Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/04/2005Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 13 file: //F:1 Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \P1nAgendas\2005\mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Commissioner Cole was excused, Commissioner McDaniel arrived at 4:10, II other Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary aylene Olson, Department Assistant Elwood Tescher, Consultant, EIP Associates Ms. Temple introduced Ms. Olson as the principal back up for the Planning Commission Secretary. PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on September 30, 2005. AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Review draft goals and policies for ITEM NO.1 he Historical Resources Element. Discussion Item Ms. Wood noted the Commission will be focusing on the policies. The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) had reviewed these policies this past Saturday and their recommendations are included as red -line strike out in the report distributed this evening. Mr. Elwood Tescher, consultant, noted this is the first opportunity to see what ould constitute the policy sections of the General Plan and is the basic file: //F:1 Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \P1nAgendas\2005\mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 lanization and outline of the contents as well. As indicated, we are loc three elements tonight. The goals are stated with a series of policies ate to that goal. A goal, as defined in the State guideline, is a get action, and is an ideal future end related to public health, safety neral welfare. It is a general expression of a community value and it abstract; it is generally not quantifiable; and, is generally not pendent. He then gave examples. Wood noted that the goals initially drafted by EIP staff were written in 1 sive voice. Some members of the GPAC wanted the passive vo nged to the active voice. There are a variety of ways that the goals < ressed in the report, but those will all be cleaned up so that we < )wing the guidance from the State Guidelines and they are all written same manner. r. Tescher noted that the staff report has the policy that is a specii atement that tells how you are going to get to that particular goal. Its inte a commitment of the legislative body to a particular course of action and e State Guidelines there is clarity regarding the state's intent on about he e policies are worded. In making the commitment, the guidelines indica at 'shall' is the preferred language in the policy. There are a number aces where you the City do not have the absolute authority to 'require'. is not that every plan policy absolutely has to have a 'shall' mandato atement and direction. However, the General Plan Guidelines provide th u do as much to the extent as possible. He then gave more exampl( )ting that as this is reviewed, we need to think of what truly is going to k e policy you want to commit the City to achieve. Actually, the State says u do not make the commitment, it is actually better not to have any poli) (dressing that particular topic. Resources Element: H1 Tescher noted there are elements that are required by State Law dated elements, but optional elements can be added by the City. This that the City has chosen to pursue but is not a required element. If )ric Resources Element is approved, holds an equal weight under la is no less a priority or no less important as any of the mandate cents. The goals and policies in this chapter focus on sever ponents; the recognition of the resources that are out there; tk action of those resources; and what are considered to be important. :ferring to page 7 of the GPAC staff report with strike out and underline d in red, he noted that the basic goal is about the recognition and protei landmark sites and structures. He then discussed the policies listed. Eaton asked where the Master Plan would fit in. Tescher answered that the Master Plan is an action item and is a Page 2 of 13 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas\2005\mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 Page 3 of 13 of detail of resource identification and specific actions. If the Ma is prepared and adopted it would carry the same level of law and ct to the same level of specificity as the State Law in terms of ral Plan. s. Wood added that GPAC did not intend this to be so formal that it woul governed by State Law. This came about by a discussion that suggestec at if the City wanted to express more commitment to the preservation o >torical resources than we have in the past, then having and updating the rentory, as well as some kind of designation procedure, was necessary cause things on the inventory are candidate or nominated historic sites anc By haven't been given a designation. One of the committee member: ggested the Master Plan approach, which would include the inventory, the :signation, the preservation policies and encouraging historical element; th new projects. What GPAC intended was to move a number of these licies and incorporate them all in to H1.1 in the Master Plan and not have parate policies on inventory, preservation, landmarks and adaptive review. ie added that we need to remember what a policy means