Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes_07-29-2024Page 1 of 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES COMMUNITY ROOM – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE July 29, 2024 REGULAR MEETING – 5 P.M. I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER - 5:01 p.m. II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL Present: Co-Chair Jeremy Evans Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Jaime Murillo and Principal Planner Ben Zdeba Committee Members: Dennis Baker, Curtis Black, James Carlson, Susan DeSantis, David Guder, Lynn Hackman, Laird Hayes, Charles Klobe, Ruth Kobayashi, Scott Laidlaw, Katie Love, Anthony Maniscalchi, Thomas Meng, Jim Mosher, Maxwell Pearson, Robert Rader, Nancy Scarbrough, Amber Snider, Debbie Stevens, Christy Walker, Paul Watkins, and Lori Williams Absent: Nicholas Acevedo, Jeff Cefalia, Annie Clougherty (Excused), Arlene Greer (Excused), and Harrison Rolfes III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Committee Member Dennis Baker stated that the GPAC had nothing to do with the creation of the Housing Element for the proposed General Plan. IV. CURRENT BUSINESS a. Meeting Minutes of June 19, 2024 Motion made by Committee Member Thomas Meng and seconded by Committee Member David Guder to approve the meeting minutes of June 19, 2024, with Committee Member Jim Mosher’s edits. The motion carried unanimously with Ruth Kobayashi opposing. b. Noise Subcommittee Recap The GPAC Noise Subcommittee met on June 18, 2024, to receive updates on Dudek’s support for the Noise Element, review noise complaint data, and to determine next steps. The GPAC Noise Subcommittee also met on July 25, 2024, to primarily review Dudek’s Memo prepared by Senior Acoustician Dana Lodico evaluating the current Noise Element and identifying possible areas for improvement. Subcommittee Chair Mosher provided an overview of the Subcommittee’s discussions and actions. Attachment 2 included a cover memo, action minutes from the June 18, 2024, Subcommittee meeting, and Dudek’s General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting July 29, 2024 Page 2 of 7 Memo. As the July 25, 2024, meeting occurred too close to the July 29 agenda packet publication, supplemental materials may follow from that meeting. Recommended Actions: 1- Receive an overview from the GPAC Noise Subcommittee: 2- Provide any feedback on the Subcommittee’s efforts; and 3- Receive and file Attachment 2 to continue guiding the initial update efforts for the Noise Element. Subcommittee Chair Jim Mosher utilized a presentation to review the requirements of a Noise Element in a General Plan, three approaches to achieving the goal of the Noise Element, the specifics set by the State to create and review a Noise Element (OPR Guidelines – Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines) and a status update on the Subcommittee’s progress, including a brief overview of challenging steps, future transportation noise contours and problem areas, Community Noise Survey (1991), and an example noise monitor in the Hyatt Regency parking lot (December 1- 3, 2023). In closing, he inquired about the GPAC’s support for investigating the number of resources to update the noise contours. Committee Member Ruth Kobayashi suggested the first step be determining if updating the noise contours is useful. Committee Member Charles Klobe relayed the reasons for the recommendation. Subcommittee Chair Mosher noted that the current plan contains existing and projected contours that included changes and suggested a similar study that could show if the projections happened. Committee Member Anthony Maniscalchi noted that the noise studies and contours presented to the Subcommittee were incomplete, too old, or not broad enough and an expanded noise study would establish benchmarks and baselines. He thought the noise studies were inadequate. In response to Committee Member Nancy Scarbrough’s inquiry, Committee Member Debbie Stevens explained how to apply models to study noise and supported an update to the data. In response to Committee Member Paul Watkins’ inquiry, Subcommittee Chair Mosher indicated that the Noise Element includes Pacific Coast Highway noise from the west end through Irvine Boulevard and beyond. Committee Member Klobe thought a baseline is needed for Coyote Canyon for future development. Co-Chair Evans concurred. Committee Member Baker inquired about the possibility of collecting data to support what’s working. In reply to Committee Member Scott Laidlaw’s question, Elizabeth Dickson of Dudek, explained the process for updating noise contours. General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting July 29, 2024 Page 3 of 7 Committee Member Susan DeSantis made comments that were inaudible. In reply, Ms. Dickson noted that audible changes in sound need to be three or more decibels, which requires doubling traffic, and the Noise Element is designed to inform the land use decisions and traffic projects. She noted that the Housing Element process is separate from the rest of the General Plan Update and land use changes are unknown at present. Ms. Dickson noted discussions with the Land Use Subcommittee and that more are planned during Phase Two outreach, and feedback from the community regarding further land use changes is desired. Committee Member Katie Love believed that other disruptions should be taken into consideration and that the noise was not solely caused by the wheels on the pavement. Ms. Dickson discussed the noise disturbances caused by the freeway, local street traffic, and the tires on the road. In reply to Committee Member Lynn Hackman’s question, Principal Planner Zdeba indicated that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers are not currently reflected in the Noise Element. There was unanimous support for the City Council to explore the possibility of contracting a consultant to revise the reports and analyze data. In response to Committee Member Scarbrough’s concern for congruency among the elements, Ms. Dickson