Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes (2)Planning Commission Minutes 04/06/2006 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2006 Regular Meeting - 3:00 p.m. Page 1 of 13 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min eta 1\2006 \04062006.htm 04 /21/2006 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - Commissioner Cole will be arriving at approximately 3:30 and Commissioner Tucker will be arriving at 6:30, all other Commissioners present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director osalinh Ung, Associate Planner aron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney ich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary UBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS s. Dolores Offing suggested that for the afternoon meetings, some of the employe vehicles should be moved in order to provide parking for the public. None Ms. Temple suggested that the Additional Business of the agenda should be addressed before the Planning Commissioners hears Item 6. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on March 31, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of March 23, 2006, ITEM NO. 1 Minutes Chairperson Toerge removed this item from Consent Calendar to make corrections to Approved he minutes. Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. yes: Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None bsent: Cole and Tucker bstain: Eaton UBJECT: Initiation of Code Amendment to Chapter 20.65 (Height Limits) of the ITEM NO.2 Municipal Code PA2006 -078 otion was made by Chairperson Toerge to initiate Code Amendment No. 2006 -0041 Recommended o be brought back for hearing on May 4, 2006. r for Initiation file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min eta 1\2006 \04062006.htm 04 /21/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/06/2006 Page 2 of 13 Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: Cole and Tucker Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: Thirtieth St. Architects, Inc. (PA2005 -158) ITEM NO. 3 2961 Cliff Drive PA2005 -158 Request to subdivide an existing single - family residential lot, creating two single - family Removed from sidential lots. The project requires an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Calendar General Plan to allow the subdivision of a property located within Statistical Area H -1, which currently prohibits subdivisions. The property is 33,193 square feet in size and is currently developed with a single - family residence. Ms. Temple reported that the applicant has asked that this item be removed from calendar. otion was made by Chairperson Toerge to remove this item from calendar yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None bsent: Cole and Tucker bstain: None SUBJECT: Steadfast Investment Properties (PA2005 -293) ITEM NO.4 4343 Von Karman Avenue PA2005 -293 . Request for General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -007 and Planned Community Continued to Development Plan Amendment No. 2005 -005 to increase the maximum allowable 05/1812006 entitlement for the property by approximately 1,740 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed project involves infilling a multi -floor lobby area (spanning the 1 It and 2nd floors) within an existing three -story building; the expansion will occur completely within he interior of the existing building and will result in no changes to height or the exterior appearance of the building. The property is within the Koll Center Planned Community (PC) District. Ms. Temple reported that the applicant is requesting a 60 day continuance and recommended that this item be heard on May 18, 2006 due to the timing of action on he General Plan Update in June. A brief discussion followed related to the timing of he General Plan issue and timing of future additional applications. Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item to May 18th. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: Cole and Tucker Abstain: None SUBJECT: Pendragon North America (PA2004 -249) ITEM NO.5 2101 Dove Street PA2004 -249 Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. proposes to redevelop the former industrial Recommended property into a vehicle service and storage facility to support their existing sales and for approval ervice facility located at 1540 Jamboree Road. The requested applications would hange the General Plan land use designation from Administrative, Professional & U 0 0 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \04062006.htm 04 /21/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/06 /2006 Page 3 of 13 Financial Commercial to Retail Service Commercial. The existing APF zoning is also proposed to be changed from APF (Administrative, Professional & Financial) to RSC RetaiRetail Service Commercial). The proposed use requires a Use Permit for the proposed erabon of vehicle service and storage facility at the subject site. Finally, a traffic study l pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. >. Ung gave an overview of the staff report. She noted that comments had been ceived on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and that there were three new tigation measures to