Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0A - Draft Minutes May 22, 2014 Study SessionNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES 5/22/14 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, May 22, 2014 STUDY SESSION 4:00 p.m. A. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Brown, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker ABSENT: Amen, Hillgren (Excused), and Myers (Arrived 4:20 p.m.) Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Director Community Development; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner; and Marlene Burns, Administrative Support Specialist B. CURRENT BUSINESS ITEM NO. 1 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT (PA2013 -098) Site Location: City -wide Vice Chair Tucker introduced the item and addressed the impetus for upgrading the General Plan and the process as well as State law requirements. Additionally, he addressed City Council direction and the Planning Commission's responsibilities and charges. He listed areas of the City where there will be no changes and those likely to change as well as City Council's and the Planning Commission's scope of consideration. He reported that as this is a study session, the Planning Commission will be taking no action at this time but will hold a Public Hearing on the matter on June 5, 2014. Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski listed the materials provided for review and reported that the bulk of tonight's discussion will pertain to the Environmental Impact Report. She introduced and deferred to Woodie Tescher of PlaceWorks for a presentation regarding policies. Mr. Tescher addressed some of the policy changes discussed at the May 81h Study Session and reviewed the revisions to the Glossary and Implementation Program. Vice Chair Tucker referenced Policy LU 7.13.4 regarding the development scale in Newport Center, noting that language was reversed in the last sentence from the prior version noting that it seems to be less mandatory now. Ms. Wisneski reported that staff made the change because the request was made during Committee deliberations. Vice Chair Tucker stated if there will be an increase in height, you have to have distinguished and quality architecture. He questioned use of the word "enable ". Mr. Tescher clarified that any increase in height would be contingent upon having distinguished and quality architecture. He added that language will be changed accordingly and presented to the Planning Commission at its next meeting. Secretary Kramer addressed the previous language and noted it was not translated correctly. Vice Chair Tucker agreed with having staff and Mr. Tescher come back with suggested language. He referenced LU 7.13.x and suggested distinguishing between the development agreements cited and provided clarifying language. Commissioner Myers arrived at this juncture (4:20 p.m.). Discussion followed regard handwritten pages 56 and 57; the glossary of terms, definitions of terms used in policies and definitions relative to greenhouse gases and greenhouse gas emission reductions. Page 1 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES 5/22/14 Vice Chair Tucker noted that defined language should be used consistently throughout the document and suggested appropriate language. He directed staff to return with suggested language for the Commission's consideration. Vice Chair Tucker stated there are many definitions and lengthy preambles which do not need to be included in order to define the term(s). Mr. Tescher addressed the addition of three (3) implementation programs and related actions making the General Plan consistent with actions taken by the City. Ms. Wisneski stated the proposed programs are listed on page 69 (PC Attachment No. 3) of the May 8, 2014, packet. Joann Hadfield, PlaceWorks, provided a presentation regarding the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR). She addressed the general process, background, results of the initial study, scoping for the Supplemental EIR, the approach for a Supplemental EIR, environmental topics addressed in the EIR, and significant findings analyzed. She highlighted opportunities for public input in the process, topics that were closed out as not having significant impacts and applicable comments received and that will be addressed in the final EIR. In addition, Ms. Hadfield addressed topics that were carried through to the Supplemental EIR and for which technical studies were prepared. She noted there was only one (1) topic that was found to have significant impacts and could be mitigated to less than significant which was air quality health risk and was not addressed in the 2006 EIR. She listed mitigation measures that can be taken to reduce the impact to less than significant. Additionally, she detailed the unavoidable significant impacts noting that if the City adopts the plan as proposed, they would require a Statement of Overriding Consideration. Marlie Whiteman of Urban Crossroads provided details of the traffic impact analysis report and addressed updates to the City's Traffic Model, study area intersections analyzed, analysis scenarios, traffic impact acceptable thresholds, criteria for determining impacts, levels of service throughout the day, impacted intersections, and impacted freeway segments. Joann Hadfield addressed CEQA requirements relative to project alternatives noting that Supplemental EIRs only require what is necessary to make the previous EIR (2006) adequate for the project as proposed; looking at project - specific incremental impacts. She commented on the "no project" alternative noting that it is most likely to occur if the proposed project does not happen and meets project objectives in that it eliminates all of the significant unavoidable impacts. Ms. Hadfield reported that the "no airport development" alternative was found to be the superior alternative. Regarding the traffic analysis, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine reported that the "no airport development" alternative would eliminate one (1) ramp impact. Ms. Hadfield provided an overview of public review comments and reported that the forty -five (45) day review period closed April 30, 2014. She added that the City opted to receive comments after the forty -five (45) day review period and