Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes-06-01-06Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 17 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006\06012006.htm 07/26/2006 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - Commissioner Hawkins was excused. STAFF PRESENT: haron Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director aron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager regg Ramirez, Senior Planner finger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Debbie Lektorich, City Managers Secretary (wood Tescher, City Consultant from EIP arlton Waters, City Consultant from Urban Crossroads PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None OSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May 26, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 11 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 18, 2006. Minutes Approved Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: Hawkins Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: General Plan Update ITEM NO.2 Land Use, Circulation Elements and Draft EIR her Land Use Alternatives Continued to June 15, 2006 Lido Isle Ms. Temple indicated staff recommends a cap be set for units on Lido Isle and i he concept is supported staff will complete an analysis to determine the ar)nronriate number. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006\06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 2 of 17 issioner Eaton asked about the method for determining the unit cap. e responded staff would look at the existing parcels and compare to d tract map to determine how many units could be divided easily vs. th would take combining an entire block. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. McFarland, President of the Lido Isle Community Association, agreed wit' Temple's proposal to analyze the parcels. He reported residents were i r of reducing the number of units however did not want to preclude th )rtunity to subdivide in the future. Commissioner Cole asked if the resident been notified of this change. Mr. McFarland indicated all residents wer sed of the meeting with Planning Department staff, However, few attended. Toerge asked if the Commission agreed with the ation. Hearing no objection, he indicated staff should proceed. Balboa Peninsula /Balboa Island West Newport Temple indicated the staff recommends reclassification of the West is indicated on the map for single family use. mmission Eaton felt that once the change is made, owners may not be hapK h the change. Commissioner Cole agreed and felt this significant chanc is happening late in the process and asked if the West Newport Beac sociation had been advised. Ms. Wood indicated the change was presente the Association where a large number of residents were in attendance. Tf sidents felt very strongly in favor of this change. She added that whe !ninsula residents heard about this change they came to a GPAC meeting ice their opposition to the change in their area; no opposition was heard fro Est Newport residents. Commissioner Cole asked if the change was made the R -2 units would become non - conforming. Ms. Temple responded th ;y would. Wood reminded the Commission that these are not new proposals, �a was discussed by GPAC, Planning Commission and Council; they ming back to make sure the Commission is still sipportive of the changes preparation of the next General Plan draft. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the imissioner Henn didn't feel the Commission needs to reaffirm what is the ty while redoing the General Plan, and that a certain amount of change necessarily bad. He recognizes the concerns of the other Commissione rever, he feels the change is appropriate. nissioner Tucker agreed with Commissioner Henn, and added that cil Member representing the district supports the change. He feels it sufficiently discussed. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 3 of 17 Toerge agreed that the outreach in the area is sufficient. McDaniel also supported the change. Toerge announced a consensus to support the idation. Commissioner Eaton asked that the record show with the recommendation. b. Balboa Island Temple indicated staff was not recommending any change to Balboa Island, :h was supported by the residents. issioner McDaniel agreed that residents on Balboa Island know what He supported the staff recommendation. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Toerge announced the consensus in support of the C. Balboa Peninsula Temple indicated staff was not recommending any change for this 1-ver, a unit cap could be established to provide flexibility. ssioner Eaton asked how the cap would be determined. Ms. Te �d the analysis would be more difficult in this area, it would re nent of how many units are on the ground today and how many have a potential for R -1 to R -2 units, and then creating the here in between. hairman Toerge was not in favor of going through with the analysis. iissioner Henn was in favor of the analysis, because he felt the trend researching. finer Cole was not in favor of changing the zoning based upon by the community. nissioner Henn clarified that no one is proposing a zone change at the question is whether we should pursue the cap idea. Temple asked if the Commission wanted to pursue a reduction. If so, d favor a cap versus a rezoning all the R -2 properties. Commissioner I ated he was in favor of pursuing the cap idea. Ms. Wood added that v all the properties with their existing two family designation so an i take advantage of it until such time as the cap is reached. Commiss n agreed. McDaniel felt the area should be left as is. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006\06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 4 of 17 imissioner Eaton stated he was concerned about the guesswork aspect analysis; he would like to see the number when it's brought back to 1 Tucker was not in favor of the cap idea. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Toerge indicated the consensus was to leave the area as is. d. Beacon Bay Temple indicated staff was not recommending any change to this a fuse the existing leases do not restrict new development to single family. rman Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Toerge indicated the Commission supports the staff recommendation. 3. Irvine Avenue Multi - Familv Temple indicates staff recommends RM -B for the area. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the rman Toerge indicated the Commission supports the staff recommendation. 4. Westcliff Drive /Dover Drive s. Temple indicated staff is recommending CG -C on Westcliff Drive and 1 for Dover Drive. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. >ra Newman, Government Solutions, spoke on behalf of a property owner estcliff Drive. She stated that the boundary for the two areas was unclear a ;ked the Commission to allow mixed use for her client's property. She offer :ernative language that would allow more mixed use in the area. "In order eet the intent of the policies which promote quality mixed use project, a :orporation of a variety of uses for neighborhood vitality, properties on t estcliff designated for CG -C which are adjacent to buildings or parking lots e properties on Dover Drive designated MU -61, shall be permitted to inclu ulti- family residential uses subject to restrictions of the MU -131." ssioner Tucker asked what was currently in her client's building. in responded that there was a salon, the Queen Bee, some retail on with some medical; a mix of retail /office uses. tChairman Toerge asked what was the staffs intention for the corner parcel. Ms.I file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 5 of 17 d indicated it was included with the mixed use on Dover imissioner Eaton asked why the Council split up the recommendation. Mr ;her indicated the discussion included the character of the Westcliff Drive being a successful commercial district and wanted to maintain the uses. actual boundary was selected by staff. :ommissioner Henn indicated Capri Blue has gone out of business in the 1< 0 days. He also pointed out the uses across the street from the building 00% residential. immissioner McDaniel felt problems are caused by residential being too close commercial and was not in favor of residential in the building being discussed imissioner Tucker asked about the configuration of the mixed t sification being discussed. Ms. Wood indicated MU -B1 was for Marine and would not apply in this area. Mr. Tescher indicated the intent was a horizontal intermixing of residential, office and/or retail uses. l luct could be ground floor retail, upper level housing; 10, il/commercial; or 100% residential. Commissioner Tucker did not h< action to replacing the office on the second story with residential; however the configuration of the current building was part of the problem with ig retail. Mr. Tescher indicated the correct classification is MU -A2 wh as retail on the bottom and residential on top. -man Toerge was not comfortable changing the Council recommend felt the argument for change should be made in front of them. :)rted staying with the recommendation of Council. mission Eaton agreed and indicated the boundary line makes more moving it. iissioner McDaniel agreed and stated at sometime a decision needs so on the boundary and thinks the Council should make that decision. Cole also agreed. Henn liked the MU -A2 idea. Toerge announced a consensus to make no change. 5. MacArthur Boulevard C.alTrans Parcel Temple indicated the property does not have a current General Plan ing designation and staff recommends CG -B. imissioner Tucker asked about the area at MacArthur and Jamboree. iple indicated the recommendation for that parcel was open space bec< area includes a wetland and it is unlikely the Coastal Commission w v development in that area. Ms. Wood added that it is an open space ,uant to the CIOSA agreement. `Chairman Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the publics file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Wood thought the recommendation was supposed to be CG -C. ,mmissioner Eaton asked why the higher FAR should be allowed on this site. :. Wood indicated that the thought was the kinds of uses that would go on the would be for auto related uses. Also considered was the balance