Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 - Draft Minutes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, October 2, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER -The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ChairTucker III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers and Tucker Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Patrick Alford, Planning Program Manager; Brittany Ramirez, Administrative Technician IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Tucker invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on items not on the agenda, to do so at this time. Jim Mosher commented on Assembly Bill 194 and reported that the Governor decided to return the bill to the Legislature and therefore, the bill would not be going into effect January 1, 2015. He stated that the Brown Act requires an opportunity for public comment on every item that is on the agenda, not just public hearing items. He addressed the purpose of the Brown Act relative to holding meetings on a regular, predictable schedule as well as providing a mechanism for postponing regular meetings. He noted that the present meeting is being held in lieu of the regularly-scheduled meeting and stated there was no formal action at the previous Planning Commission meeting letting the public know when this meeting was going to occur. He addressed a recent candidates' forum and a question raised regarding the length of time allowed for public comments. He opined that a rigid, three-minute period can be disempowering to the public interested in participating in the public process and may give the impression that the Planning Commission is not interested in what they have to say. Seeing no others wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Tucker closed Public Comments. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES- None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Tucker noted that changes to the minutes of September 18,2014,were submitted by him and Mr.Jim Mosher. Chair Tucker opened public comments. Seeing no one wishing to provide comment, Chair Tucker closed public comments. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (4 — 3) to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 18, 2014, as corrected. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Myers and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: Hillgren, Kramer and Lawler ABSENT: None Page 1 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/02/14 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) Site Location: 151 and 201 Coast Hwy E Chair Tucker introduced the item, opened the public hearing and called for a staff report. Deputy Director of Community Development, Brenda Wisneski, reported that staff received an extensive comment letter just prior to the meeting and that staff has reviewed the letter and is prepared to address it. She suggested continuing with the presentation and addressing those comments as the meeting progressed. Planning Program Manager, Patrick Alford, provided details of the subject action noting that the request is unique in that the Planning Commission would typically do an environmental review along with a project. However, staff is asking that the Commission review and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in advance of the development application. If adopted, a separate application will be filed for the land side development. The water side improvements will be done through an approval in concept with the Harbor Resources Director. If both sides are approved, the entire project will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as part of a unified Coastal Development Permit. He addressed the project location, surrounding properties, expansion of the marina, relocation of existing public slips, new public slips, amenities, parking and landscaping. He presented information regarding the development areas, private marina expansion, land side and water side site plans, visual simulation for the marine commercial building, construction schedule, the public-review period of the MND and noticing efforts. Mr. Alford then introduced Tracy Zenn of T&B Planning for a continuation of the report. Tracy Zenn, Consultant for T&B Planning, detailed the analysis of the project impacts and proposed mitigation measures. She addressed the environmental issue areas that were studied, noting that the majority have less- than-significant impacts or no impacts, with no mitigation required. These included agriculture, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic and utilities and service systems. Those issues with significant impacts requiring mitigation include aesthetics, land use, biology, cultural resources, hazardous materials, and noise, and listed applicable mitigation efforts for each. Chair Tucker commented on the Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus& Peckenpaugh letter and suggested that Ms. Zenn continue with her presentation and that staff provide responses to the latter, subsequently. Ms. Zenn reported that she will provide responses to comments made and that the late-communication received today is somewhat repetitive, but she will respond to that as well. She referenced a letter received by "Still Protecting Our Newport," (SPON) which expressed disagreement, stating that the MND was an inappropriate form of environmental documentation. The letter requested the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, but did not provide detail or substantive evidence that the MND was not adequate. The written response addresses all of the issues listed in the SPON letter. In response to Chair Tucker's inquiry regarding aesthetics, Ms. Zenn reported on the key issues reviewed under aesthetics including whether or not the proposal is compatible with the character of the property and the surrounding community and whether the property results in offensive views in addition to other matters. Commissioner Koetting stated that because of the importance of the site, he would expect that the applicant would submit a schematic of the proposed buildings. