The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGP Update-Final EIR and All ElementsCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 July 20, 2006 TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949 -644 -3222, swoodc@city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: General Plan Update — Final Environmental Impact Report and all Elements APPLICANT NAME: City of Newport Beach RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Receive public comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report and final draft of the General Plan. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 1692, recommending certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report to the City Council. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 1693, recommending approval of the General Plan to the City Council. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission and City Council have completed their detailed review of the proposed General Plan update. The Commission has received the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Final EIR, including responses to all comments received on the draft. Reports for previous public hearings have focused on details of the land use plan, policies for affordable housing, and review of policies in all the General Plan elements. In this report, staff will provide a review of the update process, an overview of the proposed General Plan and the differences between it and the existing General Plan, discussion of public comments on the proposed General Plan, and analysis required for compliance with Charter Section 423. General Plan Update Process The process to update the General Plan began on May 23, 2000, when the City Council appointed the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC), and directed them to design and conduct a public outreach process, report on the results and recommend the scope of an update to the General Plan. GPUC is 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. From their start through early 2006, GPUC held 54 General Plan Update July 20, 2006 Page 2 meetings, all of which were noticed and open to the public. Following are the major tasks that were undertaken by GPUC. • Designed visioning process • Reviewed and approved questions for statistically valid telephone survey • Made recommendations to City Council on consultant selection • Reviewed and approved methods and assumptions for traffic and fiscal studies, including trip generation, roadway system, and definition of land use alternatives for further study • Recommended scope of General Plan update • Reviewed all reports, including visioning summary, economic analysis, fiscal impact reports, and traffic reports The visioning process that GPUC designed included a number of public participation activities and events, shown below with the number of participants in each. A total of 3,199 residents and business people participated in the process. • Resident Telephone Survey 1,000 • Business Telephone Survey 175 • GPAC Meetings (12) 30 -37 • Newsletter Mailback 764 • Visioning Festival 400+ • Neighborhood Workshops 450+ • Visioning Summit 350+ • Website Key Questions 38 • Workshop Kit 22 Early in the visioning process, the City Council appointed the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). This is a 38- member citizen committee that was structured to provide representation from every segment of the community. Members were carefully chosen by the GPUC and City Council to represent all geographic areas, age groups, and areas of interest. Three members each were selected by the business community and the environmental community as a further means of ensuring balance on the Committee. 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. These meetings alone represent approximately 4,500 hours of volunteer time devoted to the General Plan update, and GPAC members spent countless additional hours reviewing material and preparing for meetings. During its four and a half years, GPAC performed the following tasks: • Reviewed visioning input and wrote Vision Statement to guide update • Reviewed technical reports on traffic, economics, fiscal impact, biological resources, hazards, and more • Received presentations on Housing Element requirements, regulation of large homes, fiscal impacts of visitor serving uses, the Bolsa Chica experience, and more • Reviewed Guiding Principles for policy development • Developed land use alternatives for 9 sub areas General Plan Update July 20, 2006 Page 3 • Reviewed traffic, fiscal and environmental impacts of alternatives • Recommended land use plan to Planning Commission and City Council • Reviewed all General Plan policies and made recommendations to Planning Commission and City Council Additional opportunities for public participation were provided during the update process, with two all -day public workshops. GPAC's land use alternatives were presented and discussed in small groups at the first workshop, and the draft General Plan was presented in an open house format, with stations for several specific issues, at the second workshop. Citizen participation in these workshops was 261. In addition to committee review of background information and the foundation for the General Plan update, the Planning Commission and City Council each reviewed the same material at 19 study sessions and regular meetings from 2003 through early 2006. This review included the scope of the update, issues raised in the visioning process and Technical Background Report, Guiding Principles, traffic analysis, fiscal impact analysis, land use alternatives and their impacts, and draft policies. Public hearings on the General Plan update began on April 11, 2006. A total of ten public hearings will have been held by the Planning Commission through July 20, 2006; and eight public hearings will have been held by the City Council through July 25, 2006. Overview of General Plan Update This is a comprehensive update of the General Plan, including revisions to all seven elements required by State planning law, as well as minor revisions to the existing Harbor and Bay Element, an optional element, and the addition of optional Arts and Cultural and Historic Resources Elements. in the proposed General Plan, all of these elements are preceded by, and are designed to achieve, the Vision Statement that was prepared by GPAC and adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council at the beginning of the update process. The Vision Statement is the final product of the community visioning process, and expresses the desired end state and what the community hopes to have achieved by 2025. It serves as the foundation for the General Plan, and ties the elements of the General Plan into a comprehensive blueprint for the future of Newport Beach. The existing General Plan has no overall statement of the community's vision for the future. Indeed, the elements were adopted at various times from 1974 to 2003, and they do not work together as a comprehensive