address those concerns. These additional measures prompt a need to re- circulate the environmental document, therefore, staff has prepared an rata to include these new measures. Staff has also drafted minor changes to the aft resolution. This revision clarifies the scope of the review and the recommendation the environmental document by the Commission to the City Council. Staff believes at this recommendation can be made and recommends the Commission consider the aft environmental document, including the Errata, and require the re- circulation of the ,current to be made prior to the consideration by the City Council. Commission inquiry, Ms. Ung noted: • Changes to the environmental document are listed in the Errata. • Culture resources - changing from less than significant impact to potential significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated. This was added in response to comments from an agency regarding archeological resources encountered during the construction process being appropriately handled. • Hazardous materials - soils contamination is to be determined and addressed. • Construction - during construction lead based paint and mercury levels are to be determined prior to the building permit issuance. • Noise - the project applicant shall comply with the John Wayne Airport's Airport Environs Land Use Plan Noise Impact Zone 1 requirements. nmissioner Eaton noted these mitigation measures necessitate the recirculation of Mitigated Negative Declaration. He opined that these measures are site specific , therefore, the Commission does not need to hold up the process to see this rculation as long as the Council sees it. Staff concurred. missioner Henn asked how this project fits within the context of the new General for that area. Temple answered that the General Plan Land Use Element designates this area as ninistrative Office Category. Should changes be made in the interim, staff will make appropriate changes to the Land Use Map before the General Plan is finalized. > area will be designated as Mixed Use (132) which would allow, assuming iropriate approvals and concurrence with the Airport Land Use Commission were ieved, the potential to accommodate residential housing within the overall cap of )0 units. However, noise generated by the John Wayne airport would make dential units development on this particular property highly unlikely. Discussion Marcussen, architect for the project and representing the applicant, gave the wing presentation: • The existing Land Rover facility has outgrown the site. • It will be maintained as a sales facility adding sales of Auston Martin. The Dove Street facility will be servicing all vehicles except the Auston Martin fleet. • The Jamboree site will act as a storage and staging facility. • Referencing exhibits, he noted the features of the proposed project. fil e : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \04062006.htm 04 /21/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04 /06/2006 • The project will have a second floor, a canopy for service and car wash. • He went on to explain the functionality of egress and ingress, service and stor functions. • He displayed color pallet to be used on the building, materials, elevations and floor plan. . Enhanced paving and landscaping will be improved. Toerge asked about the recommended third driveway on Dove Street. Marcussen answered that there is one driveway approach on Birch and on ipus. He noted they do hot see customer parking issues associated with those two roaches. City Engineering has proposed adding an additional customer service ance along Dove Street. He questioned the proximity and the need for this added sway. He noted he is not in support of this condition. ;sioner Eaton questioned the placement of this driveway and asked if there is a strip along Campus? What will happen at the existing dealership on Marcussen noted that a driveway at the rear of the project site is not customer king and is specifically for storage. He added that the Jamboree facility will be for ss for Jaguar, Land Rover and Auston Martin and will serve as a service facility only Auston Martin. Currently, only Land Rover and used car sales at this site. Edmonston noted that the third driveway was suggested and that portions of npus Drive have raised medians therefore the additional driveway would provide er access. He noted that the benefit of the driveway is better than the detriment of proximity to Campus Drive. comment was opened. comment was closed. Toerge noted his support of the additional driveway. McDaniel noted his support of the additional driveway. lion was made by Chairperson Toerge to recommend approval of General Plan sndment 2004 -009, Code Amendment No. 2004 -012, Use Permit NO. 2004 -043, fflc Study No. 2005 -006 and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Errata thereto, jest to the circulation pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines to the City Council subject resolution. nmissioner Hawkins noted he supports the project and the recirculation of the ironmental document; however, he can not support the motion. He stated the elution is internally inconsistent. By requiring a re- circulation it undercuts any lings