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reminded Commission that the project is not being reviewed at this time, but rather the MND. The elements addressed by Commissioner Koetting would be reviewed during the site development review process. Commissioner Koetting commented on the standards being assessed and in response to his inquiry, it was noted that the Planning Commission will review the actual building plans to determine compatibility with the standards at a future date. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Ms. Wisneski reported that a determination of CEQA does not predetermine a future action and that the Commission is not obligated to approve the massing analysis that was Page 2 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/02/14 presented in the MND. She added that the site development review will have the specific findings requiring the Commission to assess compatibility with on-site and surrounding neighborhoods as well as design issues. The MND is not as specific as the site development review. Ms. Zenn reported that it is a review of the conceptual project. The City has proceeded effectively in projecting what the eventual build-out could be based on the concept submitted. Chair Tucker added that what the Commission is reviewing at this time are the impacts on the environment with separate decisions to be made at a later point. Discussion followed regarding the differences between the environmental review and the site review processes. Ms. Wisneski addressed CEQA requirements related to the level of analysis required under aesthetics. She added that the site development review will be evaluated in terms of the findings and presented the level of review in terms of the site development plan. Ms. Zenn addressed the letter received from Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus & Peckenpaugh, who represent the Linda Isle Homeowners Association. She listed the points of concern stated in the letter including claim that the MND did not appropriately evaluate cumulative impacts of two (2) projects: the Back Bay Landing project and the water-bus taxi project and she provided details of responses. Relative to the water taxi project, she indicated that is not a project, as defined by CEQA, is still being reviewed in terms of feasibility and there is no application yet filed. In terms of noise vibration impacts, she reported that the noise expert determined that the noise monitoring locations were appropriate and relied on an extensive noise study that was monitored on Linda Isle in the original reconstruction of Balboa Marina. Regarding the project's water and waste-water demands, Ms. Zen reported that the City's engineer completed an analysis of water demand for the project and noted that it addressed the specific issues under CEQA successfully and that there is sufficient water supply and waste-water treatment capacity to service the project. She added that landscaping will be drought-tolerant, as required by City Code. In response to Commissioner Brown's inquiry regarding the water study and why it was not conducted for the entire site, originally, Ms. Zenn reported that it was an oversight. She added that water-demand factors that were used were from Irvine Water District and the City is obligated to use the demand factors provided by the water purveyor. Ms. Zenn addressed concerns with changes in the grade on the land side portion of the project and potential issues from headlights shining across the water into the Linda Isle Community. She noted that there is a very large parking lot currently on the property and that there will be tuck-under parking at the site of the potential restaurant that will be reconfigured to have fewer spaces with headlights pointing in that direction. Additionally, she noted that the back portion of the property will be lowered, not raised, and that there will be landscaping added to block potential headlights. In response to Chair Tucker's question, Ms. Zenn reported that parts of the parking lot will be higher and there is an area for landscaping to be installed to block headlights. Ms. Wisneski noted that a landscaping plan will be made available. Discussion followed regarding a reconfiguration of the parking lot and areas where there will be fewer parking spaces. Regarding the construction process, the amount of materials that will be hauled to and from the site and the claim that the MND did not adequately address construction-related traffic, Ms. Zenn reported on the number of construction workers and disposal of dredge material for the water side and results of a study conducted in terms of construction-related traffic regarding the land side. Planning Project Manager Alford asked for a clarification of the water demand for construction and landscaping. Ms. Zenn addressed the water requirements for both construction and landscaping. Page 3 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/02/14 In response to Commissioner Brown's inquiry regarding the calculation of water demand, Ms. Zenn reported that normal and dry years were calculated for information-disclosure purposes. The MND calculated only a normal year for the original assessment and a dry and normal year was calculated, subsequently. Mr. Alford requested clarification of noise in relation to pedestrians. Ms. Zenn noted that pedestrian noise was taken into consideration in the noise analysis and noted that the location of the pedestrian access will be moved interiorly, away from Linda Isle. She added that this will be reviewed during the development site review. Commissioner Lawler asked for clarification regarding the Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus & Peckenpaugh claim that the MND failed to analyze trips for hauling demolition materials. Ms. Zenn reiterated that there will be export from the property of demolition materials and a small amount of import trips for a small amount of earth work that is needed. The number of trips during the construction period will be less than the number of trips that would occur when the project is operational. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill added that the City Attorney's office received a copy of the correspondence and that the City Attorney's office works closely with the Community Development Department to ensure that the City satisfies all of its obligations under CEQA; one of which is to provide responses to comments received during the public review period. That was done in this instance. Out of an abundance of caution, the City Attorney's office reviewed the late communication received today so that the Planning Commission can have the benefit of any information needed. She added that the one issue of concern was whether or not the cumulative analysis was sufficient and stated that the cumulative impacts of aesthetics were not analyzed as staff did not feel it was an impact to be evaluated. CEQA does not require the cumulative impact analysis to address all issues but rather those that are reasonably foreseeable to be impacted. She added that staff looked at the Back Bay Landing Project as well as traffic, noise and air quality. Relative to other issues, she stated that staffs prior responses provide sufficient information to address them. Chair Tucker suggested that, if the project is appealed to the City Council, staff provide written response to the late communication, for the record. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the pedestrian circulation plan noting that the walkway would be better placed along the waterfront. Ms. Zenn reported that the noise level from pedestrian activity is generally low, but that it is a concern to residents on Linda Isle. She added that when the site development plan is presented to the Planning Commission, it will be subject to CEQA and that the Commission will need to determine whether the analysis in the MND was appropriate. If there is a potential for a substantive change to the noise level based on a proposed relocation of the pedestrian pathway, the City could request that the applicant prepare technical support information to show that the conclusions in the MND are valid. If not, subsequent CEQA documentation could be presented to the Commission. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the site plan and on the project boundary. He asked about consideration of modifying traffic lanes in terms of increasing bicycle safety. Ms. Zenn reported that the only physical disturbance that will occur is related to the Marina Driveway entrance. No bicycles lanes would be affected by the project. Mr. Alford reported that the applicant will not be providing a presentation but is available to respond to questions from the Commission. Ms. Wisneski reiterated that approval of the MND is not approving any aspects of the project and solely relates to any potential environmental impacts. If changes are made to the project which were not reviewed in the MND, additional environmental review may be required. In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Ms. Wisneski reported that the MND is based upon a conceptual plan. Chair Tucker invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on this item to do so at this time. Page 4 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/02/14 Michelle Staples, Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus & Peckenpaugh, representing Linda Isle, highlighted mistakes in the MND, responses and staff report including confirmation that the cumulative impact analyses are incorrect relative to the Back Bay Project and Area 2. She expressed concerns with the vibration impact analysis relative to the dock replacement. Regarding noise impacts, she reported that the MND uses an outdated analysis and there were no noise monitoring measurements taken at Linda Isle, currently. She added that the MND ignores noise impacts experienced at Linda Isle due to existing restaurants and the resolution addressing measures needed for outdoor dining areas. She stated no outdoor dining should be allowed until an evaluation and mitigation measures are taken. She continued, claiming that the MND is inconsistent with construction noise impacts identified in the Back Bay Project and there is no mitigation for this project, even though it is closer to Linda Isle. She commented on the proposed raising of an area in the parking lot and expressed concerns with headlights and parking lot lights affecting Linda Isle residents. Additionally, she commented on inconsistencies with drought- tolerant landscaping and irrigation as well as challenges related to proposed building heights. She requested that the MND be corrected and recirculated, noted that residents are happy to work with staff and indicated there is no rush on proceeding with this project with such a flawed document. She asked that the project be continued in order to have an opportunity to work with the City and the applicant to address the issues of concern. Marge Austin, 401 Bayside, commented on the need to mitigate construction traffic issues, on noise and other issues posing an inconvenience to residents. In response to her inquiry, Chair Tucker reported that the parking lot will be raised in one (1) area. Jim Mosher stated he does not understand the logic of acting on this matter at this time and questioned the evaluation of the MND prior to having a specific project review. He acknowledged the concerns of nearby residents including the cumulative traffic impacts and aesthetic visual impacts. He commented on tuck-under parking and on negative comments from the public about the architecture at Mariner's Point. Dan Miller of Irvine Company reported that some are presupposing that there will be a restaurant and stated that the decision has not been made. He added that the MND is focusing on marine commercial, which could include a restaurant. When the specific plan comes before the Commission, it must fit within the set framework of what is being presented at this time. He stated that many of the comments