assured there would be consistency across the elements. Committee Member Walker supported conducting a current noise study and thought the plans should reflect possible setbacks. Committee Member Kobayashi noted that the City has no control over the State housing mandates. Co-Chair Evans thought a community noise survey should be passed along to the City Council for consideration. Subcommittee Chair Mosher suggested that the GPAC provide a recommendation of key areas to benchmark the current noise for future reference and a joint meeting with staff and the Safety and Noise Subcommittees to inform the GPAC on advanced air mobility. Co-Chair Evans agreed. In response to Committee Member Baker’s inquiry, Principal Planner Zdeba thought that a list of noise sources could be provided by the acoustician and consultant. Co-Chair Evans summarized the GPAC’s recommendation to the City Council to allocate resources towards updating the noise study reports with consideration for the future impacts. c. Implementation Program Analysis On July 15, 2024, City staff provided Dudek’s Implementation Program Analysis for the GPAC’s review. The Analysis provided an overview of the tools at the City’s disposal for implementation of the General Plan, described relevant regulations, outlined potential issues and opportunities including some key emerging trends as well as funding General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting July 29, 2024 Page 4 of 7 opportunities, then finally some key considerations, which included regular General Plan Monitoring. As part of GPAC’s review, members were asked to consider additional tools or mechanisms the City could leverage for implementation, consider methods for stronger implementation beyond monitoring; and/or consider how the General Plan Update may be able to influence the budgeting process. Recommended Actions: 1- Receive an overview from Dudek; 2- Provide any feedback on the Analysis; and 3- Receive and file Attachment 3 as a starting point for future considerations and discussions related to updating the Implementation Program. Ms. Dickson utilized a presentation to review the Implementation Program Analysis overview, Implementation Program, considerations, and emerging needs. In response to Committee Member Baker’s inquiry, Ms. Dickson noted that future City Council members are bound by previous City Council actions unless they amend them, relayed how the General Plan is applied, and stated that estimated annual tracking costs could be determined by computing staff time to complete the Housing Element annual progress report and applying it to other elements. Committee Member Klobe suggested a future City Council have a policy that they will adhere to the General Plan’s policies and implementation measures. Committee Member DeSantis asked for a snapshot of what is happening in other cities who use the General Plan as a central governing document through the City Manager’s office. In reply, Ms. Dickson noted that every City is different, and each City Council has its own priorities and often staff will weigh in on if the priorities are consistent with the General Plan, for example, the City Manager through the budgeting process. d. Technical Diagnostic Memo On July 15, 2024, City staff provided Dudek’s Technical Diagnostic Memo for the GPAC’s review. The Diagnostic Memo provided an overview of key pieces of legislation related to the General Plan Update Process, Policies, and Implementation for the following elements/topics: Arts and Cultural; Harbor and Bay; Historical Resources; Land Use; Natural Resources; Recreation; Safety; and Environmental Justice. The intent of the report was to highlight regulations that must be considered through development of the General Plan Update as well as applicable implementation. Table 1 of the report provided an overview of the regulations relevant to the General Plan, and those regulations that influenced the policies of the General Plan, will be of importance in the next phase of the project. In addition to highlighting regulations, this report provided an analysis of Environmental Justice in Newport Beach. In addition to familiarizing themselves with the Diagnostic Memo, GPAC members were asked to review the Environmental Justice analysis of the report to identify any known environmental issues that may not be provided in the report, or any additional context that can be provided. Recommended Actions: 1- Receive and overview from Dudek; 2- Provide any feedback on the Memo; and 3- Receive and file Attachment 4. General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting July 29, 2024 Page 5 of 7 Ms. Dickson utilized a presentation to review the Diagnostic Memo summary, required and optional General Plan Elements excluding the Circulation, Noise, or Housing Elements, review authority for the General Plan Update, and implementation requirements for historical resources. In response to Committee Member Scarbrough’s question, Ms. Dickson relayed the General Plan review opportunities with outside agencies from what is sent to them from Dudek. Ms. Dickson continued with the presentation to review the policy specific regulations for optional elements and noted that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) does not weigh in on General Plan Updates and feedback would need to be requested by the City. Committee Member Laidlaw noted that changes to the Local Coastal Program are subject to review by the CCC and Ms. Dickson concurred. Ms. Dickson continued the presentation to review the policy specifics for required elements - Natural Resources, Recreation, Safety, and Land Use. In addition, she reviewed newly introduced Bills. Ms. Dickson presented the Environmental Justice Assessment and reviewed the purpose, Disadvantaged Community Analysis, Tract A, and Tract B. In response to Committee Member Scarbrough’s question, Ms. Dickson noted areas of overlap in the analysis. In response to Committee Member Walker’s question and concern, Ms. Dickson explained the process for determining low income and