in connection with the adequacy of the environmental document. The ommendation for the re- circulation means there, is something that has not been dyzed and the record will remain open. He noted we could move this on by saying have reviewed the environmental document and we recommend it be re- circulated rc to the hearing before the City Council; not taking any substantive position in inaction with the adequacy of the environmental document. City Attorney Harp noted that there is an issue because of the re- circulation. at this stage, you have an environmental record that is complete with all the ts. Because it is going to be recirculated there may be additional comments Page 4 of 13 E 0 • file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \04062006.htm 04/21/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/06/2006 Page 5 of 13 id so you may not have a complete environmental record here. He recommends that Planning Commission recommend, based on the environmental record in front of u, that there is no substantial evidence that this project will have a significant effect the environment based on what you have, but notifying the City Council that the cord is still open, it is being re- circulated and that they will be receiving comments id that they need to take a look at that issue once they have all those comments in. nguage has been drafted to change the first finding to reflect this. scussion on the resolution followed and purpose of the recommendation followed. 3. Temple noted that the City has locally adopted guidelines in the Policy Manual for administration of the California Environmental Quality Act, and clearly knowledges that the certifying body of any environmental document is the body who responsible for the final action at that is the City Council. The Planning Commission the recommending body. iairperson Toerge amended his motion to include the comments by the Assistant City r„mo„ Eaton, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Hawkins Cole and Tucker None iUBJECT: General Plan Update ITEM NO.4 )raft Environmental Impact Report, and Harbor and Bay, Historical Resources, !ecreation, Arts and Cultural, Natural Resources, Safety, and Noise Elements. Continued to April 20, 2006 :hairperson Toerge noted that the Commission will be taking a break at 6:00 p.m. .ommissioner Cole arrived at 4:00 p.m. As. Temple noted the Draft Environmental Impact Report is not ready as yet, but when t is they will be available in the libraries and for purchase. She then noted that the eport is an overall status of where the City is in this process. The General Plan Public eview draft has been publicized and summarized in the draft table are key changes nade as relates to Planning Commission recommended changes and what ended up in he Element based on input from the Harbor Commission and the City Council. She ecommended that any formatting or typographical errors can be made via email to the Aaff. :hairperson Toerge noted that the Elements will be taken in the order they are )resented in the staff report. :ommissioner Hawkins asked about the Implementation Plan, which is the final chapter A the Environmental document. He noted they have not reviewed that chapter and asked if any sections related to this Implementation Plan are being addressed or twill his be done later? As. Temple noted that currently the hearing notice is being revised to include the mplementation Plan at one of the subsequent hearings. arbor and Bay Element Ar. Elwood Tescher noted that this Element was originally separated into portions of he Land Use, Natural Resources and Safety Elements. It was requested by the Harbo ,ommission to combine these and have a separate element although pertinent polices file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \04062006.htm 04 /21/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/06/2006 retained that address natural resources or seismic issues in those respective nents, so there is some duplication of those policies. Additional language on a at was distributed to the Commission that includes a recommendation from staff on existing introduction language. comment was opened. Keisser, resident of Laguna Hills, read a letter that she presented and distributed to Commission regarding Goal 7 and Natural Resources Goals 13 and 16. She lained her concern about the City's intent to assume management of Upper Newport Nature Preserve and Ecological Reserve as the City has no prior experience caging the habitat of Newport Bay. airperson Toerge noted that once the Management Plan is in place, should it amendment to the General Plan, that might be the appropriate time then. n Corrough, Harbor Commission representative to GPAC, noted: • Supports the revised language in the Harbor and Bay Element as refined by staff. • Commended staff their effort working with the Harbor Commission and sub- committees and citizens groups and the language modification. ;r Ford, resident and member of the Harbor Commission, noted his support of the or and Bay Element and adoption of the General Plan. He supports the proposed cage by Ms. Wood on pages 2 -4 of the staff report. He noted the attached letter the Harbor Commission and the supporting documentation. He