guide. The Land Use Element is the backbone of the General Plan. It was most recently amended in 1988, along with the Circulation Element. At that time, the City made an extraordinary effort to comply with State law requiring correlation between these two elements. The result is a Land Use Element that is largely a land use quantity manual, rather than a guide for how future development should meet the City's goals, and complement or change the existing environment. There is no discussion of the character of Newport Beach's varied villages and residential neighborhoods, or policies on how to protect and enhance them. The existing Land Use Element includes only 12 "policies" (similar to goals in the proposed General Plan). Five of them apply Citywide, and seven address specific issue areas, but none address the needs or desires of the City for its different geographic areas. General Plan Update July 20, 2006 Page 4 As a primarily residential community, Newport Beach is not likely to experience land use changes in the vast majority of its land area. Rather, the community wishes to protect and enhance its existing residential neighborhoods and the unique character of each of them. Respecting this community vision, the proposed Land Use Element limits change to nine sub areas. For the vast majority of the City, the proposed element establishes goals and policies to protect, maintain and enhance existing residential neighborhoods. While the existing Land Use Element has two policies in this area, four goals and over 30 policies in the proposed element address residential neighborhood issues such as compatible development, neighborhood identification, neighborhood maintenance, character and quality of residential neighborhoods, renovation and replacement of existing residential units, buffering residential areas from adjoining commercial areas, and regulating residential care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by Federal and State law. The nine sub areas where land use changes are proposed are areas where change is likely due to the age of existing development and market forces, and where input from the visioning process indicated that residents are willing to consider changes. These sub areas were identified by GPUC in their scoping of the General Plan update. Even in the sub areas, the Land Use Element does not propose wholesale changes, but builds on existing land use and development patterns. Mixed use is introduced or increased in several areas to provide housing opportunities, especially in close proximity to employment where it can improve traffic flow, and to provide the impetus for revitalization of areas that do not perform well in their current commercial -only designations. The need for more medical office space near. Hoag Hospital is recognized with the land use designations proposed for West Newport Mesa. Commercial use is consolidated along Coast Highway in West Newport and in Balboa Village to provide critical mass for the success of these areas. One of the changes in the proposed element is a reduction from the existing plan. The interest of many citizens in having permanent open space on all or a majority of Banning Ranch is recognized with the first priority for Banning Ranch established as open space. Only if acquisition for open space does not occur in a timely manner may this property be developed with a residential village, and even then, a majority of the site must be retained as open space. While the development limits for Banning Ranch constitute a reduction from the existing plan, they still provide the property owners with reasonable development potential that will encourage them to work with the City in reviewing and permitting any development proposal. Each of the nine sub areas, divided into districts and corridors based on their characteristics, has a set of goals and policies to guide the development that is allowed in the proposed Land Use Element. These statements set priorities for land uses, establish development density /intensity, provide guidance for design and development and outline strategies to achieve the goals for each sub area. The proposed Land Use Element includes approximately 175 policies for the sub areas, whereas the existing element only provides the quantities of each type of land use that may be developed in each area. The proposed element sets land use limits with the same level of specificity by providing more information on the Land Use Plan map and in tables. Correlation between the Land Use Element and Circulation Element is maintained in the proposed General Plan. A new traffic model, consistent with requirements of the Orange County Transportation Agency, was prepared for the General Plan update, and was used to General Plan Update July 20, 2006 Page 5 analyze the traffic impacts of the land use plan and identify where improvements to the circulation system will be needed to provide acceptable traffic flow upon buildout of the General Plan. The Planning Commission and City Council used the information in the transportation study extensively during their review of the land use plan during public hearings. They directed staff to make numerous reductions in the density and intensity of development in the plan. The Trip Generation Comparison table (Attachment 1) compares average daily trip generation from buildout of the existing General Plan, the GPAC recommendations, the project analyzed in the EIR, and the project as recommended by the Planning Commission and City Council (including changes through June 27, 2006). The currently recommended land use plan reduces trip generation substantially from the project analyzed in the EIR (59,317 trips), and also reduces trip generation from both the GPAC recommendations (30,431 trips) and the existing General Plan (28,920 trips). These reductions do not include those resulting from the City Council's changes to the land use plan on July 11, 2006, and the reductions will be larger when these land use changes are included in the final run of the traffic model next month. The existing Circulation Element includes policies to construct improvements to accommodate traffic at service levels "as close to Level of Service D as possible." It predicts that some intersections will operate at a level worse than this, and "represents a conscious decision' to accept worse levels of service (LOS) in the Airport Area and focus efforts on portions of the system less impacted by regional traffic. The proposed element also recognizes the significant impact of regional traffic on Newport Beach, as well as the desire of residents — expressed during the visioning process — to maintain the character of the community and not to build oversized streets and intersections. The proposed element takes a different approach from the existing one, and sets a standard of LOS D for a great majority of intersections in Newport Beach. LOS E is set as the standard for three intersections along Coast Highway, where regional traffic is significant and where