disadvantaged areas and noted the data required to be used by Dudek for the analysis. She stated that it is predicted that Environmental Justice focused policies will be incorporated throughout the General Plan, likely in the Safety Element and pollution related. In response to Committee Member KIobe’s inquiry, Ms. Dickson confirmed that proving low-income is the first determining factor for a disadvantaged status and thought that the Environmental Justice policies will apply to other areas as well. Committee Member Paul Watkins expressed concern for labeling Tract A as disadvantaged and asked for another review of it. He also noted that Santa Ana Country Club is not within the City’s jurisdiction and addressed a grammatical error in the analysis. In reply, Ms. Dickson agreed to revisit the Tract A determinants and reconfirm the data. He noted that the assessment determines if the City is required to address environmental justice, both tract areas cross jurisdiction lines, data is collected for the entire tract, Dudek does not have a way to parse out the data, the issue may be coming from across the City boundaries, and environmental issues will be addressed regardless of how it is termed. Ms. Dickson utilized the presentation to highlight the assessment of environmental justice concerns in Tract A. General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting July 29, 2024 Page 6 of 7 Committee Member Hackman expressed concern for a plan that excludes the Housing, Circulation, and Land Use Elements and RHNA. Principal Planner Zdeba clarified that the Housing Element is complete for the 2021-2029 cycle and is off the table. However, the Land Use Element can be updated, the Noise Element is being revisited through the Subcommittee, and other elements will be updated to be consistent with the Housing Element. The completed Housing Element is informing the General Plan Update, such that the housing plan will be folded into the different elements. He clarified that the Circulation Element is not off the table and may have updates next year. He encouraged the GPAC to continue to express areas of concern. Committee Member Mosher expressed concern for the overcrowding finding in the assessment of Santa Ana Heights. In reply, Ms. Dickson noted that the Healthy Places Index was reviewed, and the numbers are accurate, and changes provided by his comments will be incorporated where they are needed. He challenged the findings and she agreed to investigate other data sources. e. Phase One Outreach Summary On July 11, 2024, City staff provided the draft Phase One Outreach Summary to the GPAC Outreach Subcommittee prior to the design phase for awareness of findings and to ask if there are any key themes or big-picture items heard at an event that are not listed. The Phase One Outreach Summary was intended to be public-facing and reflect what we heard from the general public back to the community. If received and filed, it will be added to the resource library for reference throughout the process and will help to guide the effort into Phase Two. Several GPAC Outreach Subcommittee members responded and provided feedback. The attachment is considered the final draft of the Summary for full GPAC consideration. Recommended Actions: 1- Receive an overview from Dudek and Kearns & West; 2- Provide any feedback on the Summary; and 3- Receive and file Attachment 5 to help guide the Outreach Subcommittee and GPAC outreach efforts as part of the upcoming Phase Two. Taylor Funderburk from Kearns & West utilized a presentation to provide an update to outreach and engagement, a Phase One Outreach Summary, key themes collected, and website engagement. In response to Committee Member Baker’s interest, Ms. Funderburk described the engagement as incredible, filled with excitement and thoughtful comments. A member of the public, Virginia Anders-Ellmore, suggested including the Newport Shores newsletter and homeowner’s associations in the outreach effort. f. Presentation: Overview of Upcoming Deliverables and Objectives Ms. Funderburk utilized a presentation to share the next steps for outreach. In reply to Ms. Anders-Ellmore’s suggestion, Taylor listed the current outreach efforts and offered to help get the information to her community. General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting July 29, 2024 Page 7 of 7 Committee Member Walker suggested offering an abbreviated communication option for those with shorter attention spans. In response to Committee Member Baker’s questions, Taylor reviewed the time frame. Principal Planner Zdeba noted that the Outreach Subcommittee will meet next month, the biggest bump in engagement comes from the City Manager’s newsletter, and distribution to all homeowners has not yet happened and can be included in Phase Two. Ms. Funderburk noted she had business card QR codes available for the Committee. Ms. Dickson utilized a presentation to review the next steps for General Plan Development and connected the General Plan development and outreach with the visions and policy input received to-date and draft goals and policy topics/themes and offered input process options. Co-Chair Evans noted the approach used to hold a public workshop and have the Outreach Subcommittee review the input before it goes to the GPAC for discussion. Committee Member Mosher asked if noise topics will be discussed at the workshops. Principal Planner Zdeba asked if the GPAC was agreeable to Dudek drafting goals and policy topics and taking them to a workshop without going to a Subcommittee first. Committee Member Klobe objected and supported using email to communicate with the Subcommittee first before going to the public. Principal Planner Zdeba directed Ms. Dickson to follow this direction and further acknowledged the Noise Subcommittee’s desire for noise-related questions in a survey for certain areas of the City. V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM) None VI. ADJOURNMENT – With no further business, at 6:58 p.m. Co-Chair Evans adjourned the meeting to September 4, 2024.