made will be addressed during the site development review process. He addressed parking and ingress/egress and hoped that a user will be found so that they can return to the Planning Commission with a site review addressing details and present both to the Coastal Commission. He added that they may decide that they are not ready to do land side activities. He explained plans for the parking lot and existing conditions and noted they will mitigate with improvements. He addressed the pedestrian walkway and reported it is being moved further from Linda Isle in response to the community. There being no others wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Tucker closed the public hearing. Harbor Resources Manager Chris Miller addressed landscaping to mitigate light and noise impacts and a comparison of construction noise related to pile driving and mitigation efforts for the proposed project versus the original marina renovations. He added that this project is considerably smaller and that the current practice is as good or better. Mr. Alford addressed Area 2 of Back Bay Landing and commented on the uses slated for that area. He added that it is not physically connected to the subject site and that there are no uses proposed that would result in a cumulative impact. He commented on height limits at Back Bay Landing and reported that height limits will be reviewed when the project is presented to the Planning Commission for review. Presently, the Commission's duty is to review impacts in worst-case scenario. The appropriateness of the height limit will be decided at a later time in the site development review process. He addressed grading and corrections made to the administrative record. Ms. Zenn added that the grading plan was included in the administrative record but not bound into the MND document. In terms of the MND relying on old data, Ms. Zenn reported that is not the case as the noise expert took noise monitoring measures recently. The data used for vibration analysis is real data, not theoretical data and she explained the calculation of same. Page 5 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/02/14 Chair Tucker addressed the need for recirculation of the environmental document noting that according to the guidelines there is no basis to ask for recirculation. Secretary Kramer commented positively regarding the MND and expressed his interest in outdoor dining within the project. Chair Tucker stated that when the project returns for review, he will state his concerns regarding tuck-under parking. He commented on other commercial properties in town that are close to residential properties and commented on the basis of the existing noise ordinance. He added that the Planning Commission will also look at the landscaping plan when the project comes forward. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Secretary Kramer and carried (7 —0)to adopt Resolution No. 1958 approving Negative Declaration ND2013-002 (SCH No. 2014081044) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 3 Balboa Village Design Guidelines Update (PA2014-141) Site Location: Balboa Village between Adams Street and A Street Chair Tucker introduced the item, opened the public hearing and reported that there has been a previous study session on this matter and that it has been thoroughly reviewed. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the PowerPoint presentation had been made available in the staff report and addressed the need for updating the guidelines to provide additional guidance for new developers. She reported that Balboa Village is undergoing a revitalization effort and noted that staff felt that an update was necessary to make the design guidelines clear and concise. She addressed comments made by the Planning Commission during the study session and highlighted changes made since that meeting. Changes proposed by the Balboa Village Advisory Committee were also incorporated in the document. Chair Tucker reviewed elements of the document and asked a question regarding the ability to place outdoor dining in the public right-of-way. Ms. Wisneski stated that the City has the ability to place it in the public right-of-way. Chair Tucker suggested changes and additions to language within specific sections of the document. He commented on the proliferation of commercial in the area and stated that there should be more residential instead. Commissioner Koetting suggested changes and additions to language within specific sections of the document. He addressed the need for carefully-designed circulation and Ms. Wisneski pointed out a section in the guidelines that addresses circulation. Discussion followed regarding additional changes to the language in the document, planning for various types of uses at the front end, encouraging the elimination of excessive window signs, the City's existing sign ordinance and encouraging the use of roof-top dining, if practical. Chair Tucker invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on this item to do so at this time. Jim Mosher commented on the resolution, noting that it seems to be vague and suggested specificity in terms of what is being approved. He commented on keeping fagades clean and in good repair and pointed out typographical errors in the document. He noted that these are design guidelines having to do with aesthetic standards and suggested that the Arts Commission should review it. There being no others wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Tucker closed the public hearing. Page 6 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/02/14 Secretary Kramer clarified the action needed at this time. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Secretary Kramer and carried (7 — 0) to recommend adoption of Resolution No. 1959 approving the revisions to the Balboa Village Design Guidelines to the City Council as modified and discussed. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Ms. Wisneski reported that the next meeting of the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee is scheduled for October 29, 2014. 