Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes SSCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Study Session Meeting - 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - Chairperson Kiser was excused; Commissioner Toerge arrived at 5:45 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Public comment: Postina of the Aaenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday. February 14, 2003. None Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 SUBJECT: Joint Meeting with General Plan Update Scoping Sul Discussion of Proposed General Plan Update Scope Ms. Wood noted that Mr. Alan Beek, a member of the subcommittee, is out of town this week and that other members of the subcommittee are also members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Eaton chairs the scoping sub - committee, so he will present to the Commission the recommendations of that committee. Mr. Eaton noted that Councilmember Adams' intent of suggesting this joint meeting was to get the Planning Commission input back to the sub - committee so that it could be included in the recommendations for the scope of the General Plan. He then gave an overview of the staff report noting: • The sub - committee has met three times. • Woodie Tescher is the consultant who presented an analysis of the existing General Plan. • The subcommittee voted to recommend a comprehensive update of the entire General Plan (with the exception of the Housing Element) because State Law requires that General Plan be an integrated and internally consistent document. • The best way to have a useable General Plan is to have the policies, graphics and the required mapping in the summary document and all the technical appendices, especially those that can get out of date, into a technical reference document, which is separate from the plan itself. • The subcommittee proposes a consistent hierarchy of goals, policies and programs for each element. One of the ways to make a General Plan consistent is to have a consistency between those goals, policies and programs. • The subcommittee recommended that alternatives could be tested against the traffic model and fiscal model, which are coming out of the technical part of the process; not only alternatives for land use, but for circulation and infrastructure as well. • We started into discussion about citizen participation and the GPAC, Commission and Council involvement in the planning process so that it is not an entirely finished document that gets to the Commission and Council at the public hearing. • GPAC should continue through the process and be the primary vehicle for citizen input into the process. • Mr. Tescher recommended one way to keep the Commission and Council involved in the process was to add them as ex officio members of GPAC. The committee did not feel that was the best way because it is a very large committee now and there was a feeling that some members of GPAC might not feel as able to speak candidly with Commission and Council members there as they could when they are all equal citizens. Keeping GPUC involved would be one way to do that and have the representatives report back to their respective Commissioners and Councilmembers. That is not something that the subcommittee has resolved yet and it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to give ideas on how we could get that done. INDEX Hem T Discussion Item Only City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 The sub - committee has not decided whether there should be special geographic areas of the city worked on with more specific plans, either a specific plan or something more concentrated than a General Plan in context of the General Plan process and at the same time as this process. Commissioner Tucker noted the following: • What is the charge of the sub - committee? Tonight I have seen a recommendation that we update the entire plan, all the elements and do the whole thing as a comprehensive re -write as opposed to amend what was absolutely necessary. • We have a series of about ten or twelve issues that are going to be where the action is. I have not heard how those issues are going to be aired and /or decided. • Are we going to get something that is already done when it gets to the Commission, or are we going to be asked to ultimately start making decisions and recommendations? That is the part that is unclear to me. This process has been going on for almost three years, at some point in time we have to start deciding the substantive issues. 1 agree with the Scoping Committee recommendations that as long as we are going through things we might as well have an updated and cleaned up plan that hopefully will last us many years and hopefully be the state of the art. But the question remains, who decides what it is that will actually be in there. How does that process work? • The City Council are the policy makers; they need to figure out how this process works. We have this visioning process set up but how far does it go? Mr. Eaton answered: • The scope is a general outline of what the process would consist of and what is included in the General Plan. That is the direction that was given to the sub - committee. • GPUC is primarily involved with the process and GPAC has been primarily involved with policy. Certainly part of the process is how do you get the policy questions answered? That is one of the reasons that Councilmember Adams felt it would be advisable to have this joint meeting because that is one of the key questions. The Planning Commission has to recommend the General Plan Update to the Council and they have to make the ultimate decision. What is the best way to get their input into the process before it is all said and done? Commissioner Agajanion added: • During the meetings we have had, we talked about GPAC as the policy group. They will have to resolve to the best of their ability those ten to twelve outstanding issues. There is a three tier process to go through the GPAC to the Commission to the Council. How do we get the Commission and the Council involved at the GPAC level? • I think it is valuable to continue hearing what they are dealing with and how GPAC is resolving it by updated notifications at the Planning City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Commission meetings. 