continued: • Mooring administration - he agrees with the suggested changes to the recommended introduction. • Live aboard topics - have been handled by the staff of the Harbor Resources Department in terms of permitting and management. • Dredging - You can not do enough for dredging and the ease of permitting etc. Hawkins asked about mooring transfers as referenced in the attached 1r. Ford answered the more appropriate language has been proposed by Ms. Wood as ontained in page 3 in the staff report for recommended new policy HB 5.6 and HB 2.4. issioner Hawkins noted his concern of permit process and the recommended ge of HB 5.6 as it focuses on derelict boats. These are city permits and the City be in the process somehow. Ford answered the City has joint powers with the County of Orange so the actual rmit transfers are handled there. The reason for the language referring to the ease c nsfer, is that individuals and families have had these permits for years. The boats there for years and years and the boats get older and may become derelict. The rder it becomes to transfer that permit, the less likely people are to do so, and if that curs, we are reducing public access. We looked at this as a public access point. :relict boat language was added because boats are out there and have grown older er the years and are effectively derelict and preventing public access as they are rked there. Making more access to the public and strongly enforcing the elimination these derelict boats, opens up public access. Hawkins noted there is regulation missing in the 'recommended' that is Page 6 of 13 • • file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \04062006.htm 04/21/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/06/2006 Page 7 of 13 �n the existing draft language. our Beek, local resident, noted he shares the views of the last two speakers. He A that the Harbor and Bay Element language, referring to the moorings and s, etc., has been changed by the General Plan Committee. The memo language to existing language in the draft that is actually changed in the existing General What the Harbor Commission is recommending is going back to the language like the language in the existing General Plan. rman Toerge noted there is an on -going process of evaluating the various urces in the harbor. It will be through that process that interested parties will offer mmendations on how to administer piers, moorings, etc. This may go directly to th Council and bypass the Planning Commission. It is important that the General not restrict that process but rather pave the way. comment closed. was suggested and agreed to by the Commission to make the following ranges /edits /corrections to all the Elements following in -depth discussions on the ;ms. They accepted all the proposed changes noted in the staff report and revisions to e staff report with the exception of individual recommendations by the Commission as !sting Introduction language: on page 4 -3 - Need to improve administration of rbor resources language that will replace, Improper mooring transfers, leading to lai public access to available moorings. 3 1.1 - Preservation and Enhancement of Water- Dependent and Related Uses: ange the term paddling to paddle boarding. 3 3.2 Redevelopment Activities: The term 'redevelopment' to be replaced with 're- e' and the title now to read Reuse of Properties. 3 5.6 - Mooring Transfers: Foster public access to moorings by enforcing and fining the derelict boat ordinance and regulate transfer by permit holders. 3 6.5 through HB6.7 - 'Planning Commission revisions to goals and policies to be )vided' - no changes were provided by the Planning Commission. 3 12.1 - Tideland Revenue: strike fair, and use the term of 'market rate of return' Mead of 'reasonable return' to make it consistent with the rest of the document. 12.3 Tideland Leases and Permits: Delete the term 'fair 3 13 -13.8 - Limit Sea Lions Impact: eliminate this heading by splitting into two ,als and insert under 8.23, Prohibit feeding animals and depositing food or fish parts Newport Bay. Insert under 8.24, Require measures to deter sea lions from -ritorializing boats and docks. Add the same policies to Natural Resources Element. Resources Element Comment was opened. Comment was closed. IHR 1.6 Documentation: Mechanism of implementation will be dealt through I I file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \04062006.htm 04/21/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/06/2006 mciment of City Council Policy dealing with historic resources and then be part of environmental review of each project and addressed as a mitigation measure. 