reported the total number of comments received, the sources and the topics of the comments. She added that her firm is in the process of completing responses to the comments. She reported that some comments were made that a Supplemental EIR was not appropriate because of the scale of the project. Further, Ms. Hadfield reported that the Supplemental EIR updates existing conditions and analyzes the impact of the incremental changes between the two (2) plans on those existing conditions. Marlie Whiteman addressed comments received related to the study area, the distribution of traffic, the plan's circulation system, the 19th Street Bridge, project- specific traffic considerations, and cumulative projects. Ms. Hadfield addressed the remaining steps in the environmental process and reported that the final EIR will be completed next week. Mr. Tescher presented the upcoming schedule for this project and next steps. He added that City Council has scheduled its Public Hearing for this item on July 8, 2014. Vice Chair Tucker opened public comments for this matter Page 2 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES 5/22/14 Dennis Baker referenced additional materials distributed under separate cover and explained same. He stated that the information was collected by SPON. He addressed the traffic study and noted that traffic at the intersection of MacArthur and Pacific Coast Highway will be highly impacted. He added that it is such a sensitive area that the smallest glitch will back traffic up in the area. Sharon Ray commented on traffic impacts from a development in Newport Center as well as in the airport and the current proposal for Banning Ranch and asked if the figures reported are accurate. If so, she opined that they will have a significant impact on air quality and commented on road rage as a form of stress and therefore, a health risk. She stated she is against any development that would result in that type of traffic increase in the area. Jean Watt referenced Policy LU 7.13.4 relative to allowing a hotel with extra height in the Block 100 area. She stated that if the policy is adopted and the matter is voted down, then the City is left with a hanging policy and opined the process is like putting the cart before the horse and seems unfair to the public. She believed no one should be voting on policies until after the November vote. Coralee Newman, Government Solutions, reported she has submitted a letter noting it is a technical request as it relates to Alternative 7.3 in the airport area and relative to the property she represents (UAP Properties, 4D), that if the City intends on choosing the superior alternative it should be noted that projects within the airport area that are traffic neutral can be allowed to be move forward. She noted that the project does not increase traffic and is highly needed in the City of Newport Beach. Barry Allen suggested including a paragraph in the Supplemental EIR stating the number of a.m. and p.m. car trips by proposed uses per the Engineering Traffic Institute. He expressed concerns regarding transferring hotel traffic to places other than hotels. Greg Sullivan commented on the assisted - living facility being processed at the corner of Jamboree and Campus and expressed concerns that property has been lumped into Airport Area 4. He commented on anomaly zoning in the area and noted that the site will be traffic neutral. He requested the project to be considered individually from the airport area. Denys Oberman thanked the Planning Commission for considering the comments and the Supplemental EIR. She asked that the Planning Commission be diligent in its responsibilities to help with legitimate land -use planning for the City. Jim Mosher stated that the public was told that the changes were driven by changes in State law and that it would be helpful to know what those laws are. He referenced statements regarding greenhouse gases and reported that the State mandate is to reduce the City's greenhouse gas emissions to eighty (80 %) percent of what they were in 1990 over the next thirty -six (36) years but the recommended changes do not advance that goal or address them. Regarding the Planning Commission being a technical review body and not one that expresses opinion, he stated that the Commission is selling itself short adding that staff sees that things are technically correct and not the Commission. He addressed the need for consistency and stated that the changes proposed introduce inconsistencies into the overall General Plan adding that the introduction needs to be revised and commenting on the vision statement. Patrick Strader, Star Point Ventures, on behalf of property owner John Saunders, thanked Vice Chair Tucker and Secretary Kramer for their work and efforts in the process. He referenced a CEQA comment letter which he submitted and stated his belief that the EIR for the overall project is sufficient, that the Planning Commission should recommend approval of it to Council and that the entire project is in the best interest of the City as a long- term General Plan update. However, he stated that the project alternative, as recommended by staff, is deficient and not within the policy recommendations that the Committee set forth or City Council. Tom Baker asked for clarification relative to the recommended disposition for this matter. He reported that when accessing the General Plan on the City's website, the system is not user friendly and asked for additional information. Carl Cassidy noted his attendance at Committee meetings and stated he still has questions regarding this matter. He thanked staff for their work and effort and asked regarding some of the language in terms of going Page 3 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES 5/22/14 from a unique residential community to a primarily residential community and going from a City of conservative growth to being economically sustainable. He expressed concerns with the review period and with trying to "ram this project through ". He referenced an economic report and suggested that the Commission review it carefully and give itself another sixty (60) days before making its recommendations to City Council. He commented on an $8 million reduction in revenues and opined that the amendment will take money away from the