1 don't see a benefit getting involved in that issue resolution as a Commission while the GPAC is taking it under consideration. Commissioner Tucker noted that it seems at some point the Council needs to provide more guidance and perhaps the Commission. The people on this advisory board have gone from visioning to suddenly being involved with the drafting and how decisions are made. How does that work? Ms. Wood answered that the way the resolution establishing GPAC reads now is that GPAC is supposed to review policies and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council. It has never been expected that they would be drafting the policy; they do not have any decision making capacity. In my experience, typically the Planning Commission is involved in several steps in the process because you don't want to be presenting to them in a public hearing something that they do not know anything about and will have major concerns with, as this is the body that deals with the implementing of it and how it will affect a project and how much guidance it gives you on whether or not to approve use permits. I think it is really important to have a means for the Planning Commission to be involved earlier, whether that be study sessions or regular reports from GPAC. Commissioner Tucker again asked who is going to make policy decisions. To my mind resolving the conflicts are the policy decisions. If GPAC is just going to be reviewing and making recommendations based upon some type of policy, somebody has to decide what the policies are at some level. How does that come about? Ms. Wood answered that the consultant and staff will be drafting the policies based on what we have heard in the visioning process and based on what we learn from the technical studies and based on the comments on those studies that we receive from GPUC and the Planning Commission and other groups. GPAC will be working through them and probably recommending some changes to them and I think we need to have the Planning Commission involved in that process early as we are developing them. The decision is made by the City Council in the end. The City Council is also deciding on the process, the recommendations on scoping are coming from the GPUC sub - committee to the full GPUC and then to the City Council, so all these decisions are the Council's. Commissioner Tucker noted GPAC is giving advice and the elected officials are the ones who have to make the policy decisions. Shouldn't there be some filtering of that information down to staff? Ms. Wood answered that she expects discussing the alternatives and the trade offs at GPAC and to some extent at the Planning Commission and then reporting to the City Council on the alternatives that were considered and the reason that the recommendation is being made. The Council can approve that recommendation or ask for other alternatives. There could be earlier study sessions on alternative policies with the Planning Commission and /or the City 4 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes 20, 2003 Council, so that could be built into the process. Commissioner Tucker stated he is not sure of what the Council expects of the Commission on this. Do they want us to weight in with our advice, or do they want us to sit back and move along whatever the GPAC sends to us? We don't have the traffic study or the fiscal study and it seems like we have all this input and visioning but we have a gap of missing information because the fiscal has to do with the budget that has to do with land use choices. Ms. Wood answered that those policies will not be worked on until those studies are available. The fiscal impact analysis of the existing land uses in the City has been drafted and reviewed by the Economic Development Committee just yesterday morning. As a result of that, there will be some additions to that report and then it will be sent to GPAC for review and then it can be brought to the Commission if that is the process that we want to follow where the Commission is reviewing things each step of the way. I agree that the Council does not have any set ideas on how this process should go, I think they are looking to the GPUC and because they are asking for this joint meeting, to the Planning Commission for advice or at least to raise questions on how the process should go. Commissioner Tucker noted that he had asked the same question at the joint meeting. How are these questions going to be resolved, and that is when the suggestion of a sub - committee came up. Yet the sub - committee talks about do we re -write the whole General Plan or do we only do the parts that are absolutely necessary. We have not answered that question and if the sub - committee has been charged with working with the Planning Commission on answering these questions, I am not seeing anything. Commissioner Agajanian noted he had asked these same questions at the first meeting of the scoping committee about who makes these decisions and how it is broken apart. It has not been resolved to date but my understanding is that GPAC would be the place where the document would be formulated, reviewed, modified, edited and worked out so that all of the technical aspects of the General Plan would dovetail with all of the visioning aspects that are imbedded in the GPAC. From that, would be generated a document that would comprehensively address all of the issues at that time. That document would be brought up to the Planning Commission for review. If the Planning Commission got involved in the formulation of policy or resolution of those issues while the GPAC was taking it under review, then it would extend our review period by months or longer, just because of the delay. I don't think the Planning Commission or the Council would want to voice in on where these issues are going to land before the GPAC works it out among themselves and comes up with a suitable solution. For the Commission to be involved giving direction to GPAC I think would muddy the waters more than help clarify issues. Commissioner Tucker noted his point is that it is really for the Council to decide. They may decide they want us in the middle of it or not. Right now, I am not comforted by what I am hearing in terms of the Council focusing on the process. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20. 