2. Update on City Council Items Ms.Wisneski addressed Planning Commission related items recently acted upon by City Council and listed matters to be considered by Council at its next meeting. Additionally, she reported on an upcoming meeting of the Coastal Commission in the City and items which they will be considering. She commented on an upcoming Mariner's Mile event occurring this month as well. ITEM NO.6 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT- None ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Koetting confirmed that he will not be in attendance for the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2014. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, September 26, 2014, at 9:40 a.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on Friday, September 26, 2014, at 9:50 a.m. Larry Tucker, Chair Jay Myers, Secretary Page 7 of 7 Changes proposed by Chair Tucker Planning Commission - October 23, 2014 Item No. 1a: Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 2, 2014 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, October 2, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER -The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ChairTucker 111. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers and Tucker Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Patrick Alford, Planning Program Manager; Brittany Ramirez, Administrative Technician IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Tucker invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on items not on the agenda, to do so at this time. Jim Mosher commented on Assembly Bill 194 and reported that the Governor decided to return the bill to the Legislature and therefore, the bill would not be going into effect January 1, 2015. He stated that the Brown Act requires an opportunity for public comment on every item that is on the agenda, not just public hearing items. He addressed the purpose of the Brown Act relative to holding meetings on a regular, predictable schedule as well as providing a mechanism for postponing regular meetings. He noted that the present meeting is being held in lieu of the regularly-scheduled meeting and stated there was no formal action at the previous Planning Commission meeting letting the public know when this meeting was going to occur. He addressed a recent candidates' forum and a question raised regarding the length of time allowed for public comments. He opined that a rigid, three-minute period can be disempowering to the public interested in participating in the public process and may give the impression that the Planning Commission is not interested in what they have to say. Seeing no others wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Tucker closed Public Comments. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES- None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Tucker noted that changes to the minutes of September 18,2014,were submitted by him and Mr.Jim Mosher. Chair Tucker opened public comments. Seeing no one wishing to provide comment, Chair Tucker closed public comments. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (4—0 - 3)to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 18, 2014, as corrected. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Myers and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: Hillgren, Kramer and Lawler ABSENT: None Page 1 of 8 Changes proposed by Chair Tucker Planning Commission - October 23, 2014 Item No. 1a: Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes of October 211204/44 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) Site Location: 151 and 201 Coast Hwy E Chair Tucker introduced the item, opened the public hearing and called for a staff report. Deputy Director of Community Development, Brenda Wisneski, reported that staff received an extensive comment letter just prior to the meeting and that staff has reviewed the letter and is prepared to address it. She suggested continuing with the presentation and addressing those comments as the meeting progressed. Planning Program Manager, Patrick Alford, provided details of the subject action noting that the request is unique in that the Planning Commission would typically do an environmental review along with a project. However, staff is asking that the Commission review and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in advance of the development application. If adopted, a separate application will be filed for the land side development. The water side improvements will be done through an approval in concept with the Harbor Resources Director. If both sides are approved, the entire project will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as part of a unified Coastal Development Permit. He addressed the project location, surrounding properties, expansion of the marina, relocation of existing public slips, new public slips, amenities, parking and landscaping. He presented information regarding the development areas, private marina expansion, land side and water side site plans, visual simulation for the marine commercial building, construction schedule, the public-review period of the MND and noticing efforts. Mr. Alford then introduced Tracy Zenn of T&B Planning for a continuation of the report. Tracy Zenn, Consultant for T&B Planning, detailed the analysis of the project impacts and proposed mitigation measures. She addressed the environmental issue areas that were studied, noting that the majority have less- than-significant impacts or no impacts, with no mitigation required. These included agriculture, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic and utilities and service systems. Those issues with significant impacts requiring mitigation include aesthetics, land use, biology, cultural resources, hazardous materials, and noise, and listed applicable mitigation efforts for each. Chair Tucker commented on the Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus& Peckenpaugh letter and suggested that Ms. Zenn continue