HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-04-2005 GP UpdatePlanning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005
Page 1 of 11
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
October 4, 2005
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
file : //H: \Plancomm \2005\100405.htm 11/21/2005
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn
Commissioner Cole was excused, Commissioner McDaniel arrived at 4:10, all other
ommissioners were present.
STAFF PRESENT:
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
haron Wood, Assistant City Manager
ron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney
finger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary
aylene Olson, Department Assistant
Elwood Tescher, Consultant, EIP Associates
Ms. Temple introduced Ms. Olson as the principal back up for the Planning Commission
Secretary.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
one
None
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE
he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on September 30, 2005.
AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
HEARING ITEMS
SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Review draft goals and policies for the Historical
ITEM NO. 1
Resources Element.
Discussion
Ms. Wood noted the Commission will be focusing on the policies. The General Plan
Item
Advisory Committee (GPAC) had reviewed these policies this past Saturday and their
recommendations are included as red -line strike outs in the report distributed this evening.
Mr. Elwood Tescher, consultant, noted this is the first opportunity to see what would
constitute the policy sections of the General Plan and is the basic organization and outline
of the contents as well. As indicated, we are looking at three elements tonight. The goal
e stated with a series of policies that relate to that goal. A goal, as defined in the State
ideline, is a general direction, and is an ideal future end related to public health, safety
and general welfare. It is a general expression of a community value and it can be
abstract; it is generally not quantifiable; and, is generally not time dependent. He then
ave examples.
file : //H: \Plancomm \2005\100405.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005
Wood noted that the goals initially drafted by EIP staff were written in the pas;
ce. Some members of the GPAC wanted the passive voice changed to the ac
ce. There are a variety of ways that the goals are expressed in the report, but those
be cleaned up so that we are following the guidance from the State Guidelines and t
all written in the same manner.
Tescher noted that the staff report has the policy that is a specific statement that tell:
w you are going to get to that particular goal. Its intent is a commitment of the legislative
idy to a particular course of action and in the State Guidelines there is clarity regardinc
state's intent on about how the policies are worded. In making the commitment, the
idelines indicate that 'shall' is the preferred language in the policy. There are a numbe
places where you the City do not have the absolute authority to'require'. So it is not tha
ery plan policy absolutely has to have a 'shall' mandatory statement and direction.
>wever, the General Plan Guidelines provide that you do as much to the extent a:
ssible. He then gave more examples noting that as this is reviewed, we need to think o
iat truly is going to be the policy you want to commit the City to achieve. Actually, the
ate says if you do not make the commitment, it is actually better not to have any policl
dressing that particular topic.
Resources Element:
H1
Tescher noted there are elements that are required by State Law as mandai
cents, but optional elements can be added by the City. This is one that the City t
en to pursue but is not a required element. If a Historic Resources Element
oved, holds an equal weight under law and is no less a priority or no less important
of the mandated elements. The goals and policies in this chapter focus on seve
:)onents; the recognition of the resources that are out there; the protection of the
urces; and what are considered to be important.
eferring to page 7 of the GPAC staff report with strike out and underline with text in re
noted that the basic goal is about the recognition and protection of landmark sites ar
ructures. He then discussed the policies listed.
ammissioner Eaton asked where the Master Plan would fit in.
r. Tescher answered that the Master Plan is an action item and is a next level of detail
source identification and specific actions. If the Master Plan is prepared and adopted
Auld carry the same level of law and be subject to the same level of specificity as tt
:ate Law in terms of the General Plan.
Wood added that GPAC did not intend this to be so formal that it would be governed b
ate Law. This came about by a discussion that suggested that if the City wanted t
press more commitment to the preservation of historical resources than we have in th
st, then having and updating the inventory, as well as some kind of designatio
)cedure, was necessary because things on the inventory are candidate or nominate
toric sites and they haven't been given a designation. One of the committee member
ggested the Master Plan approach, which would include the inventory, the designatior
% preservation policies and encouraging historical elements with new projects. Whe
'AC intended was to move a number of these policies and incorporate them all in to H1.
the Master Plan and not have separate policies on inventory, preservation, landmark
d adaptive review. She added that we need to remember what a policy means becaus
Page 2 of 11
file : //H:1Plancomm12 00 511 0 04 0 5.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005
;se ideas really are going further than what the City has done in the past regarc
storic preservation. If we make a commitment in the General Plan to a Master Plan, 1
a big commitment of staff time or consultant time as it is not something that we can
w nor that someone on our staff is trained to do.