improvements to achieve LOS D would be infeasible or would be unacceptable to the community because they would harm the pedestrian character of Corona del Mar. LOS E is also set as the standard for five intersections in the Airport Area that are shared with the City of Irvine, whose standard in the area is LOS E. With the improvements included in the Circulation Element and the land use mix in the Land Use Element, the proposed General Plan will result in only these eight intersections not operating at LOS D or better. Improvements and land uses under the existing General Plan would result in 18 intersections operating at a level worse than LOS D. Just as the existing Land Use Element is more of a land use quantity manual than a policy document, the existing Circulation Element is more a list of circulation system improvements than a policy document. The proposed Circulation Element includes improvements that will achieve better traffic flow than the existing element, and it also includes more policies to improve mobility in Newport Beach. For example, there are new policies for the City to be a strong advocate for the 19'" Street Bridge, to improve traffic signal synchronization, and to consider traffic calming measures on local neighborhood streets. The proposed element also encourages more alternative transportation modes, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities (including waterfront walkways) and water transportation. The proposed Natural Resources Element is expanded and updated significantly, as well as brought into conformance with the many changes in Federal and State law since adoption of the existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element in 1974. The existing element addresses General Plan Update July 20, 2006 Page 6 only six topics: water quality, air quality, beach erosion, mineral resources, archaeological and paleontological resources, and energy conservation. The proposed element adds the topics of water supply, biological resources (with separate sections on terrestrial and marine resources, environmental study areas, Newport Harbor, Upper Newport Bay and the Natural Communities Conservation Plan), open space resources, and visual resources. Water quality alone — which participants in the visioning process told us is a high priority — is addressed with three goals and 28 policies, and biological resources are addressed with seven goals and 35 policies. In addition, the proposed element is consistent with the recently adopted and certified Coastal Land Use Plan. Some public comments on the draft General Plan and EIR criticize the proposed Natural Resources Element for its naming and treatment of environmental study areas. These areas are called environmentally sensitive areas in the existing Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements. A different name is used in the proposed General Plan, but the proposed policies are much stronger and offer much more protection to resources than the existing General Plan does. Existing Land Use Element Policy D begins by prohibiting structures and landform alterations in these areas, but it goes on to allow the Planning Commission to determine whether or not an area is environmentally sensitive — without any requirements for professional study — and to approve a development plan in an environmentally sensitive area when the benefits outweigh the environmental impacts. The Recreation and Open Space Element only identifies environmentally sensitive areas; it includes no policies for their protection. The proposed Natural Resources Element, on the other hand, establishes policies that do the following. • Require site specific survey and analysis by a qualified biologist as a filing requirement for any application for development within or contiguous to an environmental study area • Require that siting and design of new development protect any sensitive or rare resources against any significant reduction of habitat values • Limit uses within an area containing any significant or rare biological resources to only those uses that are dependent on such resources, unless this would result in a taking of private property • Maintain a buffer of sufficient size around significant or rare biological resources and require the use of native vegetation • Shield and direct exterior lighting away from significant or rare biological resources • Provide special requirements for Buck Gully, Morning Canyon and Banning Ranch The proposed General Plan also includes improvements over the existing plan in the following areas. • Harbor and Bay Element is better integrated into the General Plan, and policies are cross- referenced to other elements. • Housing Element identifies more sites to meet Newport Beach's fair share of regional housing needs, and more housing opportunities for persons who grew up in Newport Beach and/or who work in the City. • Historic Resources and Arts and Cultural issues are addressed for the first time. • Recreation Element includes priorities for development of new parks. • Safety Element is updated, conforms with State law, and continues the City's strong position on expansion of John Wayne Airport. General Plan Update July 20, 2006 Page 7 New Plan Revisions The final draft of the proposed General Plan is being distributed to the Planning Commission with this report. This is a "clean" version, including all the revisions shown in st4keeutlundedine in the July 7, 2006 draft, corrections to that draft noted by Commission members and staff, and the changes directed by the City Council on July 11, 2006 and by the Planning Commission on July 13, 2006. New or revised policies include the following. New LU 6.14. 7 Requires discretionary review of Fashion Island parking structures Revised LU 6.14.1 Clarifies that Newport Center use conversions require City Council approval, and retail floor area added in this General Plan update may not be converted Revised CE 3.1.5 Adds reference to required environmental review for I Street Bridge or alternatives (EIR comment) New NR 1.6 Gives priority for water and sewer supply and services to affordable housing (New State law requirement; also added to H 2.2) Implementation Program This section of the proposed General Plan has been revised significantly since the March 27, 2006 draft, and staff and the Commission have not reviewed these revisions in detail. In addition, the Economic Development Committee is still preparing a Strategic Plan for Fiscal and Economic Sustainability, and its provisions need to be summarized in the General Plan Implementation Program. Although an implementation program is recommended in the General Plan Guidelines of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, the General Plan will be complete without approving the Implementation Program, and it can be added later without an amendment to the General Plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the General Plan without the Implementation Program. We will return to the Commission with a detailed review and