City. Seychelle Cannon expressed concerns regarding the development going on in the City and stated that they are .,piece meal" and are not in compliance with the Green Light initiative which voters voted on in 2006. She added that she and her neighbors would appreciate a little more time to review this matter. There being no others wishing to address the Commission on this matter, Vice Chair Tucker closed public comments. In terms of additional traffic, Vice Chair Tucker stated that the Commission must look at substantial evidence in the record and is not a political body. Reliance is made on the experts and traffic studies and information provided. Regarding additional trips, he reported that the Commission looks at impacts on intersections of projects and relies on traffic studies and experts for information. Regarding total number of trips and Green Light requirements, he explained the latter and stated that the Commission does not judge projects on the fact that they have a later vote and that it is not part of the protocol to list specific trip numbers. He addressed comments relative to the effective date of the policies and reported that the policies will not become effective if the General Plan update does not become effective. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill reported that is what the Committee discussed and is part of its recommendations. Vice Chair Tucker addressed the UAP project noting that the Commission has not voted yet so there is no way of knowing that the pleas have "fallen on deaf ears ". He addressed density of uses and noted that traffic studies will help in determining the same. Additionally, he commented on access to the General Plan. Regarding references to comment letters, Ms. Wisneski reported that comments will be responded to in the final EIR. She added that staff can help with issues relative to online access as well as any questions the public may have. She reported that the final EIR as well as responses to comments will be released next Friday and will be available for the next Planning Commission hearing. Vice Chair Tucker stated that the City is obligated to formally respond to each comment made on the EIR. Regarding the fiscal aspects of the General Plan update, he reported that it is not a CEQA issue and is not something that the Planning Commission will consider. He addressed the schedule for review and noted that it has been set. Commissioner Brown referenced a comment made regarding transfer of hotel rooms to other areas and asked for clarification. Vice Chair Tucker commented on the matter in terms of number of trips with the various uses and stated that the tradeoff is not part of the Planning Commission's analysis. Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez noted that a reference was made specifically to Green Light and reported that it does not recognize a transfer and that all changes have their own line item with a sum at the bottom and there is no transfer. Vice Chair Tucker commented on levels of service related to San Miguel and Avocado and asked for clarification. City Traffic Engineer Brine explained how levels of service are calculated and reported there are particular intersections where there are heavier movements at specific peak hours. He added that Avocado is a lighter - travelled roadway and that San Miguel would be the primary basis of the calculation. In response to Vice Chair Tucker's inquiry regarding access to 520 Newport Center Drive, Mr. Brine reported there was a traffic study done in 2008 that analyzed the matter. Page 4 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES 5/22/14 Ms. Mulvihill added that this amendment is different than the actual construction analysis that would be made when an actual proposal and location is determined. The level of analysis done at this point is different than the level of analysis that will be done once there is a development proposed. Ms. Wisneski reported there will be subsequent environmental analyses through the entitlement process that will include a series of public hearings. Each development application will be evaluated per CEQA and at appropriate levels. Vice Chair Tucker commented on deficient intersections from the last update and those resulting in the presently proposed update and Mr. Brine reported that fourteen (14) intersections identified in the tables do not include improvements that were identified in the 2006 General Plan. If the improvements are completed, it will result in three (3) remaining, deficient intersections but they are not impacted by this amendment. Deficient intersections would need to be addressed with a new circulation element update. Vice Chair Tucker noted no intersection will be impacted after the mitigated improvements. He asked regarding cumulative impacts for specific intersections. In response to Vice Chair Tucker's question, Mr. Brine reported that the 2006 General Plan outlined eighteen (18) intersections requiring improvements. Of those, five (5) have been completed and that for the remainder, there are certain things that need to happen before improvements are completed as some are State intersections and some are shared with other cities. Those intersections that are entirely within the City will be scheduled into the General Plan. Commissioner Brown asked regarding a timeline for the improvements and suggested it would be prudent to complete them before beginning other projects. Mr. Brine addressed projects that have been scheduled and reported that for most, there are no set schedules for completion. He added that staff and Council set the schedule and addressed the CIP planning process. Discussion followed regarding projects in the airport area, verification of funding for one specific intersection and differences in impacts of the various alternatives. Ms. Hadfield reported that the airport area projects do not cause significant impacts but that does not mean that they would not, individually, cause a significant impact and presented an example of same. She added that in reviewing this matter, the impacts were a less than she anticipated and reported that the when the airport alternative looks at eliminating other airport land uses, it meets CEQA requirements of substantially reducing environmental impacts. The reason the no- airport alternative