Hawkins, referring to HA, noted that other jurisdictions have a historical resoui
mission or some recommending body to the Council. If we pursue this, aren't
Iving ourselves in a myriad of regulations, bureaucracies, etc.?
Wood answered that Council Policy has the Arts Commission making designations
)ric sites to the City Council. I would assume, if a series of policies were adopted, 1
Id continue to have the Arts Commission doing it. She noted it would create a lot me
;ture and use of staff and /or consultant time to accomplish this.
sioner Tucker noted his concern of what could be designated as historical sites.
at the General Plan and policies, the 'shall' is a big part of it. We would need tc
e where the'Master Plan' would be applicable.
Wood noted that GPAC noted the term of 'district', such as McFadden Square
oa Village.
Is. Temple added that there may not be cohesive areas where not every building
3luable but there may be areas where they exist sporadically and GPAC felt this would
way to get to those few.
Wood stated that this is not something on which staff is making a strc
mmendation. We were told by the GPAC to include historic resources and so we
e items in for discussion. It is definitely a policy question for the Planning Commiss
the Council.
nmissioner Henn noted his concern of creating a Master Plan of Districts as we ha
ady identified in the prologue of these policies all of the historically important sites.
't understand the need for the creation of a Master Plan and Districts in association w
. Additional sites could be identified in the future if we had some sort of mechanise
there is no need for a Master Plan that would draw resources from staff and perha
de the need for additional staff.
nmissioner Tucker noted we should go back to what was originally put forward by staff.
only part of it that I would like to make the change on Policy H1.2. It says, 'Discourage
demolition of structures ..... I would go along with, 'Encourage the preservation o
ctures ...... On Policy H1 and Goal H1 we should stick to the language that was originalll
forward.
Wood noted that staff will be doing the goals phrasing as long as you agree with
o concept.
Toerge noted that there was a consensus on this action.
blic comment was opened.
lores; Otting, resident, noted she like Policy H1.3 and asked if it was going to be includ
there should be some placard of where something used to be as it is not possible
serve everything.
Page 3 of 11
file: //H:1Plancomm \2005 \100405.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005
Tucker noted his suggestion was to leave policies H1.1 through H1.5 in
text.
Commission agreed.
H2
Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. He noted that H2.1 and H2.2 v
�n directly from the Local Coastal Plan and are traditional policies. H2.3 and H2.4
!n from the draft Coastal Plan and from City Council Policy so they would apply
>mmissioner Tucker asked about Policy H2.1 where it says, require new development
otect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction a
,oid and minimize impacts to such resources.... If we have a whale bone where a buildi
supposed to go, the building doesn't get built? He was answered, no.
nuing, Commissioner Tucker noted this needs to be clearer.
Ir. Tescher answered that it defaults to CEQA, which is very clear on the mitigation c
rcheological and paleontological resources. He gave examples of the CEQA procedures.
a brief discussion it was decided to add a reference to CEQA in the first
the mitigation in H2.1 and use the word mitigate in stead of minimize.
comment was opened.
is comment was closed.
BJECT: General Plan Update - Review draft goals and policies for the Arts
tural Resources Element.
Tescher noted this is an optional element and will be a new element of the f
eral Plan program. It focuses on the participation of the City in cultural and
(rams, provision of physical facilities for those programs, and funding for t
trams.
Wood added the Arts Commission had prepared a draft element many months ago at
mitted it to the General Plan Update Committee. With that submittal GPAC decided v
uld address arts and culture in the General Plan. EIP has taken that draft and used
the base document. There has been no formal review of this element by the At
emission yet, but we will be taking this to them within the next couple of weeks. TI
airman was at the GPAC meeting and spoke on this matter and he is satisfied with tl
'k to date.
, Mr. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report.
imissioner Hawkins noted the library is referenced throughout as locations to exhil
The library cultural resource the City has is not recognized in this element at all ar
is problematic. This City provides important library services to its citizens and if we a
g to have an Arts and Cultural Resources Element in the General Plan that ought
gnize the library system. It is in there in facilities, etc., but it is not visible. We have
Page 4 of 11
file : //H:1Plancomm120051100405.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 Page 5 of 11
Library Commission which might want to also take a look at reviewing this. Maybe the °I�
ibrary resources is not something that is generally considered in the General Plan, but I
have a hard time distinguishing it from Cultural Resources.
missioner Tucker noted the program in Laguna Beach was based on a percentage
had to be spent on art. He noted support of the original language as opposed to the
language put forth by GPAC. However, he would change one part of the secon(
gnce in Policy CA1.1. It says, 'The City should explore requiring art ...... I would delete
ore requiring' and put the word 'encourage' in there. Art in projects is terrific, but it is
=thing that the City should not mandate, but create a situation where people are
ouraged to do that and recognized for providing that benefit to the community.
ussion followed.