revisions, so that it can be approved prior to the public vote on the General Plan. Public Comments on the General Plan The City has received comments from the public and other public agencies during review of the draft General Plan by the Planning commission and City Council. Staff has forwarded all of these comments to the Commission and Council as we have received them, and two new comment letters are attached to this report. In addition, some comment letters on the Draft EIR included comments on the General Plan. A general description of the comments and how they have been addressed is provided below, with the exception of comments from individual property owners who requested changes in land use designations or policies related to their properties, which were considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in previous public hearings. General Plan Update July 20, 2006 Page 8 General Plan Comments Letters with similar comments were received from both John Wayne Airport and the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. Several revisions to the draft General Plan have been made in response to these comments and outlined in reports for the June 22, July 6 and July 13, 2006 hearings. We are awaiting final letters from these agencies, and expect that our revisions will have addressed all of their comments. Numerous property owners in areas with current designation for two- family development sent letters and a -mails requesting that those designations not be changed. The recommended plan makes no changes in those areas. The Harbor View Hills Community Association requested an additional policy in the Circulation Element regarding the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, and that has been added. Property owners in Santa Ana Heights requested that a portion of a proposed equestrian trail along Mesa Drive be eliminated from the Circulation Element. The pre- annexation agreement for Santa Ana Heights does not allow the City to change the General Plan or Specific Plan for this area without consent of the County of Orange. The existing Circulation Element does not include a map of equestrian trails, but the trail in question is in the Specific Plan. For consistency with the pre- annexation agreement, the equestrian trail map was deleted from the proposed Circulation Element. The Airport Working Group requested that the Safety Element include a policy from the existing General Plan regarding opposition to facility expansions at John Wayne Airport, except those described in the Settlement Agreement Extension, and that policy was added. Lori Kiesser expressed concern with Natural Resources Element policies regarding City management of the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve and Ecological Reserve, and Peter Bryant testified on the same issue. These policies were revised to refer to cooperative management by various public agencies, non - profit organizations and volunteers. In addition to submitting letters on the DEIR, Greenlight submitted a letter for the City Council meeting of June 27, 2006 (Attachment 2). The letter notes that the Housing Element does not provide the total number of dwelling units that would be allowed by the proposed General Plan Land use Element. Staff assumes this is a reference to Table H 30. The Land Use and Housing Elements have different purposes. The Land Use Element provides land use categories, densities and intensities of development allowed, and policies to guide that development, for all land in the City and its planning area. The planning horizon of the Land Use Element is 20 years. The Housing Element is required by State law and the Housing Element Guidelines to demonstrate how the City will provide its share of regional housing need during a planning period of five years. The Housing Element must demonstrate that there is enough land available to meet the City's housing needs for the planning period. For this purpose, Table H 30 lists only the areas of the City where larger numbers of units may be developed, and demonstrates that Newport Beach can meet its housing needs. The total number of dwelling units allowed by the Land Use Element is provided in Table 3 -3 of the EIR, and all of the environmental analysis is based on this number. The Housing Element focuses on providing affordable housing for lower income households, because that is what State law General Plan Update July 20, 2006 Page 9 requires it to do. It also addresses the need for market rate housing by demonstrating that there is land available to meet Newport Beach's needs at all income levels. As noted in the discussion of the Land Use Element earlier in this report, that element includes many policies to protect all residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission and City Council based their recommendation to set a goal of 15% for affordable housing on projections of future housing need and the number of units that could be developed over the life of the Land Use Element, which showed that 15% is a reasonable number to meet Newport Beach's housing needs. Regardless of the affordable housing goal, a method to implement that goal is needed, and any method would need to provide for adjustments based on the unique circumstances of future projects. Affordable Housing Implementation Programs (AHIPs) are commonly used, and acceptable to the California Housing and Community Development Department. In the letter included as Attachment 3, Newport Heights residents ask if there are sufficient requirements in the proposed General Plan and City codes to address three issues they have with commercial development on Old Newport Boulevard: noise and safety from commercial trash pick -up, parking on residential streets, and increased traffic on residential streets. Some of the specific issues they raise are outside the scope of the General Plan update, but we will work with the General Services Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement to address complaints about ongoing operations. Other issues, such as the location of trash bins and specific parking requirements, are more appropriate for ordinances that will implement the General Plan and conditions of approval on specific projects. However, staff notes that the recent amendment to the Zoning Code to increase parking standards for medical offices should assist with the parking issue from future developments of this use. In addition, the proposed General Plan includes policies that require commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible and minimize impacts (LU 5.2.2); require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility between neighborhoods and districts (LU 5.6.1); and require that new development provide adequate, convenient parking for business patrons (CE 7.1.1). EIR Comments The Environmental quality Affairs Committee (EQ -50) noted that Policy R 9.5 was unclear as to the beneficiaries of coastal access protection. That policy has been revised to state that the protection is