1.7 Offer for Relocation of Historic Structure: This is from state policy and ng from Environmental Impact Report. R 1.6 and 1.7 Documentation and Offer for Relocation: New policies added due to EQA requirements and in attempt to make the plan as self mitigating as possible to iminate the need for additional mitigation beyond after the adoption of the plan. istoric sites or structures have been identified and listed on the State Register or City': nail register. R 2.1 New Development Activities: Delete 'minimize' CEQA requirements to explor e resource which can then lead to a donation. Change the first sentence to read, tequire, in accordance with CEQA, new development to protect and preserve ileontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and mitigate wacts to such resources." Element Wood noted that from the most recent workshop 7 comment cards were returned. ie of those contained comments on Parks and Recreation on the need for more :s and recreational facilities, Banning Ranch preserved as open space, identify ling to acquire Banning Ranch, and Marina Park should be used for a park and i launch for boats. comment was opened. Dietz, local citizen, referring to R1.6 - Parkland Acquisition criteria - asked who lines the deficiency? Temple noted the chart on page 8 -10 in the document lists parkland acreage. deficiencies. It is this chart that would be used to make the determinations. Tescher added that Imp 33.1 talks about the process of periodically at least once ry five years reviewing the community needs. ter Bryant, local resident, noted he would like to see the item expanded on the inching of non- motorized sail boats in the bay and possibly Marinapark as well. A lot people would appreciate the opportunity to have facilities to launch sailboats. . Wood noted policy R8.5, which is repeated in the Harbor and Bay Element as icy 6.4, protect and, where feasible, expand and enhance vessel launching facilities luding low -cost public launching facilities. r. Bryant noted he is not concerned with the cost but the location. The current unching facility is on the wrong side of the Coast Highway and non - motorized boats ive a difficult time getting around that long curve and under the bridge, even at low comment was closed. 1.1 Provision of Parkland: restore language to read - "Require future development dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of five acres of parkland per 1,000 rsons, except for high density residential development in the Airport Area where the indard shall be one acre of parkland per 1, 000 residents." Page 8 of 13 • • 0 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \04062006.htm 04/21/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/06/2006 1.3 High- Density Residential Development: The second paragraph, that was nsferred from the Land Use Element as part of Policy 6.15.17, to read, 'The acreage on -site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the rkland dedication requirements where it is, for example, accessible to the public ring daylight hours, visible from public rights -of -way, and of sufficient size to commodate recreational use by the public. The same ,change will be made in Land :e Policy 6.15.17. 5.1 Non -City Facilities and Open Space: replace i.e. with e.g. 8.5 Support Facilities: Add, "Vessel launching facilities, including non motorized tilboat launching facilities in Lower Newport Bay. and Cultural Element hearing was opened. y Brooks, local resident, representing the Arts Commission, noted her support of :fusion of this element in the General Plan for the City of Newport Beach. She that a facility accommodating about 250 people should be identified as well as i to be used for this venue. 1 Goal: Sentence to read, "Active and vital arts, cultural literary or library activities I programs that enrich the community." 1.3 Promotion of Cultural Arts: Sentence to read, "Build public awareness and :ourage participation in the City's arts, cultural, literary and library activities. 2 Goal: insert literary and library. 2.1 Facilities: insert literary and library. Funding: insert literary and library. Policy CA2.3 Improve and enhance existing library facilities and collections ling computer resources material. tall will include language wording in the Introduction section to recognize the library cultural resources. ing a recess, the Commission took up the remainder of the agenda. issioner Tucker assumed his chair. Resources Element Wood made reference to the distributed red -line version of this element with the wing changes: Pages 4, 8, 13 and 14 that are clarifications in the Introduction Section. Page 18 a question regarding policy 3.1 whether or not should be eliminated as it is out of date and there are more sophisticated means to be used. r. Tescher noted the page with the change to Goal NR11 and addition of two policies. ie changes are to be reflected in the Harbor and Bay Element as well. Page 9 of 13 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \04062006.htm 04 /21/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04 /06/2006 comment was opened. Peter Bryant, Professor of Biological Sciences at UC Irvine, noted the following: • Newport Bay is an extremely important natural area, providing major habitat for several endangered species as well as a destination for many species of migratory birds. • Referred to the NR16.2 and 16.3 regarding the City taking over the management of Upper Newport Bay. He wants to have the General Plan detail a statement indicating the rational behind the proposal to take over the management. • The General Plan should include a thorough analysis of the resources, expertise and personnel necessary to take over and improve the management of the bay. • Why is it necessary for the use of public agencies