that the existing Circulation Element in the General Plan sets a standard for iS D. Certainly EQAC was confused between the General Plan and the Traffic using Ordinance. The existing General Plan says that we will provide for the nstruction of intersection improvements to ensure service levels as close to LOS D possible. We don't have a firm policy in the Circulation Element, it says we will try LOS D, but we know that there are some intersections already operating at LOS E the time the existing Circulation Element was adopted. There was a conscious cision to accept those deficiencies at intersections that are impacted mostly by 3ional traffic. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance does have LOS D as the standard, but an intersection already operating at LOS E when a development project causes that get worse, the developer does not need to being it all the way back to LOS D but just mitigate the impact that development causes. Cole asked if the current project requires an amendment to the TPO? Wood answered no. We had a policy in the draft Circulation Element to amend the ) for consistency with the Circulation Element and that was one of the policies that City Council chose to eliminate Tuesday night. Tescher noted that any ordinance that implements the policies of the General Plan permitted by law to be more restrictive than the policy. 5. Clauson noted this was an area that came across as an area of confusion. Some the commenters were under the impression that the suggestion of changing the TPO go to LOS E was for the purpose of changing the TPO. It was really originally put nth as a consistency comment. When we thought about it we realized there wasn't a ed to have a policy to change it because it didn't need to be consistent. There is thing about the policy or the change in the recognized intersections in the Circulation ement that drives any need to change the TPO. ;sioner Hawkins asked about the General Plan traffic studies. How many are you referencing? Waters answered there is a Baseline Traffic Study Report that was produced in 4; there is a Traffic Study Report produced in support of the actual draft EIR ument that was produced in December or January; and during the deliberations that urred regarding the land use plan there was separate analysis of the existing plus ect condition. So, there were three distinct reports that go beyond a letter, report or no. Presentations were made on all of these to the Planning Commission and City incil as well as a presentation addressing the issue that arose about the currently file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Gvarin \PC min etal0006\07132006.htm 08/14/20( Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 12 of 15 dopted General Plan and the level of service that is achieved with that. Looking at the raffic study and the table ES -11, it shows that the currently adopted General Plan, hile striving to maintain level of service D or better, you have 18 intersections that do of achieve that standard as opposed to the 3 that we have managed to achieve rough this update process. Wood noted there was an additional traffic study done on the Land Use alternatives ire the project description for the EIR was selected. One of the series of comments in regard to the trip generation rates that were used in the transportation study and ie of the studies that were cited to show the adjustments in the trip generation rates. r. Waters noted there was a number of trip generation alternatives that were analyzed the sub -area level. Those were incorporated into the traffic study that supported the aft EIR. Additionally, the adjustments to trip generation rates that were incorporated to the traffic study were based on either local experience that would refer to changes the coastal area shoulder season residential trip rates where the model validation port demonstrates that you would over predict the number of people coming off alboa Island where you have one obvious point of egress /ingress. It would have over edicted the number of people going on and off the peninsula where we have two ays in and out. That is one report that was incorporated by reference into the rvironmental effort and is based on very explicit local area data. In addition to that, ere are a couple of Institute of Transportation Engineer Reports that are very iportant. The trip manual for ITE is the basis for the rates that are included in your action 423 requirements. ITE rates were used to address the likely trip generation for id or high rise apartment buildings. ITE has shown for any building that is higher than two -story apartment building you have upwards of 25 -30% and as high as 48% duction in peak hour trip generation just because of the characteristics of the people at live in those environments. That was applicable to the types of residential welopment that would have occurred in the airport area. Although the rates were love 25 %, we were conservative and used a 20% adjustment. ITE has been doing ore research lately into the topic of mixed use development and what happens when )u put residential, office and retail uses in close proximity to one another. The erature that we researched, including these ITE sources, indicates that you see a : duction because of size and the complimentary nature of the uses which can exceed )% internal capture or shift from the automobile to a different mode of travel. Again e were conservative and used a much smaller percentage for purposes of the ialysis that is included in the traffic study for this environmental process. At ommission inquiry, he stated that this study had been presented and discussed both t the Commission and Council meetings. Tucker asked