from encroachment from private /gated communities. Greenlight's comment letter on the DEIR contains several comments that are related more to the General Plan than to the EIR. Nonetheless, responses are provided in Chapter 10 of the Final EIR. Policy changes have been made in response to some of these comments, including addition of a policy that prohibits new residential subdivisions (which makes moot a policy regarding buildable acreage) and deleting the policy to amend the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The concept of flexible floor area ratios (FAR) is not included in the proposed General Plan. However, all impacts were analyzed based on the high end of the range of FARs included in the March 27, 2006 draft General Plan. Revisions directed by the Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings have reduced most FARs to the low end of the flexible FAR range included in the existing General Plan. Staff does not understand the comment that density bonuses "well beyond what would be required by state density bonus law" are allowed by the proposed General Plan. Housing element policies make specific reference to State law, and do not go beyond what is required. Philip Arst of Greenlight also testified at the City General Plan Update July 20, 2006 Page 10 Council hearing of June 27, 2006, regarding the policy allowing the conversion of hotel rooms in Newport Center to residential entitlement and its inconsistency with Charter Section 423. That policy has been deleted. Newport Banning Ranch LLC also submitted a comment letter on the DEIR that included requests for revisions to the General Plan, and responses are provided in Chapter 10 of the Final EIR. General Plan policies have been revised in the following areas to address these comments: processing of development entitlements and permits during period for open space acquisition, greater detail regarding time and terms for acquisition as open space, additional requirements to address lighting impacts from development of the property, and additional requirement for biological assessment prior to development of the property. Charter Section 423 Analysis This information will be provided separately. Environmental Review: The Draft EIR for the proposed General Plan was released for public review on April 24, 2006, and the public review period closed on June 13, 2006. Comments were received from 19 agencies, organizations and individuals in 20 response letters. These are addressed in five master responses (that address repetitive comments) and 425 individual responses. The Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR, the Technical Appendices and the Responses to Comments, including Text Changes. The Final EIR includes no mitigation measures, since the General Plan was written to be a self - mitigating document through the inclusion of policies that might otherwise be considered mitigation measures. In fact, the General Plan was revised during the environmental review process to add policies that would avoid environmental impacts. Through this approach, everything that needs to be implemented and enforced to avoid impacts on the environment will be in one document, which will reduce the potential for these provisions to be forgotten in the future. In considering a recommendation to certify the Final EIR, the Planning Commission should determine that the Final EIR has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Final EIR was presented to the Commission, the information contained in the Final EIR was reviewed and considered in recommending approval of the project, and the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. To support these findings it is noted that the Final EIR was prepared by professional consultants retained by the City with specific expertise in environmental and traffic analysis. Portions of the report were prepared either by or with the participation of persons with education and expertise in a variety of technical disciplines. Additionally, the report was reviewed by various City staff members with direct knowledge of the City of Newport Beach and experience in specific issue areas to assure the report reflected the independent judgment of the City. Through the public review process, information and clarification was added to provide the most complete information possible to the decision makers. General Plan Update July 20, 2006 Page 11 Public Notice: Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to whom notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case with a comprehensive General Plan update), notice may be provided by placing a one - eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the General Plan and EIR was provided in this manner on the following dates, with the notice for this particular hearing provided on July 8 and 15, 2006, March 28, 2006 April 8, 2006 April 22, 2006 April 29, 2006 May 6, 2006 May 20, 2006 May 27, 2006 June 3, 2006 June 10, 2006 June 24, 2006 July 1, 2006 July 8, 2006 July 15, 2006 Submitted by: LatneL Sh ron Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Trip Generation Comparison Table 2. Letter from Greenlight, June 26, 2006 3. Letter from Newport Heights residents, July 13, 2006 4. Resolution No. 1692 5. Resolution No. 1693 VI Z 0 Q Z CW cG C 0 U W C J_ V Z 0 Z U o im w V < 4{ Q �r U U 0 LU ZIx Od Q W W Z WO 0 r d Q r W 2 0 W C u Q IL 0 d 0 0 Z P Vl X W • O N"I c N ^ h OV M V O O• ISM N fhM } M MN CqN N h � n • 0, O O N P N m N O N P P h`0 M O•PN 0, R O N M M � G N w 'O V V ^ V O O H O Q }'n of hCi P } M M 0 O10N V a0� O QaDNMC^V �PRONO� ON O lc OP � g100 Nd.he00 h P {O! V V P 'q 00NCam'/ o V V w Lo P M^O nQO NO V OQ vi �n N �C e�O�O �O h hen ?P ^MN P O N O 0N _ P N N N'vO: P C)C'i 0 h � OD P P "Z0 CVp n CD W 0 O M YPO D D h0 I� O P - M ReD N O O 0, n � go CO p! ^P[V V Ln .- c �P 'O� b N 000 V V P ae22 y 0 v° m ? 2cmt v N °$ o j d i m �°- o °o ° d °e > e a d CO° Z m e Q m° m° u V= 'L N Z X O j V 72 Greenlight PO Box 3362 Newport Beach, CA 92659 newportgreenlight@cox.net Gregg B. Ramirez City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3219 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915 Subject: City Council Agenda Item #33 June 27, 2006 "RECEIV •D AFTER --7F AGENDA PRINTED; "�a 6 June 26, 2006 Based upon the contents of the housing element, a statement of the true number of DU's being added by the GPU over the 9 areas of concentration is lacking. Additional DU's authorized under the current GP are omitted. In earlier traffic studies, the traffic generated by these other areas of the city was equal to the amount generated by the proposed increases in the GPU. My questions are: How many DU's are being added in totality by the GPU and permitted under non - changed portions of the current General Plan? How many more can be built using the density bonuses of the State? How many more can be added by converting hotel room entitlements under the GPU to DU's? What is the true traffic generation count? Why are all these factors hidden from the