because these :as really are going further than what the City has done in the pas garding historic preservation. If we make a commitment in the Genera an to a Master Plan, that is a big commitment of staff time or consultan ie as it is not something that we can do now nor that someone on our staf trained to do. Hawkins, referring to H.1, noted that other jurisdictions have a histoi wrces commission or some recommending body to the Council. If ;ue this, aren't we involving ourselves in a myriad of regulatic aaucracies, etc.? . Wood answered that Council Policy has the Arts Commission r 3ignations of historic sites to the City Council. I would assume, if a policies were adopted, we would continue to have the Arts Comn ng it. She noted it would create a lot more structure and use of staff isultant time to accomplish this. missioner Tucker noted his concern of what could be designated rical sites. Looking at the General Plan and policies, the 'shall' is a of it. We would need to designate where the 'Master Plan' would Wood noted that GPAC noted the term of 'district', such as uare and Balboa Village. Temple added that there may not be cohesive areas where not e ling is valuable but there may be areas where they exist sporadically LC felt this would be a way to get to those few. Wood stated that this is not something on which staff is making a �mmendation. We were told by the GPAC to include historic res so we put these items in for discussion. It is definitely a policy qi file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA\ Intemet \P1nAgendas \2005\mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 the Planning Commission and the Council. nmissioner Henn noted his concern of creating a Master Plan of Distric we have already identified in the prologue of these policies all of tt .orically important sites. I don't understand the need for the creation of ster Plan and Districts in association with that. Additional sites could t ntified in the future if we had some sort of mechanism, but there is no nee a Master Plan that would draw resources from staff and perhaps crea need for additional staff. nissioner Tucker noted we should go back to what was originally rd by staff. The only part of it that I would like to make the change H1.2. It says, 'Discourage the demolition of structures ..... I would with, 'Encourage the preservation of structures ...... On Policy H1 < H1 we should stick to the language that was originally put forward. Wood noted that staff will be doing the goals phrasing as long as with the basic concept. Toerge noted that there was a consensus on this action. is comment was opened. Mores Otting, resident, noted she like Policy H1.3 and asked if it was goi be included as there should be some placard of where something used as it is not possible to preserve everything. sioner Tucker noted his suggestion was to leave policies H1.1 H1.5 in the original text. Commission agreed. H2 Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. He noted that H2.1 2 were taken directly from the Local Coastal Plan and are tradit Nlies. H2.3 and H2.4 are taken from the draft Coastal Plan and from incil Policy so they would apply city -wide. sioner Tucker asked about Policy H2.1 where it says, require 1 ment to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeoloc as from destruction and avoid and minimize impacts to s m .... If we have a whale bone where a building is supposed to go, doesn't get built? He was answered, no. Commissioner Tucker noted this needs to be clearer. Tescher answered that it defaults to CEQA, which is very clear on lation of archeological and paleontological resources. He gave exam Page 4 of 13 file://F:1Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas \2005\mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 the CEQA procedures. )wing a brief discussion it was decided to add a reference to CEQA in t sentence regarding the mitigation in H2.1 and use the word mitigate d of minimize. comment was opened. comment was closed. 3JECT: General Plan Update - Review draft goals and policies Arts and Cultural Resources Element. Tescher noted this is an optional element and will be a new element City's General Plan program. It focuses on the participation of the City ural and arts programs, provision of physical facilities for those progran funding for those programs. Wood added the Arts Commission had prepared a draft element mangy the ago and submitted it to the General Plan Update Committee. Witt submittal GPAC decided we should address arts and culture in the eral Plan. EIP has taken that draft and used it as the base document. re has been no formal review of this element by the Arts Commission yet we will be taking this to them within the next couple of weeks. Th( irman was at the GPAC meeting and spoke on this matter and he is ,fied with the work to date. Mr. Tescher gave a brief overview of the staff report. 