with her presentation and that staff provide responses to the leatter, subsequently. Ms. Zenn reported that she will provide responses to comments made and that the late-communication received today is somewhat repetitive, but she will respond to that as well. She referenced a letter received by "Still Protecting Our Newport," (SPON) which expressed disagreement, stating that the MND was an inappropriate form of environmental documentation. The letter requested the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, but did not provide detail or substantive evidence that the MND was not adequate. The written response addresses all of the issues listed in the SPON letter. In response to Chair Tucker's inquiry regarding aesthetics, Ms. Zenn reported on the key issues reviewed under aesthetics including whether or not the proposal is compatible with the character of the property and the surrounding community and whether the property results in offensive views in addition to other matters. Commissioner Koetting stated that because of the importance of the site, he would expect that the applicant would submit a schematic of the proposed buildings. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reminded Commission that the project is not being reviewed at this time, but rather the MND. The elements addressed by Commissioner Koetting would be reviewed during the site development review process. Commissioner Koetting commented on the standards being assessed and in response to his inquiry, it was noted that the Planning Commission will review the actual building plans to determine compatibility with the standards at a future date. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Ms. Wisneski reported that a determination of CEQA does not predetermine a future action and that the Commission is not obligated to approve the massing analysis that was Page 2 of 8 Changes proposed by Chair Tucker Planning Commission - October 23, 2014 Item No. 1a: Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes of October 21204/44 presented in the MND. She added that the site development review will have the specific findings requiring the Commission to assess compatibility with on-site and surrounding neighborhoods as well as design issues. The MND is not as specific as the site development review. Ms. Zenn reported that it is a review of the conceptual project. The City has proceeded effectively in projecting what the eventual build-out could be based on the concept submitted. Chair Tucker added that what the Commission is reviewing at this time are the potential impacts on the environment of an assumed maximum boundary of a project but with separate decisions on a specific site development permit application to be made at a later point. Discussion followed regarding the differences between the environmental review and the site review processes. Ms. Wisneski addressed CEQA requirements related to the level of analysis required under aesthetics. She added that the site development review will be evaluated in terms of the findings and presented the level of review in terms of the site development plan. Ms. Zenn addressed the letter received from Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus & Peckenpaugh, who represent the Linda Isle Homeowners Association. She listed the points of concern stated in the letter including claim that the MND did not appropriately evaluate cumulative impacts of two (2) projects: the Back Bay Landing project and the water-bus taxi project and she provided details of responses. Relative to the water taxi project, she indicated that is not a project, as defined by CEQA, is still being reviewed in terms of feasibility and there is no application yet filed. In terms of noise vibration impacts, she reported that the noise expert determined that the noise monitoring locations were appropriate and relied on an extensive noise study that was monitored on Linda Isle in the original reconstruction of Balboa Marina. Regarding the project's water and waste-water demands, Ms. Zen reported that the City's engineer completed an analysis of water demand for the project and noted that it addressed the specific issues under CEQA successfully and that there is sufficient water supply and waste-water treatment capacity to service the project. She added that landscaping will be drought-tolerant, as required by City Code. In response to Commissioner Brown's inquiry regarding the water study and why it was not conducted for the entire site, originally, Ms. Zenn reported that it was an oversight. She added that water-demand factors that were used were from Irvine Water District and the City is obligated to use the demand factors provided by the water purveyor. Ms. Zenn addressed concerns with changes in the grade on the land side portion of the project and potential issues from headlights shining across the water into the Linda Isle Community. She noted that there is a very large parking lot currently on the property and that there will be tuck-under parking at the site of the potential restaurant that will be reconfigured to have fewer spaces with headlights pointing in that direction. Additionally, she noted that the back portion of the property will be lowered, not raised, and that there will be landscaping added to block potential headlights. In response to Chair Tucker's question, Ms. Zenn reported that parts of the parking lot will be higher and there is an area for landscaping to be installed to block headlights. That would be part of the site development review. Ms. Wisneski noted that a landscaping plan will be made available. Discussion followed regarding a reconfiguration of the parking lot and areas where there will be fewer parking spaces. Regarding the construction process, the amount of materials that will be hauled to and from the site and the claim that the MND did not adequately address construction-related traffic, Ms. Zenn reported on the number of construction workers and disposal of dredge material for the water side and results of a study conducted in