public? The GPU has deceptively hidden this total proposed growth in DU's and traffic and needs to be redone to both correct CEQA violations and to provide a true count of projected growth and its . effects upon noise, air quality, water and wastewater supply, traffic generation and other environmental factors required by CEQA. According to the EIR, the city had 40,179 dwelling units as of 2002, including Newport Coast units annexed that year. Under the existing GP, they indicate that up to 49,729 units could be provided, i.e. 9,000+ more than exist. The EIR says that with the proposed project, up to 54,394 units could be provided, or an additional 4,666 above the existing GP build out. However, the specific changes they were showing in the EIR for just the nine detailed areas totaled about 2,000 more multi family units (5,796) than what they were showing for a total city wide (3,833), so their totals didn't add up. Why is the housing element dedicated almost exclusively to affordable housing? Don't the remainder of we residents need some guidelines to protect our home investments and quality of life? City's proposal to permit affordable housing compared to what the City requires now (20% inclusionary), the PC recommendation of 15 %, plus a way to wiggle out of even that with AHIPs, is a total giveaway to developers. Thank you for your review of this matter, Greenlight Philip Arst 1131!311110 M3N 30.1110 W3`I0 A1133H13130t"1 CC: City Council LZ: V LZ ice' 90. 03AW3a 13 City of Newport Beach Gregg B. Ramirez Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: General Plan Update Dear Sir, ��0Nnr_(' ocuc�i ING '.-p.Rt'MEN7. UFv�ir�ri7 BEACH AM JUL 1' 9 Our Newport Heights residential neighborhood is adjacent to the Old Newport Boulevard commercial area. The current increasing impact of this comtnercial area on our neighborhood has resulted in the diminution of the quality of life for the residents. Generally affected areas include: A) noise and safety concerns from commercial trash pick -up, B) parking on residential streets instead of utilization of assigned commercial parking, & C) increased traffic volume on residential streets, with associated safety concerns. Specific current problems which significantly affect the residential neighborhood include: A 1) commercial trash/restaurant garbage bins located on Westminster Avenue and adjacent to the residential portion of said Avenue - -which is predominately residential. (Does the city have code/planning requirements in the updated general plan that prohibit the location of trash/garbage bins adjacent to residential areas to minimize the resultant noise, traffic and safety impact on the residents ?) A 2) commercial trash/garbag0 trucks after the noisy )?ick -up of trash/garbage on Westminster Avenue dnve in reverse with limited vtstbrlrty out of the trash/garbage storage area onto Westminster and partially block both lanes of the Avenue resulting in a significant safety problem. (Does the city have code/planning requirements which address the location and access of trash/garbage bins and associated traffic safety concerns ?) A 3) commercial trash/garbage trucks after the noisy . pick -up of trash/garbage quite frequently drive an unnecessary circular route through the residential neighborhood. (Does the city have code/planning requirements in the updated general plan that prohibit these large commercial trash/garbage trucks from driving unnecessarily through the residential neighborhood when there have been no service requests made by the residents ?) 1`" B 1) employees and/or patrons of nearby businesses (medical, restaurant, commercial, etc.) have been using the residential streets for commercial parking. This leaves the streets of Westminster, Beacon, Broad and Holmwood with serious parking for the residents of said streets. (Does the city have code /planning requirements in the updated general plan that specify that employees must park on their business employment parking area and not on the residential streets? Is there a requirement that the parking spaces be specifically and clearly marked/reserved for employees ?) In addition, the alley parallel to Holmwood is predominately residential but is currently used extensively for commercial parking and traffic. This significantly detracts from the residential quality of life. Is this addressed in the updated general plan by prohibiting parking and through traffic in such situations? B 2) additionally, if there is an off -site parking agreement, what are the city requirements for lease duration, legal recordation with accessibility by the public and individual parking spaces signage specifications to assure the markings are clear and specific in the intended usage? What actions are taken by the city and imposed upon the commercial business upon the expiration of said agreement? B 3) again, related to parking, a tent trailer is presently stored on a medical business property - -it is not known if the tent trailer occupies an approved parking space of the business. (Does the city have code/plamung requirements in the updated general plan that prohibit the storage of tent trailer, vehicles, etc. on commercial property ?) Many of the above current problems have been previously submitted to Code Enforcement under a separate cover. The future impact of the Old Newport Boulevard commercial area on our neighborhood traffic, safety and parking is very important to our quality of life and will only become more of a concern as the adjacent commercial area continues to undergo redevelopment under the current and Updated General Plan. The future redevelopmentladdition of several medical and multi- purpose buildings will create more traffic and associated safety on our residential streets and potentially more parking issues. These issues have become of paramount important since the demographics of our residential area has recently changed with a significant increase in the number of children in the neighborhood. Attached is a signed list of the residents who are concerned about the various issues. We would like to be assured that the General Plan Update and the associated updated City Code will adequately address and resolve the issues and restore a good quality of life to the neighborhood. We thank you in advance for your prompt consideration of our requests and ask that you please contact us via e-mail. Sincerely, Tom Baker, tomtubaker @hotmail.com Rah h Kafespan, @Ya wo.com R Signed, )�p Signed, n Signed, i� RESOLUTION NO. 1692 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2006011119)[PA2006 -195]. WHEREAS, after an extensive public participation process, the City prepared a comprehensive update of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the State Clearinghouse, which assigned State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119, indicating that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared; and WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review period commencing on January 20, 2006 and ending on