what will be done at the next meeting. Wood answered that we should be done unless there are questions and need for tional information. The next meeting is the final time, so staff will have the lutions for your recommendation on the General Plan and the Environmental act Report. Ms. Wood noted the highlights of the EQAC comments: EQAC is more familiar with seeing EIRs that are on projects. This draft is a program EIR and is different. Some of their comments reflect their frustration with this system or lack of understanding of how much information would be available now. The hazards analysis - they had asked to quantify how much of this or that material would come about and it would simply be speculation at this point. Public Services - there was some misunderstanding on their part as to how the Fire Department analyzes the need for more facilities. They were expecting a file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \07132006.htm 08/14/200, Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 13 of 15 ratio of firefighters or fire stations to population. So they were assuming an increase in population or dwelling units would automatically presume a need for more fire facilities. In Newport Beach, because of our geography with the bay separating the City into two distinct geographic areas, our fire department focuses on response time rather than a population or dwelling unit number. The threshold questions do not ask, will you need more fire fighters and more police officers, the question is whether there will be an increase in need for these services that will result in the need for more facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts. In some cases we were not able to say whether or not there would be a need for new facilities, such as for fire. With police we were able to say that we could not accommodate the additional police officers and other staff that would be needed at the current facility. We weren't able to analyze any potential impact of a new facility because we don't know whether it would be on the current site or a sub - station somewhere else. There wasn't enough information at this point to talk about those impacts. They also commented on the Level Of Service D, which we just talked about. In the area of transportation and traffic there was a comment on the use of the shoulder season for our traffic counts and a feeling that we were not including all of the traffic in the traffic analysis, The shoulder season, which is the spring and fall traffic count, is a system that Newport Beach has used for a long time. The City's policy is not to plan our roadway system for those three months of the year when we have a higher level of visitor traffic and, therefore have wider roads in our community for all twelve months of the year that do not fit into our community character. We also don't do our traffic counts in the dead of winter when it would be unusually low. then continued on Genis comments: There was the program versus project EIR issue. A number of comments were addressed in the master responses with regard to the 19th Street Bridge, cumulative analysis and baseline for our analysis. A new topic raised was density bonuses for affordable housing. There seemed tc be an impression that our General Plan was providing for more density bonus than State Law requires and that is not the case. Our Housing Element has a program that says we will provide density bonuses only for affordable housing that is in addition to what is required by the Housing Element. We also explained that this is a provision of State Law and the City must provide density bonuses or other incentives of equivalent financial value when developers agree to provide affordable housing. Once again, not knowing what kind of proposals we would have for affordable housing that would qualify for the density bonuses we don't know how many there would be, we don't know if the City would agree to provide some other incentive, and so we couldn't analyze the impacts of those. There were a number of comments on biological impacts. Some of them were related to bluff protection and we revised and strengthened one of the Natural Resources Element polices with regard to Banning Ranch in response to these comments. We require an assessment by a qualified biologist prior to development. Some of those comments were things that can not be addressed in the program level EIR but need to wait until we have an actual project to evaluate. She commented on the environmental study areas, as we call them in the new plan, versus environmentally sensitive areas as they are called in the existing General Plan. That was the major topic of Vandersloot's comments so we can talk about these later. Some comments were about seismic safety and impacts, and we amended one of the figures to show another fault disclosure zone as well as added another policy to the Safety Element with regard to buildings other than essential facilitieE file: //F:\UserslPLMSharedlGvarinlPC min eta112006107132006.htm 08/14/20C Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 Page 14 of 15 Avila added that from page 9 to the end of the Genis letter, it was mostly small actions, or things that we described or clarified what the draft EIR text was. She done EIRs in many cities and this was a greater effort to respond than is typical. Response to Comments document is a proactive approach and there was an aordinary effort to link these comments to the EIR and to provide support for what said or to correct a misconception of what was said in the EIR. Many of the stions in the Genis letter were on the General Plan itself. Wood added that was true of the Greenlight letter as well. Temple noted the Greenlight