terms of construction-related traffic regarding the land side. Planning Project Manager Alford asked for a clarification of the water demand for construction and landscaping. Ms. Zenn addressed the water requirements for both construction and landscaping. Page 3 of 8 Changes proposed by Chair Tucker Planning Commission - October 23, 2014 Item No. 1a: Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes of October 21204/44 Chair Tucker addressed whether there was athe need tofer recirculate nn of the environmental document noting that according to the guidelines there did is not appear to be a basis to ask for recirculation. The Commission concurred there was no substantial information in the record that mandated recirculation. Secretary Kramer commented positively regarding the MND and expressed his interest in outdoor dining within the project. Chair Tucker stated that when the project returns for site development review, he will state his concerns regarding tuck-under parking, if it were to be proposed. He commented on other commercial properties in town that are close to residential properties and that those situations require a balancing of interests. He alsoand commented on the duty of all uses to comply with basis o the existing noise ordinance. He added that the Planning Commission will also look at the landscaping plan when a specificthe project comes forward. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Secretary Kramer and carried (7 —0)to adopt Resolution No. 1958 approving Negative Declaration ND2013-002 (SCH No. 2014081044) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 3 Balboa Village Design Guidelines Update(PA2014-141) Site Location: Balboa Village between Adams Street and A Street Chair Tucker introduced the item, opened the public hearing and reported that there has been a previous study session on this matter and that it has been thoroughly reviewed. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the PowerPoint presentation had been made available in the staff report and addressed the need for updating the guidelines to provide additional guidance for new developers. She reported that Balboa Village is undergoing a revitalization effort and noted that staff felt that an update was necessary to make the design guidelines clear and concise. She addressed comments made by the Planning Commission during the study session and highlighted changes made since that meeting. Changes proposed by the Balboa Village Advisory Committee were also incorporated in the document. Chair Tucker reviewed elements of the document and asked a question regarding the ability to place outdoor dining in the public right-of-way. Ms. Wisneski stated that the City has the ability to place it in the public right-of-way. Chair Tucker suggested changes and additions to language within specific sections of the document. He commented on the excesspra feratien of commercial space in the area and stated that there should be more residential instead so there would be less commercial space to fill and more customers to frequent the commercial space that is there. Commissioner Koetting suggested changes and additions to language within specific sections of the document. He addressed the need for carefully-designed circulation and Ms. Wisneski pointed out a section in the guidelines that addresses circulation. Discussion followed regarding additional changes to the language in the document, planning for various types of uses at the front end, encouraging the elimination of excessive window signs, the City's existing sign ordinance and encouraging the use of roof-top dining, if practical. Chair Tucker invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on this item to do so at this time. Jim Mosher commented on the resolution, noting that it seems to be vague and suggested specificity in terms of what is being approved. He commented on keeping fagades clean and in good repair and pointed out Page 6 of 8 Planning Commission - October 23, 2014 Item No. 1 b: Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 2, 2014 October 23, 2014, Planning Commission Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item by: Jim Mosher( iimmosherCcDvahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1: MINUTES OF OCTOBER Z 2014 Changes to the draft minutes passages shown in italics are suggested in Orikeeul underline format. 1. Page 2, paragraph 3, last sentence: "Mr. Alford then introduced Tracy Zen^ Zinn of T&B Planning for a continuation of the report." [note: "Zinn" is the spelling given on page 8-1, the final page of the August 18, 2014, Balboa Marina West MND. Assuming Zinn is correct, "Zenn" should be changed to "Zinn" in 19 places on pages 2-5 of the draft minutes] 2. Page 2, paragraph 3 from end: "Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reminded the Commission that ..." 3. Page 2, last sentence: "In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Ms. Wisneski reported that a determination of CEQA compliance does not predetermine a future action ..." [?] 4. Page 2, paragraph 5, sentence 2: "She listed the points of concern stated in the letter including a claim that ..." 5. Page 2, paragraph 5, sentence 5: ". .. Ms. Zen Zinn reported that ..." 6. Page 3, paragraph 5, sentence 1: "... confirmation that the cumulative impact analyses are incorrect relative to the Back Bay Landing Project and Area 2." 7. Page 3, paragraph 5, sentence 5: "... the MND is inconsistent with construction noise impacts identified in the Back Bay Landing Project ..." 8. Page 5, paragraph 4, last sentence: "He commented on tuck-under parking and on negative comments from the public about the architecture at Mariner's Point Pointe." 9. Page 5, paragraph 5, sentence 1: "Dan Miller of The Irvine Company reported ..." 10. Page 5, paragraph 2 from end, sentence 3: "Presently, the Commission's duty is to review impacts in a worst-case scenario." 11. Page 6, paragraphs 2 &4 [two places]: "S�^�a T Vice Chair Kramer..." 12. Page 7, paragraphs 1 & 2 [two places]: "... Secretary Vice Chair Kramer..."