of FAR triangular parcel to the north, although a CIOSA site, has an APF signation with an FAR which gives it approximately 50,000 sq. ft. Staff wa: nking it would not be an increase of square footage, it would just be moving i a more developable site. Commissioner Eaton asked what FAR was used foi traffic model. Mr. Tescher indicated .5 and Ms. Wood thought we shoul( ry with that CG -B. Commissioner Eaton agreed. nission Cole asked if general commercial would allow for office. A le indicated it would allow office and retail. Commissioner Cole was of the suggestion of a higher FAR. Ms. Wood indicated that would be C airman Toerge asked how the traffic would be impacted if we move it from 75. Mr. Waters indicated the worse case with 50,000 sq. ft. of retail would )roximately an additional 2,000 ADT. Chairman Toerge thought .5 is the ril nber so he supports the staff recommendation. Tucker agreed and felt .5 is realistic. missioner McDaniel agreed. Toerge announced a consensus in support of the 6. State Route 73 Remnant Temple indicated the property does not have a General Plan or tnation; staff recommends it be designated open space. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Toerge announced a consensus in support of the 7. San Miguel Drive @ Harbor View Nature Park s. Temple indicated the property was formerly used as a child care facility aff recommends the property be redesignated RM -B with no access from iguel. tirman Toerge asked if there was a public street other than San Miguel ass to the property. Ms. Temple siad it would be driveway access thn Baywood Apartments residential project. Tucker asked who owned the property. Ms. Temple indicated file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \06012006.htm Page 6 of 17 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 The Irvine Company. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Toerge announced a consensus in support of the 8. Pacific View Drive Senior Residential Temple indicated the staff recommendation reflects the )oment on the site as RH -D. Toerge asked what the difference is in traffic count. Ms. T the traffic model always reflected the units as residential. comment was opened. No one from the public responded. Toerge announced a consensus in support of the 9. West Newport Mesa Convalescent Hos itals Temple indicated this area had not been previously discussed by ning Commission or City Council. Staff recommends these facilities inated as Private Institution. in Toerge asked if the property owners had been contacted. indicated they had not at this time. iissioner McDaniel felt the change was reasonable. However, he rned that the change would limit other uses in the future. Ms. Tel I staff would talk to the property owners about that issue. She added have not been any requests to change the use of these properties. iissioner Tucker thought it was an appropriate change for 466 Flags Hilaria and 393 Hospital based on access to the properties. However rty on Superior could easily become redeveloped as something else in . He supported the change on 3 of the 4 properties. >mmissioner Henn stated he supported the recommendation however fel, ntact with the property owners should be done before making a decision. immissioner Tucker indicated the Commission was making a recommendatior Council with the understanding that the property owners would be contacted. >mmission Henn requested that the contact be made to determine their view: fore going to Council. Ms. Temple indicated staff would attempt to make imissioner Eaton agreed with Commissioner Tucker that the erties backing up to Newport Boulevard should reclassified as institi felt the property on Superior Avenue should be left as residential. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Page 7 of 17 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 8 of 17 Toerge also agreed with Commissioner Tucker. imissioner McDaniel agreed its probably the best use and would like to property owners a chance to respond. The Superior Avenue pro) (Id be left as residential. iissioner Cole agreed to leave the Superior property as it is currentll sated. Unless the property owners agree to the institutional use, he red it staying the way it is. Commissioner Eaton pointed out that the it designation is commercial /office at a high FAR. He felt the possibility o type development on these properties might cause a problem. lissioner Cole agreed with the conflicts office use might create, but he ht the existing designation was multi - family residential. Ms. Woo( med the 3 properties backing up to Newport Boulevard are classifie( , and the one on Superior is residential. man Toerge announced a consensus to redesignate to the PI design, properties along Newport Boulevard and maintain the exi . nationzoning on the Superior location. However he encourages �rtv owners to come and talk to the Commission about the change. Use Policies Transfer of Development Rights Temple indicated current transfers in the proposed General Plan have v t limitations addressing transfers in Newport Center only. Staff is asking :tion from the Commission about including more areas of the City. iairman Toerge