3mmissioner Hawkins noted the library is referenced throughout a: cations to exhibit art. The library cultural resource the City has is no cognized in this element at all and that is problematic. This City provide: iportant library services to its citizens and if we are going to have an Art: id Cultural Resources Element in the General Plan that ought to recogniz( e library system. It is in there in facilities, etc., but it is not visible. We havf Library Commission which might want to also take a look at reviewing this. aybe the library resources is not something that is generally considered ii e General Plan, but I have a hard time distinguishing it from Culture nmissioner Tucker noted the program in Laguna Beach was based on ventage that had to be spent on art. He noted support of the origir luage as opposed to the new language put forth by GPAC. However, I ild change one part of the second sentence in Policy CA1.1. It says, 'TI should explore requiring art ...... I would delete 'explore requiring' and p word 'encourage' in there. Art in projects is terrific, but it is somethii the City should not mandate, but create a situation where people a ouraged to do that and recognized for providing that benefit to tl imunity. Discussion followed. Page 5 of 13 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Intemet\PhiAgendas \2005 \mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 Wood gave an overview of GPAC discussion on Policy CA1.1 noting Ived around the district concept. She noted that the two issues of priva public projects are separated into two separate policies. nmissioner Tucker, referring to the original staff report on hand -m e 17 under Policy CA1.1, suggested leave the first sentence as is. and sentence becomes CA1.2, which becomes Private Project and c words, 'explore requiring' and replace them with'encourage'. ssioner Hawkins noted this references a private project not a This is a reasonable goal to have art at public sites and thi ig it is not a problem. I don't believe the City would install a without having public art. consensus of the Commission was to agree with Commission Tucke gestion. Commissioner Hawkins was not in agreement. nmissioner Tucker then suggested that the Commission accept the rest policies in the original staff report. Commission agreed. lic comment was opened. Wood suggested, and the Commission agreed, to add a new head ary Services where there will be a narrative about the library and se a goal and policies about continuing to provide that level of service. 3JECT: General Plan Update - Review draft goals and policies Public Safety Element. Tescher gave noted this element is required by State Law and then ga overview of the staff report. He noted that Policies S1.1 through S1.9 a ratted from the Local Coastal Plan. He added that the GPAC attempted ieralize some of the policies. The noted GPAC deletions were do ;ause they felt it was too detailed. Staff agrees and EIP will be going ba look at the balance of the level of detail that needs to be in the Gene in. There is one area where the recommended GPAC deletions a ppropriate and are needed in order to have a legal document. Tucker asked for the staff recommendation on Policies S1. S1.9. Wood noted that Policy S1.4, S1.7 and S1.8 are appropriate to delete. :y S1.4, GPAC thinking was that the signs would be so small that thei Idn't be any good. With regard to requiring hoteliers to keep that kind o mation, how would staff be able to check up on that and enforce it? I Id be a nice thing to do, but it doesn't belong in the General Plan policy. tionally, we don't have control over the Newport Mesa School District Page 6 of 13 file: //F:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 supports keeping Policy S1.9. and Commission then discussed the disaster information that is on tl s website; possible mailings to the citizenry; the roles of the Police at Departments regarding this type of information; possibility of including sort of these departments in educating the public; and, budget issue used to General Plan issue. S1 Tescher added that in Policy S9.3 with respect to e tiredness and evacuation planning, etc. would cover the issues. then followed on the dissemination of this information. Wood suggested that Policy S9.5, Sponsor and tion .... should be changed to, 'Cityshalf support education..... sioner Hawkins noted that this discussion and presentation should in this section of policies. er Eaton asked if the deletion of these policies would with the LCP. Wood answered the Coastal Commission is not concerned, and we need to have that level of detail in the General Plan. ommissioner Tucker noted the issue now is disaster planning, now we h problem what is it we do about the problem? With all of these we prob fight to get out of the disaster planning mode on all the goals other than saster planning goal, in which case we need to have all the disa anning policies in one location so that it is not popping up throughout. on Toerge noted his concern of including additional areas within could be included in the coastal hazard listing that would by a tsunami and rogue wave. Temple noted that it was the intent to name the biggest and most >. It is an example list. She noted it would be difficult to specify. followed on coastal hazards, storm surges and coastal erosion. Tucker noted he would like to relocate S1.4 to the and delete Policies S1.7 and S1.8. :)ner Hawkins noted Policy S1.9 talks about support research studies and from his perspective tsunamis are almost alw ial, so why do localized research? Page 7 of 13 file:// F:\ Apps1WEBDATA1 