2003 What Sharon was referring to was coming up with alternatives, pros and cons, as opposed to getting a document that has been edited and revised and far along. Commissioner Agajanian answered that we pretty much know what the issues are, the pros and cons, outside the alternatives analyses. The issues involved are more principle than policy. These are not so much what are we going to do with the square foot of something so much as what the general policies are going to be. We know how we are going to solve the Bluff issue for instance with more technical analysis. Commissioner Tucker noted that the bigger issues are the land use issues. Commissioner Toerge suggested an interim review by the Council. Areas of contentiousness have been identified and if we can get GPAC to identify their general recommendations with regard to those items without drafting language and maybe those general recommendations need to be submitted and reviewed by the City Council. This way staff and the drafters of the information can draft it with certain assurance they understand where the City Council is leaning. That document can then be reviewed by the Planning Commission and then City Council. That way, the City Council's opinions of policy would be integrated earlier in the process before the drafting occurs. Commissioner Tucker agreed noting that way if the Council wants the Commission to do more then they can tell us. If they want to make all those decisions themselves, then they can. Vice Chairman McDaniel noted that the property owners don't seem to be involved with this. Don't they need to be involved to some extent? Mr. Eaton answered that the development interest is represented on GPAC. It is a balanced committee with environmental and development representatives as well as a wide representation of homeowners and property owners. Ms. Wood answered that is an important question and should be decided whether there is sufficient representation for major land owners or whether they should be provided some other opportunity. Or, do we think it is their responsibility to follow the process and look out for their interests. Commissioner Selich noted his agreement with the previous comments that Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers should be on the GPAC. He noted his concern that being on previous general plan element adoption procedures, they were pretty much worked on by citizens committees and by the time it got to the Planning Commission it was pretty much a rubber stamp; and there was no meaningful input. It seems tome that as you develop your plan or work program, that there are going to be certain key decision points that you reach as you go along the way. At those points the Planning Commission should be involved, whether it takes it to the point where decisions are made that allow it to go to another point or whatever, that is the way the Planning Commission should INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 function. There is our input and participation in the process more than just seeing a finished or semi - finished document going to the final public hearings. I suspect that the consultant has done a lot of updates in other cities and I would be interested to hear what he has to say in terms of what those are. There should be some incremental steps along the way that involves the Planning Commission. Ms. Wood stated she would like input from the Commission in terms of issue areas or geographic areas where you think the General Plan update should focus on and then when Mr. Tescher comes, we can focus on process questions. Commissioner Selich stated issues that have been brought up in the past: • Land use element is so specific by putting it on a parcel by parcel basis as to how many units or square footage of commercial, industrial, whatever is going on parcels. In many ways the Land Use Element becomes more specific than the Zoning Code does, which is exactly the opposite of the way it is intended to be. That is, the General Plan is the broad policy document that guides land use decisions that the City makes. It has come a few times to frustrate us as to what we can or can not do and how the whole process works and has led to a lot more General Plan Amendments than you would normally have with a generalized policy document. • Has the committee talked about going in that direction or presenting it as an alternative, has it been presented and rejected? Where does it stand? Mr. Eaton answered that the sub - committee had talked about that. The problem is State Law requires that you have density and intensity in the Land Use Element. A court case came down that says you have to have measurable ways to figure out whether or not your Circulation Element was consistent with the Land Use Element. Now we have a City Charter that further constrains accountability statistically. The committee has agreed but not voted on some of the issues that were raised in the matrix that we still need to have some accountability but we need a way to make it flexible so that a general plan amendment is not required for a 500 square foot mezzanine. The basic need for accountability is still there. Commissioner Gifford noted that her understanding was that the GPAC was going to be continued but that there were a number of people who might not be able to or desire to continue to serve on it. Would it continue to be the some number as previous and what would be the process of filling those potential vacancies? Ms. Wood stated that a report was brought to the City Council at their last meeting after a survey was done of the GPAC members to see who was interested in continuing. We have 8 who declined to continue and 2 who are in questionable status. We had also suggested polling all the original applicants in those geographical areas and issue areas where we knew there were vacancies to see how many of those were still interested. The Council thought there were enough of those to choose from and so they directed the General Plan Update Committee to review those applications and make those recommendations for filling the committee to its original status. That is on the agenda for the GPUC for this coming Monday. IN I-010 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Mr. Eaton explained the procedure of the GPUC to get a balanced representation on the GPAC. Commissioner Tucker noted he would like to see the following areas studied: • The Peninsula area. • West Newport industrial area. Commissioner Gifford commented that if there is a concern that there is not enough dialogue between the various committees to ensure that there won't be a 'finished' document presented to