comments: The first letter asked for an extension of the review period, which was granted. The second letter referenced the Genis and Vandersloot letters. The comments that were more plan related did drive the City to suggest, either through the response to comments or from the decision makers, some changes to the policy language. Those language changes were residential categories, densities and also the seeming loss of policies related to the residential sub - division restriction and the definition of buildable acreage. Those led to the City adding back the residential sub - division limitation and a further explanation of the buildable acreage definition, which is not incorporated into this plan. That is a reference and a consideration that those areas of the City to which that definition could have applied are now subject to specific dwelling unit limits as opposed to density categories, such as Banning Ranch. The other area, in concert with Vandersloot comments, was the terminology between environmental study area, environmentally sensitive area and environmentally sensitive habitat area. Because these terms currently are or have been in the past used in a wide variety of disparate ways throughout the existing General Plan, one of the efforts of this plan is to create a regular way we use these terms, and in addition, make them useful and interchangeable betweer this plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan. Avila added that Greenlight also had the same question about the Traffic Phasing nance that has already been discussed. Temple then noted the Vandersloot comments: It raised the fact that the Recreation and Open Space Element does use a new term, environmentally sensitive area. Our former LCP used the term environmentally sensitive habitat area and our proposal today within the General Plan is to use environmental study areas, which are acknowledged to possibly have areas which would qualify pursuant to the Coastal Act as environmentally sensitive habitat areas. The important thing to note is that when that term was used in 1980 with the original LCP, there was not the level of definition and regulation in terms of the specifics of that particular habitat definition. Even when we submitted our first drafts of our Coastal Land Use Plan last year to the Coastal staff, they warned us specifically to use that term with a great deal of caution because of the stature that the Coastal Act places upon areas so designated. As a result, in working with their staff, we came up with not just the structure and terminology regarding environmental study areas but also a host of policies that relate to the circumstances where you actually find an environmentally sensitive habitat area when studying one of these larger areas. This letter claims, as do the letters of Genis and Greenlight, that the older documents had a complete set of entirely effective policies in this area that are just as protective or perhaps more protective than the proposed policies in the General Plan. The responses to all of those comments are clearly set forth in JA -3 on page 10 -267 in the RTC. The General Plan and the Recreation and file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \07132006.htm 08/14/200, Planning Commission Minutes 07/13/2006 I Page 15 of 15 Open Space Element, as well as the former Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policies, all have qualification terms in them. They use words such as "may ", "if feasible ", 'if economically feasible," there are all kinds of ways to interpret your way out of a direct application of limitation or regulation. As any developer in the State of California dealing with a sensitive habitat knows, the ability to talk your way out of the application of the regulation as it may relate to avoidance or mitigation are simply not possible anymore. The new General Plan policies are much more in line with how all of the resource agencies apply their rules and regulations. Thus our professional biological consultants believe this is an improved system for the purpose of protecting habitats. Public comment was opened. There were no speakers. Public comment was closed. ommissioner Hawkins asked about the reduction from 20% to 15% in the affordable housing percentage. Did the analysis in the environmental document take that reduction into account? Ms. Wood answered that reduction would not have any physical impact on the nvironment. Motion was made by Acting Chairperson Toerge to continue the review of the General Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report to July 20th. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None bsent: None stain: None R ** DDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS } City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the City Council considered and approved the Steadfast property office expansion; reviewed Elements of the General Plan as noted in the staff report; and, received an analysis of the effect o the over as built condition initiative or the Greenlight II initiative. The Planning Commission asked for a copy of the report. Ms. Clauson gave a brief summary an a brief discussion ensued. b) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda fo action and staff report - none. } Project status - Commissioner Tucker asked for, and received, a status on the Sober Living by the Sea project. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner McDaniel noted he would not be ere for the August 3rd meeting and Commissioner Tucker asked to be excused from he meeting on August 3rd. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 P.M. IADJOURNMENT ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \07132006.htm 08/14/200f