Wood gave an overview of GPAC discussion on Policy CA1.1 noting it revolved arc
district concept. She noted that the two issues of private and public projects
arated into two separate policies.
ssioner Tucker, referring to the original staff report on hand - written page 17 L
CA1.1, suggested leave the first sentence as is. The second sentence bec(
which becomes Private Project and delete the words, 'explore requiring'
them with 'encourage'.
)mmissioner Hawkins noted this references a private project not a public project. This
reasonable goal to have art at public sites and therefore requiring it is not a problem.
m't believe the City would install a public project without having public art.
consensus of the Commission was to agree with Commission Tucker's suggestion.
missioner Hawkins was not in agreement.
)mmissioner Tucker then suggested that the Commission accept the rest of the
the original staff report.
Commission agreed.
comment was opened.
Wood suggested, and the Commission agreed, to add a new heading for Lit
ices where there will be a narrative about the library and services with a goal
ies about continuing to provide that level of service.
,JECT: General Plan Update - Review draft goals and policies for the P
lv Element.
c Tescher gave noted this element is required by State Law and then gave an oven
the staff report. He noted that Policies S1.1 through S1.9 are extracted from the L
)astal Plan. He added that the GPAC attempted to generalize some of the policies.
ited GPAC deletions were done because they felt it was too detailed. Staff agrees
P will be going back to look at the balance of the level of detail that needs to be in
aneral Plan. There is one area where the recommended GPAC deletions
appropriate and are needed in order to have a legal document.
Tucker asked for the staff recommendation on Policies S1.1 through S1.9.
file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \l00405.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 Page 6 of 11
s. Wood noted that Policy S1.4, S1.7 and S1.8 are appropriate to delete. Policy S1
PAC thinking was that the signs would be so small that they wouldn't be any good. v1
!gard to requiring hoteliers to keep that kind of information, how would staff be able
ieck up on that and enforce it? It would be a nice thing to do, but it doesn't belong in 1
eneral Plan policy. Additionally, we don't have control over the Newport Mesa Schl
istrict. Staff supports keeping Policy S1.9.
ff and Commission then discussed the disaster information that is on the City's
sible mailings to the citizenry; the roles of the Police and Fire Departments r
type of information; possibility of including a support of these departments in e
public; and, budget issue as opposed to General Plan issue.
I S1
Tescher added that in Policy S9.3 with respect to emergency preparedness
:uation planning, etc. would cover the issues.
then followed on the dissemination of this information.
Wood suggested that Policy S9.5, Sponsor and support education.... should
ged to, 'City shalt support education.....
imissioner Hawkins noted that this discussion and presentation should be broader
section of policies.
missioner Eaton asked if the deletion of these policies would be inconsistent with
Wood answered the Coastal Commission is not concerned, and we do not need
that level of detail in the General Plan.
:)mmissioner Tucker noted the issue now is disaster planning, now we have a probl
hat is it we do about the problem? With all of these we probably ought to get out of
saster planning mode on all the goals other than the disaster planning goal, in which ca
need to have all the disaster planning policies in one location so that it is not popping
roughout.
airperson Toerge noted his concern of including additional areas within the City
Id be included in the coastal hazard listing that would be impacted by a tsunami
ue wave.
. Temple noted that it was the intent to name the biggest and most obvious ones. It
example list. She noted it would be difficult to specify.
iscussion followed on coastal hazards, storm surges and coastal erosion.
imissioner Tucker noted he would like to relocate S1.4 to the disaster
delete Policies S1.7 and S1.8.
imissioner Hawkins noted Policy S1.9 talks about support research for locaft
ies and from his perspective tsunamis are almost always international, so why
lized research?
file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \100405.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005
Temple explained the role of the safety personnel in these types of exercises on
malized basis.
a
:)ner Henn noted that this research is more likely into the local impacts
may be a better way to put it.
discussion, it was suggested and agreed to add the word 'local affects' in
comment was opened.
rbara Amato, resident, noted she supports Policy S1.9 due to earthquakes
rricanes.
gyres Otting, resident, noted a website that has to do with earthquakes. She stated tt
week alone there were 600 earthquakes that were noted. Continuing, she noted tt
City needs to encourage that information be brought to parents through the schools
ntimes this is the only information the parents get. She asked that this policy not
�ted. She concluding saying that there is a lot of information that needs to be given
public.