either the Planning Commission or City Council, the idea that Commissioners or Councilmembers sifting in the GPAC meetings would stifle discussion is really counter productive. If you want everybody to be brought along as part of the process that is the best way to do it; have everyone aware of the dialogue and how it develops, the rational behind it, etc. instead of being presented with the finished decision and given background. Is this stifling affect something that we need to be concerned about? Mr. Tescher, consultant for the City arrived. Ms. Wood noted that the question that is being discussed is how to involve the Planning Commission and City Council as the General Plan is updated as the new document is developed so that they don't feel they are presented with a finished product. They don't want to insult the people who have worked on it so long by changing something. There was some concern about having members of those two bodies be ex officio on GPAC and whether there should be study sessions with the two groups with some interactive process or just have regular reports. Mr. Woody Tescher, EIP Associates, consultant of the project for the City noted the following techniques: • The extreme would be the complete absence of interaction through the process. That could mean there are surprises that may not have been thought about by the Commission or the Council before that because the benefit the GPAC would have had is the extended deliberations about that issue. • Other communities have undertaken periodic study sessions throughout the course of the planning program so that there are periodic updates from representation of the advisory committee to a Commission, to City Council, discussing the key issues that are being addressed at that particular point in time; the key options that are being considered and key policy directions and those deliberations with input from those study sessions and being provided back to the advisory committee. • Another step is having an ex officio membership representation of the Planning Commission actually participate in the GPAC process. That is close to the norm in terms of how other communities work. • The issue of concern about stymieing the discussion of GPAC only surfaces if you have a Planning Commissioner as a voting member of the GPAC process as well. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 The advantage of having Planning Commission representation in attendance is there is a conduit back to the Planning Commission on a continuing basis of the status of discussion and deliberations. There are a couple of techniques there and I would recommend against the first because I believe it is important for the Commission to be aware of the discussion throughout the entire General Plan process. At Commissioner inquiry, he added: • the third option was the most common. But you have a good sense of your community, and what might be best here. • He recommends study sessions throughout the process. It is important to make sure that as the advisory committee is deliberating that you are involved and they are not running in a policy direction that would be counter to political decision making. • Study sessions at key bench marks with the City Council as well is recommended. • He has found often that the joint study session format is very useful and a comfortable way to handle this. • The norm is the intent for the advisory committee to make its recommendations to the Planning Commission and then the Planning Commission to the City Council. So the advisory committee debates the issues. In that forum, make their best recommendation based upon their deliberations and their discussions and then equally to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. • Legally, the only discretionary body on the General Plan that takes action is the City Council. The Planning Commission only makes recommendations based on its deliberations. • It has been the norm that the Council not interfere in the process of the deliberations of the advisory committee that it basically filters up to the Council. • Often advisory committees will ask the Council for opinions or reactions Without a formal vote to a particular policy direction that may be considered in a study session format. This discussion happens before anything is drafted. • On the key issues identified in the visioning process that did not have a lot of consensus, the norm is to identify a series of options and really run through a test of those generally for the traffic impacts, fiscal impacts, community acceptability impacts as well. That testing is intended to provide information back to the advisory committee process as to the consequences, pros and cons of the various options and considerations. Public comment was opened. Laura Dietz, resident of Cameo Shores note: • It is a positive thing to have members of the Planning Commission attend the GPAC meetings in an ex officio capacity to provide information as needed. • The issue of flexibility is important as what may be a good land use in 2005 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 may by the year 2020 may appear to be outdated, outmoded and other priorities may have arisen. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker asked about the timing of the sub - committee. Mr. Eaton answered that the meetings are on the alternative Mondays before the Council meetings while the full GPUC was in recess. However, now that GPUC is being activated at least the next meeting will be on the Monday in between. Most of the members feel that there are not too many more meetings to go. Commissioner Selich noted he would like to have the opportunity to comment on the issues only if it will not slow the process down and would not want the Commission to be in a position to slow things down. Commissioner Toerge noted with regard to attendance of members of the Planning Commission and City Council at these GPAC meetings, I think eventually members of GPAC have to come to grips with the fact that these issues have to be decided. They will have to get involved with the policy makers to do that. I recommend that the appointed Councilmembers and Commissioners that are appointed to attend those meetings are alternates or different than the members of GPUC. WYR ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR MEETING AT 6:30 P.M. SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 10 INDEX Adjournment