and private sector personnel to replace the existing programs and staff? Where was that decision made? • What about the programs developed for school groups and other tours and visitors at the Interpretive Center? • Include Fish and Wildlife Service in collaboration of the marine park management and include local colleges and universities as well. Wood noted the management of Upper Newport Bay came from the Council's nmittee on Sphere Issues where they are exploring ways to improve management ii Upper Newport Bay, perhaps take over responsibility for Coyote Canyon Landfill, work with the County on giving the City more influence on what happens at John yne airport, they are all tied together in complex negotiations with the County. Not ig involved in these negotiations, she consulted with staff who wrote these )mmendations. The Council has gone through these policies and have given their iminary approval. She recommended that the speaker make his thoughts known at next Council meeting. comment was closed. was suggested and agreed to by the Commission to make the following ranges /edits /corrections to the Elements following in -depth discussions on the items > well as accept the proposed changes made by staff on the memo and the draft stributed this evening. 6.2 Management of Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park: Insert, Fish and life Service, local area colleges and universities. 16:3 Management of Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve: Changed to read, nsider assuming responsibility from the County, to improve to manage, operate and stain the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, including the Peter and Mary Muth ter, such that natural resources and public education programs are enhanced, g a combination of public agency and private sector personnel as well as iissioner Tucker asked for and received an explanation of Environmentally ive Areas (ESA) in the current General Plan as compared to Environmental (ESA) in the proposed new General Plan. s. Wood answered the term Environmental Study Area was first used in the Coastal and Use Plan. In the earlier LCP Land Use Plan, we used the term Environmentally ensitive Habitat Area, which is a specific term in the Coastal Act. We have not done lough study in these areas whether or not they should be designated as nvironmentally Significant Areas or Environmentally Significant Habitat Areas. We did broad biological study so we know they have the potential for resources there, so we Page 10 of 13 • i file: / /F:\Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \04062006.htm 04/21/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04 /06/2006 Page 11 of 13 I tave designated them in the Coastal Land Use Plan certified by the Coastal ommission as Environmental Study Areas with policies as to how we will do further udies before development can occur so we know if they need protection and how uch protection and so we are continuing that same terminology and methodology. Z 3.1 Information and Education on Water Quality Issues: - delete 2 3.6 Natural Water Bodies: Change sentence to read, "Require that development ,t degrade natural water bodies." 2 3.15 Runoff Reduction on Private Property: Sentence changed to read, "Retain noff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies the maximum extent practicable." 2 7.4 Use of Blowers: Sentence changed to read, "Consider eliminating the use of of blowers by the City, and discourage their use on private property." 2 8 Policies: new policies need to be renumbered. These are mitigated measures in EIR and are normally imposed and satisfy air quality and air pollution regulations. Z 9.1 Efficient Airport Operations: Changed to read, "Work with John Wayne Airport tc nimize air pollution generated by stationary and non - stationary sources." 2 17.1 Open Space Protection: Changed to read, "Protect, conserve and maintain signated open space areas that define the City's urban form, serve as habitat for any species, and provide recreational opportunities." Element comment was opened. comment was closed. mmissioner Eaton referenced an email from AWG wherein they ask the City to tore former Policy S8.6 to the City's Proposed General Plan. He suggested that this reinstated. Wood noted that she had conferred with Mr. Burnham who agreed that such a icy could be reinstated into the Safety Element; following discussion it was agreed to the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that this be reinstated. nior Planner Gregg Ramirez noted that the City Council had taken that language out the Safety Element because they felt it belonged in the Land Use Element and they ted that Mr. Burnham would work on the appropriate language. A Noise Policy was 0o referenced. . Wood reported that staff will work this out with the City Council if this policy should reinstated in the Safety Element as a goal. iissioner Henn suggested a policy be added to, "Develop, implement and ain an effective evacuation plan for the peninsula and other areas at risk in the of natural disaster." The Commission agreed. Goal: Change to read, "Minimize adverse effects of coastal hazards related to iamis and rogue waves to people and property." file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04062006.htm 04/21/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/06/2006 2 Goal: Change to read, "Minimize adverse effects of coastal hazards related to Drm surges and seiches to people and property. 