is a logical alternative also relates to the likely cumulative impacts associated the Airport Settlement Agreement. In response to Secretary Kramer's inquiry regarding other alternatives besides the no- airport alternative, Ms. Hadfield reported that this is a program -level EIR which does not merit a broad analysis of alternatives and in terms of CEQA requirements, the no- airport alternative was sufficient to determine what needed to be evaluated and eliminating significant impacts. She added there was reliance that this is a Supplemental EIR and other alternatives were evaluated in the 2006 EIR. Secretary Kramer did not feel that his question was answered and commented on the availability of other alternatives besides the one listed. Ms. Hadfield reported meeting with City staff to review the CEQA requirements of a reasonable range of alternatives and acknowledged that they could have reviewed a reduced density alternative but noted that a supplemental EIR does not necessarily mandate alternatives. Vice Chair Tucker stated that there is nothing that would not make the EIR effective by not looking at other alternatives and noted time constraints. Mr. Tescher added that the alternative provides the worst -case analysis and at the other end of the extreme, is the existing General Plan and commented on the latitude to pick between the extremes, within a range. Page 5 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES 5/22/14 Secretary Kramer expressed concerns that the decision is an "either /or ". Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill explained that the result is an EIR that has analyzed a spread of land use changes. Secretary Kramer commented that no study has been done on the individual projects within the airport area that can provide a rationale to choose appropriate or non - appropriate projects. Vice Chair Tucker stated it can, because the greatest project (all the airport area) shows no significant impact. Mr. Tescher added that the General Plan is a program EIR which looks at the City cumulatively, subsequently allocating trips via traffic models. The numerous alternatives are mixes and matches within the parameters of the extremes. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill agreed with Secretary Kramer that individual studies were not done because it is not necessary, due to the fact that an analysis was completed. Commissioner Brown added that in effect, the Commission could craft an alternative as it deemed appropriate and Ms. Mulvihill affirmed so. Mr. Tescher addressed the EIR process that occurred in 2006. In response to Vice Chair Tucker's inquiry, Ms. Hadfield explained the process of updating the traffic model and the changes that were made since the last study, as well as their procedure. C. PUBLIC COMMENTS Vice Chair Tucker opened the floor for public comments. Vice Chair Tucker closed public comments. D. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the Study Session was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on May 2, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., in the binder and on the City Hall Electronic Bulletin Board located in the entrance of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive. Bradley Hillgren, Chair Kory Kramer, Secretary Page 6 of 6 Correspondence Item No. 1.0Aa Draft Minutes 05/22/14 June 5, 2014 June 5, 2014, Planning Commission Agenda Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 - 6229). Item No. 1A: STUDY SESSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2014 Changes to the draft minutes passages shown in italics are suggested in strikeout underline format. 1. Page 2, paragraph 4, sentence 4: "She noted there was only one (1) topic that was found to have significant impacts aed that could be mitigated to less than significant. That whieh was air quality health risk which and was not addressed in the 2006 EIR." 2. Page 3, paragraph 4, sentence 1: "... it should be noted that projects within the airport area that are traffic neutral can be allowed to he move forward." 3. Page 3, paragraph 8, sentence 1: "He referenced statements regarding greenhouse gases and reported that the State mandate is to reduce the City's greenhouse gas emissions to eighty (805,o) percent of what they were in 1990 over the next thirty -six (36) years but the recommended changes do not advance that goal or address them." [note: This correctly states what I thought Ms. Hadfield had said. However, on closer reading the state goal for 2050 is to reduce GHG emission to a tonnage 80% below the GHG tonnage emitted in 1990 — that is, to 20% of what they were in 1990. The proposed policy is even farther from that than I imagined.] 4. Page 3, paragraph 8, sentence 3: "He addressed the need for consistency and stated that the changes proposed introduce inconsistencies into the overall General Plan adding that the introduction needs to be revised and Gammentin g commented on the vision statement." 5. Page 3, paragraph 9: "Patrick Strader, Star Pain Starpointe Ventures, ..." 6. Page 4, paragraph 2: "... and are not in compliance with the green Ligh- Greenlight initiative ..." 7. Page 4, paragraph 4, sentence 4: "Regarding total number of trips and Green Ligh Greenlight requirements, ..." 8. Page 4, paragraph 4 from end: "Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez noted that a reference was made specifically to Green 1.44 Greenlight and reported..." 9. Page 5, paragraph 6 from end: "Ms. Hadfield reported that the airport area projects de are not the sole cause of significant impacts but that does not mean that they would not, individually, cause a significant impact and presented an example of same. She added that in reviewing this matter, the impacts were a lot less than she anticipated and reported that the when the airport alternative looks at eliminating other airport land uses, it meets CEQA requirements of substantially reducing environmental impacts." [I believe the suggested modification makes clearer what Ms. Hadfield said when heard in context.] 10. Page 6, paragraph 2 under "C. PUBLIC COMMENTS ": "Seeing none, Vice Chair Tucker closed public comments." 11. Page 6, last paragraph: "The agenda for the Regular Meeting Study Session was posted ... 11 [Should the date and time of internet posting also be listed ?]