Intemet\PlnAgendas \2005\mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 Temple explained the role of the safety personnel in these types vises on a regionalized basis. sioner Henn noted that this research is more likely into the of tsunamis, may be a better way to put ft. discussion, it was suggested and agreed to add the word Policy S1.9. comment was opened. ara Amato, resident, noted she supports Policy S1.9 due to hurricanes. ores Otting, resident, noted a website that has to do with earthquakes. stated that last week alone there were 600 earthquakes that were noted. itinuing, she noted that the City needs to encourage that information be ught to parents through the schools as oftentimes this is the onll rmation the parents get. She asked that this policy not be deleted. She cluding saying that there is a lot of information that needs to be given tc public. S2 Tescher gave an overview of Goal S2 and the policies. Policies S2. ugh S2.5 are directly from the LCP, the others have been develope ugh the years. Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted GPAC concern with deleting S i to do with the shoreline armor as opposed to using other designs. TI this could be dealt with in a more environmentally sensitive fashion )osed to constructing walls and fences etc. airperson Toerge noted he is okay with the proposed changes in 7 and deleting Policy S2.8. comment was opened. Commission gave their general consensus. S3 Tescher then gave an overview of Goal S3 and policies that deal with reline protective devices. missioner Eaton asked why storm surges was added to Goal S3 when in Goal S2. Wood answered it would be better to remove that language as it Page 8 of 13 file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas \2005\mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 in Goal S2. issioner Tucker noted that Policy S3.7 deals with protective devices land to protect private property, why wouldn't we want that in there? ssioner Henn noted the concept in S3.7 is using public land to pr property. It is a very different concept than what is stated in S3.5. rperson Toerge stated we should keep S3.7. The Commission agreed. proposed changes on S3.9 and S3.10 were then discussed and then ad to by the Commission. comment was opened. >ara Amato, resident, noted her concern about the lack of preservation of the beaches noted in this document. Toerge noted those issues are in the LCP and are not this policy. S4 Tescher then gave an overview of Goal S4 and the policies. He noted tern with the proposed deletion of S4.3 about the seismic retrofitting ngthening of essential facilities is a normal policy component of a Gern i unless all of your existing facilities and schools have been seismic raded to contemporary standards. He suggested leaving that in feral Plan. Policy S4.5 about the location of essential facilities is norm aired as part of State Law to be in the General Plan as is Policy S4.6, :ement of facilities within active or potentially active faults. rperson Toerge asked why Policy S4.1 was suggested to be deleted. answered that GPAC felt it was too much detail and is required by and the Building Code. followed on the GPAC suggested deletions of the policies. Wood added that another GPAC policy recommendation was for the Cib irovide public education on the seismic hazards of older buildings. taps that is one that would go into Section 9 with all the other disaste ning and response. Tescher added that language will be modified if necessary to istent with State Law. rson Toerge, noted 4.1 is coming out, the changes to 4.2 ble, leave in 4.3, check on 4.5 and 4.6. Policy S4.7 is encou of ensure. The Commission agreed. Page 9 of 13 file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005\mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 comment was opened. comment was closed. S5 Tescher gave an overview of Goal S5 and the policies. The delet Tested by GPAC was related to detail that is not needed in the pol Commission agreed comment was opened. Amato brought up policy 2.8 versus 3.5 of in a previous goal. up the confusion noting one was referring to storm surges and to storm erosion. erson Toerge noted he agrees with the proposed GPAC changes for agreement. Eaton asked about the 500 -year flood zone mentioned in S5. S5.2. wing a brief discussion, it was agreed to eliminate the reference to flood zone. )ara Amato, resident, brought up policy 3.5 again and asked if a phras says, 'these structures do not contribute to storm surge,' could be added. missioner Hawkins asked if the consultant could add a statement facilities would be constructed pursuant to some state requires h would require mitigation of those project related impacts. He iered yes. Continuing, he noted the if these protective devices are don't cause other problems, pursuant to State law. McDaniel thanked the audience members for comment was closed. 56 Tescher then gave an overview of Goal S6 and policies. Policies S6.' relocated to S9. ng a brief discussion on duties, it was agreed to keep in S6.10 had recommended be removed and remove S6.8 Page 10 of 13 file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005\mn10- 04- OS.