S2
Tescher gave an overview of Goal S2 and the policies. Policies S2.1 through S2.5
ctly from the LCP, the others have been developed through the years.
Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted GPAC concern with deleting S2.8 had to do wit
e shoreline armor as opposed to using other designs. They felt this could be dealt with i
more environmentally sensitive fashion as opposed to constructing walls and fences etc.
son Toerge noted he is okay with the proposed changes in Policy S2.7
Policy S2.8.
comment was opened.
Commission gave their general consensus.
S3
Ir. Tescher then gave an overview of Goal S3 and policies that deal with the
rotective devices.
Eaton asked why storm surges was added to Goal S3 when it was in
Wood answered it would be better to remove that language as it is covered in Goal S2.
>sioner Tucker noted that Policy S3.7 deals with protective devices on public land
private property, why wouldn't we want that in there?
)ner Henn noted the concept in S3.7 is using public land to protect
It is a very different concept than what is stated in S3.5.
Page 7 of 11
file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \100405.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005
rperson Toerge stated we should keep S3.7. The Commission agreed. The propos
ges on S3.9 and S3.10 were then discussed and then agreed to by the Commission.
comment was opened.
irbara Amato, resident, noted her concern about the lack of accessibility and
the beaches noted in this document.
Toerge noted those issues are in the LCP and are not contained in this policy.
S4
Tescher then gave an overview of Goal S4 and the policies. He noted his concern w
proposed deletion of S4.3 about the seismic retrofitting and strengthening of esseni
lities is a normal policy component of a General Plan unless all of your existing faciliti
schools have been seismically upgraded to contemporary standards. He suggest
ring that in the General Plan. Policy S4.5 about the location of essential facilities
rally required as part of State Law to be in the General Plan as is Policy S4.6, t
:ement of facilities within active or potentially active faults.
person Toerge asked why Policy S4.1 was suggested to be deleted. He
ered that GPAC felt it was too much detail and is required by State Law and
ing Code.
followed on the GPAC suggested deletions of the policies.
. Wood added that another GPAC policy recommendation was for the City to f
)lic education on the seismic hazards of older buildings. Perhaps that is one that
into Section 9 with all the other disaster planning and response.
Tescher added that language will be modified if necessary to be consistent with
hairperson Toerge, noted 4.1 is coming out, the changes to 4.2 are acceptable, leave
3, check on 4.5 and 4.6. Policy S4.7 is encourage instead of ensure. The Commissi
comment was opened.
is comment was closed.
S5
Tescher gave an overview of Goal S5 and the policies. The deletion suggested
1C was related to detail that is not needed in the policy itself.
Commission agreed
is comment was opened.
Amato brought up policy 2.8 versus 3.5 of in a previous goal. Staff cleared up
n noting one was referring to storm surges and the referred to storm erosion.
Page 8 of 11
file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \100405.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 Page 9 of 11
Chairperson Toerge noted he agrees with the proposed GPAC changes and asked for
Eaton asked about the 500 -year flood zone mentioned in S5.1 or S5.2.
a brief discussion, it was agreed to eliminate the reference to 500 -year
•a Amato, resident, brought up policy 3.5 again and asked if a phrase that
structures do not contribute to storm surge,' could be added.
issioner Hawkins asked if the consultant could add a statement that these faciliti
be constructed pursuant to some state requirement which would require mitigation
project related impacts. He was answered yes. Continuing, he noted the if the
live devices are built, they don't cause other problems, pursuant to State law.
ioner McDaniel thanked the audience members for their participation.
is comment was closed.
S6
Tescher then gave an overview of Goal S6 and policies. Policies 56.1 was relocated
a brief discussion on duties, it was agreed to keep in S6.10 that GPAC
ded be removed and remove S6.8
is comment was opened.
is comment was closed.
S7
Tescher than gave an overview of S7 goal and policies.
Commission inquiry, staff noted the methane gas districts.