4.1 and S4.3 Updating of Building and Fire Codes and Unreinforced Masonry uildings: Delete'continue Wand from all similarly structured policies. Element comment was opened. comment was closed. 1.1 Field Surveys for New Development: Ms. Wood noted that she would re -work iguage and clarify what and to whom this pertains to and reference N4, N5 and N6. 1.5 New Exterior Noise Level Standards: Sentence will re- instate evening time ise standards according to CNEL following staff re -work. )mmissioner Eaton referred to the letters received from the Airport Land Use )mmission and the John Wayne Airport. He noted the letters have similar concerns th N 3.1, N3.2 and N3.3. He suggested that the verbiage suggested should be used this policies. 3.1 New Development: Ensure new development is compatible with the noise rvironment by using the airport noise contours as contained in the Airport Environs rnd Use Plan (AELUP) for JIMA as guides to future planning and development :cisions. (Combine 3.1 and 3.3 into one Policy) 3.2 Sensitive Noise Uses: Require that all residential or sensitive noise uses to be gated within the 60 dBA or 65 dBA CNEL airport noise contour maintain an interior Oise level of 45 dBA CNEL. (Staff will work on re- wording to include AELUP) 3.3 Airport Compatibility: Use noise level contours based on the most likely timate of future airport contours, rather than on assumptions of less likely future erations in determining allowable uses, to the maximum extent allowed by law. ?quire that all residential development be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 M CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), rless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with plicable law. Wood noted that N3.2 language fits better in the way the policies have been nized in the Land Use Element where it talks about where in the airport area lential development may occur and there is reference to making the findings for an ride if the Council should decided to allow it within the 65 CNEL. nmissioner Eaton noted that as long as that language is added, that should satisfy Airport Land Use Commission. He suggested that language from the Land Use -y be added so that the two elements would then be internally consistent and both ome consistent with AELUP. Discussion followed. wt in the Land Use Element is what should be in N3.3 and that is to the City Council. was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item to April 20, 2006 and to :he normal time of 6:30 p.m. Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Page 12 of 13 0 0 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \04062006.htm 04/21/2006 Pldnning Commission Minutes 04/06/2006 Page 13 of 13 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \04062006.htm 04/21/2006 Noes: None bsent: None bstain: None DDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the City Council adopted the final ordinance regarding the Fire Facility Overlay in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan; a resolution regarding three Local Coastal Program amendments that had been submitted to the Coastal Commission staff, which they found incomplete because the resolutions did not specifically state that the amendments on the City' part would not be effective until the California Coastal Commission acts on them; and, they approved an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with EIP Associates, the General Plan Update consultant that also included a budge amendments for augments for the traffic consultant and fiscal consultant. b) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no report. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - no meeting; however the sub - committee will continue their work on fine - tuning of the language and number limitations in the Land Use Element. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Certification Committee - Chairperson Toerge reported that the Committee is working on the Implementation Plan. Meetings occur on every other Tuesday and are about 60% done and the next one is on April 18th. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee - no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the City Hall Site Committee representative not present. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. h) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Chairperson Toerge asked that a listing of all condo conversions still in process under the old Code parking requirement be provided. i) Project status - Commissioner Eaton noted his materials received at the League o California seminar that he had attended. The materials had been distributed to the Commission. He also gave an oral report on a presentation of 'Evaluation the General Plan'. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Hawkins noted he may be absent from the next hearing due to business conflicts. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \04062006.htm 04/21/2006