February 27, 2006; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was filed with the State Clearinghouse on April 21, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The Draft EIR dated April 2006 was been distributed separately due to bulk and is hereby designated as EXHIBIT EIR -1 of this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, a 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, commencing on April 21, 2006 and ending on June 5, 2006. The review period was subsequently extended to June 13, 2006; and WHEREAS, all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in the Response to Comments (RTC) document, which is Chapter 10 of the Final EIR, Volume 1A, dated July 2006. The Response to Comment document has been distributed separately due to bulk and is hereby designated as EXHIBIT EIR -2 of this Resolution as if fully set herein. The Planning Commission considered all comments and responses during its review of the Environmental Impact Report and project, and the process did not raise significant new information of a significant environmental impact that would warrant revision of the EIR or recirculation of the EIR for additional public input and /or comment; and JA Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692 Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, on September 9, 2004, December 9, 2004, May 19, 2005, June 9, 2005, August 16, 2005, August 30, 2005 and November 17, 2005, the Planning Commission held noticed public meetings at which time the project description for the Environmental Impact Report was considered; and WHEREAS, on May 4, 2006, May 18, 2006, June 1, 2006, June 15, 2006 and June 22, 2006, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings at which time the draft Environmental Impact Report was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearings was given in accordance with applicable laws and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearings. Responsible and. trustee agencies and the public have been given an opportunity to review and comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on July 13 & 20, 2006, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings at which time the Environmental Impact Report along with the comments received and responses prepared (Final EIR) were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearings was given in accordance with applicable laws and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearings; and WHEREAS, the draft and final EIR analyzes the impacts of the project at the level of a program EIR, analyzes potential cumulative impacts and discusses project alternatives as required by CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies significant impacts to the environment which are unavoidable in the areas of Aesthetics and Visual Quality Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Population and Housing and Transportation/ Traffic. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119) attached to this Resolution by reference has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. The final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission and the Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to making its recommendation. 3. The final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 4. The Planning Commission recommends that the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119) be certified by the Newport Beach City Council. )a ADOPTED THIS 20T" DAY OF JULY, 2006. M Jeffery Cole, Chairman M Robert Hawkins, Secretary Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692 Page 3 of 5 AYES: NOES: '71 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692 Page 4 of 5 EIR -1 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update including the Technical Appendix (SCH #2006011119) This document is on file with the Planning Department — PA2006 -195 as Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692 Page 5 of 5 EIR -2 Final Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update (SCH #2006011119) This document is on file with the Planning Department — PA2006 -195 a3 RESOLUTION NO. 1693 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN [PA2006- 195] WHEREAS, Section 65300 et seq., of the California Government Code requires cities and counties to prepare long- range, comprehensive guides known as general plans; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach adopted a general plan consisting of mandatory and optional elements in 1973 through 1975, consisting of text and maps; and WHEREAS, the last major revision of the City of Newport Beach General Plan was accomplished in 1988, being comprehensive revisions to the Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, other elements have been amended and updated from time to time, including the Housing, Noise, and Recreation and Open Space Elements; and WHEREAS, since its original adoption, two optional elements have been added to the General Plan, being the Growth Management and Harbor and Bay Elements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the existing General Plan, as amended, must be revised to sufficiently address the range and breadth of issues, technological, environmental, economic, and demographic changes, within and outside the city, that have affected Newport Beach since the plan was adopted; and WHEREAS, Section 707 (a) of the Newport Beach Charter requires the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council the adoption, amendment or repeal of a Master Plan, or any part thereof, for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65353 requires that, when local regulations have authorized a Planning Commission to review and make recommendations on a proposed General Plan or amendments to a General Plan, the Commission shall hold at least one public hearing before making its recommendation; and al Planning Commission Resolution No. 1693 Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a series of meetings to make recommendations on the project description on which to base the Environmental Impact Report on the following dates: September 9, 2004 December 9, 2004 May 19, 2005 June 9, 2005 August 16, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting August 30, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting November 17, 2005 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also conducted a series of meetings to make recommendations to the City Council on the policies to be included in the various elements of the General Plan on the following dates: March 3, 2005 October 4, 2005 —Adjourned Meeting October 20, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting October 20, 2005 November 29, 2005 _ Adjourned Meeting December 6, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting January 31, 2006 — Adjourned Meeting March 9, 2006 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered public testimony in a series of public hearings which were fully noticed as required by California Government Code Section 65091 on the following dates: April 6, 2006 April 20, 2006 May 4, 2006 May 18, 2006 June 1, 2006 — Adjourned Meeting June 15, 2006 —Adjourned Meeting June 22, 2006 July 6, 2006 July 13, 2006 —Adjourned Meeting July 20, 2006 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach as follows: Section 1. Adoption of Draft General Plan. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the comprehensive revision of the Newport Beach General Plan (PA 2006 -195, GP2006 -005), including text, (:\Users \PLN\Shared\GP Update GBR \Planning Commission \GP Reso 7- 20- 06(2).doc � 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1693 Page 3 of 5 graphics, and land use map as presented at the public hearing of July 20, 2005. The Planning Commission declares as follows: a. Finding of Completeness and Adequacy. The recommended General Plan contains a thorough and adequate treatment of land use and development issues. The General Plan includes all elements mandated by California planning and development law, and three optional elements: Harbor and Bay, Historical Resources, and Arts and Cultural. The existing Growth Management Element has been incorporated into the Circulation Element. b. Promotion of Public Health, Safety, and Welfare. The plan addresses long -term planning needs for the City's public safety services, incorporating new policies regarding police, fire and emergency services protection, coastal hazards, seismic and geologic hazards, flood hazards, fire hazards, hazardous materials, aviation hazards, and disaster preparedness. C. Based on Community Vision. The plan is based on input received from residents and property and business owners during the visioning and update processes, and the Vision Statement developed at the culmination of the visioning process. d. Good City Planning Practices. The plan calls for improvements in the handling of new development by requiring a high level of architectural design quality, traffic and transportation management, and other initiatives. The plan increases open space and recreation opportunities, recommends traffic calming and neighborhood protection strategies, and offers new policies for the first time in the areas of historical resource management, community arts and cultural resources and community design. The plan also increases housing opportunities in close proximity to and within employment centers, which will reduce traffic within the community, reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve jobs /housing balance. The plan provides a strong correlation between the Land Use and Circulation Elements as required by law. It also strengthens protections for environmental resources, including the Upper Newport Bay and other sensitive habitats. e. Improved Traffic Flow. The land use mix and circulation system improvements in the plan result in the generation of fewer trips over the life of the plan than the existing plan, and an improvement in traffic flow and intersection performance. f. Relationship to General Plan Environmental Determination. It is the intent of the Planning Commission that the General Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report be seen as integrally related documents. I:Wsers\PLNXShared\GP Update GBRTIanning Commisslon \GP Reso 7- 20 -06(2).doc a(.0 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1693 Page 4 of 5 1. The Planning Commission declares that the issues and concerns analyzed in the Final EIR have been addressed in the General Plan as policies designed to address those issues and concerns. 2. The Planning Commission declares that adoption of this General Plan and Final EIR does not preclude the necessity or requirement for any further environmental review which would normally be conducted in conjunction with project approvals under the City of Newport Beach policies regarding the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 2. Consistency with Recent Statutes. In recommending adoption this General Plan, the Planning Commission finds, determines and declares that every reasonable effort has been made to incorporate recent legislation into the General Plan. This includes the incorporation of specific provisions, goals, objectives and policies as follows. a. Water. This includes water supplies, stormwater management and groundwater issues as required by recent legislation. b. Child Care, Social Services, and the Homeless. The General Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission, contains a series of specific objectives and policies with respect to the provision of social services, and the homeless as provided by relevant provisions of State law. C. Environmental Review. The recommended General Plan is consistent with the provisions of Assembly Bill 3180 (1988) in that it directly incorporates specific mitigation measures as policy. The Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Director or his/her designee shall be the primary party responsible for successful completion of the policies specified in the plan. The Planning Department shall file an annual report with the City Council demonstrating progress toward implementation of the plan. d. Housing. The General Plan, through its Housing Element, provides objectives, quantified targets, and specific policies for development of municipal housing programs consistent with State law. The Housing Element has been previously certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and the updated element will be submitted for their review. The updated Housing Element contains substantially the same policies as the certified element, but significantly increases the number of sites available for residential development, which improves the City's ability to fulfill a level of housing production needed to meet the existing and future RHNA goals for the term of the plan. 1:%Users\PLMShared\GP Update GBMPIanning CommissionlGP Reso 7- 20- 06(2).doc a Planning Commission Resolution No. 1693 Page 5 of 5 Section 3. Consistency with Regional Plans. The Planning Commission finds and declares that through its efforts to reduce vehicle trips, promote walkability, preserve and protect critical watercourses and embrace sustainable technologies, the plan is consistent with: a. The Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan, b. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Section 5. Public Comment. The Planning Commission affirms that it considered, to the best of its ability, all public testimony and all relevant information provided to it; and that the General Plan recommended by this resolution represents its best effort to accommodate the diverse and competing needs of residents, property owners, and social and economic components of the City's population and workforce. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 2006, by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California. BY: Jeffrey Cole, Chairman M Robert Hawkins, Secretary AYES: NOES: 1AUsers \PLN \SharedlGP Update GBR \Planning CommissionZP Reso 7- 20- 06(2).doc f, �b