Commission
is comment was opened.
Amato asked if there were dump site in Newport. She was answered that there
but they are not designated as gas methane districts.
Otting asked about a gas methane district for Coyote Canyon.
Tescher answered that Policy S7.2 addresses this issue.
Commission agreed to the recommended GPAC changes.
Harp noted that there are extensive State regulations that deal with methane
file: //H: \Plancomm \2005\100405.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 Page 10 of 11
lincluding old land fills.
Wood suggested adding a new policy that the City should consider whether there are
other areas that should be designated as methane gas districts.
Commission agreed.
ilic comment was closed.
U S8
Tescher then gave an overview of Goal S8 and policies.
Wood noted that GPAC recommended the.removal of S8.4 as it should be in S9 and
removal of S8.5 as it is an operational issue and not appropriate for the General Plan.
missioner Tucker, referring to Policy S8.6 noted changes need to be made to
ing and referenced the curfew and extension deadlines. The policy should be a n
ral language to allow for negotiations at some point later on.
Wood noted that language such as, 'unless or in exchange for additional or
actions for the City.'
missioner Hawkins noted his agreement with Commissioner Tucker noting he
'except those approved by City Council.'
missioner McDaniel noted the word 'oppose' is hard, and suggested 'discourage.'
missioner Eaton noted we need to acknowledge that when the extension runs
will be future negotiations for passenger, flight limits and curfews.
.ommissioner Tucker noted he has suggested language; place a comma after the word
....Airport and say, 'except in connection with an extension and/or modification of the flight
imits and curfew in the existing Settlement Agreement.' Staff along with the City Attorney's
office can come up with something like this as we really want that ability for negotiations.
assistant City Attorney Harp noted his agreement and will work with Mr. Burnham, Esquire.
'ublic comment was opened.
3ublic comment was closed.
"hairperson Toerge asked if the changes that are being made tonight will be present in the
text staff report.
answered that we can send you a revision that is red -lined from the original staff
rt as a result of your discussion and the City Council's this evening. This will be a
(ing page' of the changes.
Commission agreed.
I S9
file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \100405.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005
Tescher than gave an overview of Goal S9 and the policies. He noted that there are
Dral policies that have been transferred into this section.
aon Toerge brought up the issue of distributing a copy of the emergency plan to
ms. Following a lengthy discussion, it was decided that Policy S9.6 shall be
to, 'City shall sponsor and support ....' Staff will contend with the details.
comment was opened.
Amato suggested the use of shuttle buses for evacuation.
Wood noted this is something that could be done through the activation of the City's
urgency Operation Center.
,res Otting noted that the EMS can be looked up on line. She noted that Huntington
:h has been honored as 'Storm City', and read excerpts from the local newspaper.
thanked the Commission for their courtesy.
swing a brief discussion, it was decided to accept the recommended GPAC changes.
Commission agreed
imissioner Tucker then brought up the issue of when the suggested land use intensities
be dealt with for the various properties in town. He noted there are areas that had
Bible changes that could be designated.
Is. Wood stated that there are two meetings in November where you will be provided with
bcuments as reviewed tonight so you will be seeing land use policies in addition to the
uantities that we are dealing with so far. Both the Commission and the Council still need
have more discussion on amounts of land use and what kinds of land use where,
specially where we are introducing residential for mixed use districts, beyond what you
ilked about just for the maximum level you considered in the EIR. There are a few areas
iat have many more issues to discuss and could result in much more impacts than other
reas. I would suggest that we start earlier than 4:00 p.m. if you can and to concentrate on
ie most important areas for those two meetings which are the airport area, Newport
enter Fashion Island, Mariners Mile and Banning Ranch. If there is enough time to get to
ome of the smaller areas, that would be fine. But if you can't we can probably add those
iscussion to the regular meeting agendas. That will give you the time to really delve into
lose areas and the issues.
Ilowing a brief discussion it was agreed that the time to discuss these potential land uses
important and starting early is something that needs to be done. Additionally, 4 was
cussed to have the traffic and fiscal analysis for the alternatives to review; and an
reed to list of areas that need to be reviewed in depth. The traffic information will be
idv for December 6th for the Commission and the Council to review.
nmissioner Hawkins noted that Goal S9 should be amended to say, ....will continue to
developed, maintained and implemented...... The Commission concurred.
at 6:35
Page 11 of 11
file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \100405.htm 11/21/2005