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 comment was opened. comment was closed. S7 Tescher than gave an overview of S7 goal and policies. Commission inquiry, staff noted the methane gas districts. Commission comment was opened. Amato asked if there were dump site in Newport. She was answered e are two but they are not designated as gas methane districts. Offing asked about a gas methane district for Coyote Canyon. Tescher answered that Policy S7.2 addresses this issue. Commission agreed to the recommended GPAC changes. Harp noted that there are extensive State regulations that deal lane districts including old land fills. Wood suggested adding a new policy that the City should con; her there are any other areas that should be designated as methane Commission agreed. comment was closed. S8 Tescher then gave an overview of Goal S8 and policies. Wood noted that GPAC recommended the removal of 58.4 as it sh in S9 and the removal of S8.5 as it is an operational issue and rooriate for the General Plan. missioner Tucker, referring to Policy S8.6 noted changes need to IN to the wording and referenced the curfew and extension deadlines. policy should be a more general language to allow for negotiations a point later on. Wood noted that language such as, 'unless or in exchange for extended protections for the City.' Page 11 of 13 file:// F: 1Apps1 WEBDATA1Intemet \PlnAgendas12005\mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 issioner Hawkins noted his agreement with Commissioner he would add, 'except those approved by City Council.' McDaniel noted the word 'oppose' is hard, and nissioner Eaton noted we need to acknowledge that when the exter out, there will be future negotiations for passenger, flight limits nissioner Tucker noted he has suggested language; place a co the word '....Airport and say, 'except in connection with an extei r modification of the flight limits and curfew in the existing Settle sment.' Staff along with the City Attorney's office can come up thing like this as we really want that ability for negotiations. City Attorney Harp noted his agreement and will work with Mr Esquire. comment was opened. comment was closed. rson Toerge asked if the changes that are being made tonight will in the next staff report. answered that we can send you a revision that is red -lined from al staff report as a result of your discussion and the City Council's ng. This will be a 'working page' of the changes. Commission agreed. S9 Tescher than gave an overview of Goal S9 and the policies. He n there are several policies that have been transferred into this section. ,son Toerge brought up the issue o f icy plan to the citizens. Following a that Policy S9.6 shall be changed Staff will contend with the details. comment was opened. distributing a copy of lengthy discussion, it to, 'City shall sponsor Amato suggested the use of shuttle buses for evacuation. Wood noted this is something that could be done through the activation City's Emergency Operation Center. Page 12 of 13 file:// F:1 Apps1WEBDATA\Intemet lPlnAgendas\2005\mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/2005 gyres Offing noted that the EMS can be looked up on line. She noted that itington Beach has been honored as 'Storm City', and read excerpts from local newspaper. She thanked the Commission for their courtesy. ng a brief discussion, it was decided to accept the recommended changes. The Commission agreed imissioner Tucker then brought up the issue of when the suggested land intensities will be dealt with for the various properties in town. He noted a are areas that had possible changes that could be designated. s. Wood stated that there are two meetings in November where you will be ovided with documents as reviewed tonight so you will be seeing land use dicies in addition to the quantities that we are dealing with so far. Both the 3mmission and the Council still need to have more discussion on amounts land use and what kinds of land use where, especially where we are troducing residential for mixed use districts, beyond what you talked about st for the maximum level you considered in the EIR. There are a few areas at have many more issues to discuss and could result in much more ipacts than other areas. I would suggest that we start earlier than 4:00 p.m. you can and to concentrate on the most important areas for those two eetings which are the airport area, Newport Center Fashion Island, Mariners ile and Banning Ranch. If there is enough time to get to some of the nailer areas, that would be fine. But if you can't we can probably add those scussion to the regular meeting agendas. That will give you the time to ally delve into those areas and the issues. lowing a brief discussion it was agreed that the time to discuss these ential land uses is important and starting early is something that needs to done. Additionally, it was discussed to have the traffic and fiscal analysis the alternatives to review; and an agreed to list of areas that need to be dewed in depth. The traffic information will be ready for December 6th for Commission and the Council to review. ner Hawkins noted that Goal S9 should be amended to say, ....will to be developed, maintained and implemented...... The n concurred. at 6:35 Page 13 of 13 file: //F:IApps1WEBDATA1 IntemetlPlnAgendas120051mn10- 04- 05.htm 6/26/2008