asked if the intent would be to have transfers apply ;alized regions or citywide. Ms. Temple indicated the current code app) ly to properties within 1,000 feet of each other. Ms. Wood thought the 1,( is too restrictive. However, she suggested keeping it within a statistical a within a specific traffic impact zone might be more suitable. )mmissioner Tucker felt this may help in areas where the lamd uses permit the new plan might be higher than what would be built. He asked staff to g amples. Ms. Wood indicated the areas staff thought about were Marine ile and Corona del Mar. In Mariner's Mile, it could allow development on iyside that leaves more open space in exchange for moving some residen ,velopment to the inland side. Chairman Toerge asked if it could work verse. Ms. Wood indicated that would be prohibited with the policies in pl, iw. She added another possibility in Corona del Mar would be to provide m irking if someone wanted to give up their development rights on a lot irking and would allow them more density on another property. Chairman Toerge asked if existing buildings had a higher FAR than allowed) ould be transferable. Ms. Wood indicated it would be a policy decision, it could e one of the limitations. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 9 of 17 Dmmissioner Tucker pointed out that this concept works in Los Angeles and lows flexibility. However, it may be difficult to describe the program. Dmmissioner Eaton indicated he had seen development rights work in oth -eas and thought the program should include: 1) normal limits would apply )th parties, and 2) it should be a discretionary approval, not a right. He felt tf cisting General Plan makes it almost by right in Newport Center. Ms. Temp arified that in Newport Center it did require an action of the City Council and affic assessment. In the Zoning Code, which would apply everywhere else, currently through the discretion of a use permit. Commissioner Eaton thoug was a useful tool and would be worthwhile, providing it was discretionary. imissioner Cole indicated he would be in favor of pursuing it to some felt it would be useful in Corona del Mar. Toerge agreed. missioner Tucker thought the policy would need to be very precise and ily written. He felt it would be time consuming to develop the program. d indicated the details didn't need to be included in the General Plan the details could be worked out in zoning implementation. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Toerge announced a consensus to support the staff recommendation. 2. Balboa Village Non - Conforming Structures Temple asked the Commission if a policy should be added for the ge Commercial District similar to the Corona del Mar policy re nstruction of non - conforming structures. sioner Cole asked what made the buildings non - conforming. responded that parking, height, FAR are the three most don issioner Eaton pointed out that State law required specific plans and d plans to be consistent, so if this change was not made in the Genera we would have to change the Specific Plan. Ms. Temple agreed. issioner Eaton supported the change in the General Plan. Toerge agreed to support the change. nmission Henn was concerned about rebuilding Balboa Village exactly the I it is now. He had a problem with the policy if this would, by right, give iers that ability. nmissioner Tucker recalled voting against the policy in Corona del Mar, hi; icern was that we should be trying to get structures to conform with codes. felt if the building was torn down voluntarily it should be rebuilt to code. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 10 of 17 mmissioner Henn asked if there had already been a change in Balboa Villas allow more flexibility for redevelopment. Ms. Temple indicated the propose neral Plan designates a large portion of the area for mixed use, however tl -rent General Plan allows the same. She added most of the non- conformir ildings are commercial properties with no parking and apartments on the 2 missioner Tucker suggested letting the Council make the decision on th nissioner Eaton supported the change because the Specific Plan to be changed if this recommendation is not approved. Cole supported the change. McDaniel did not support recommendation. hairman Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the Toerge indicated the vote was split 3 -3 on this recommendation. 3. Floor Area Ratio for Corona del Mar Temple indicated the staff was recommending eliminating the special the land use element and regularized with the rest of the CN -B cab ich would allow up to .75 FAR. She added that this would not signifi( ange the traffic generation from the traffic model. airman Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the 1 mission Eaton was hesitant, due to the non - conforming flexibility Dved, however he felt if the traffic model was based on .75 then it has unted for. Toerge announced no opposition to the staff recommendation. 4. Public Facilities and Private Recreation Land Use Categories Public Facilities Ar. Ramirez indicated staff had looked at the current Government Educ nstitutional Facility designation and broke it into 2 categories: nstitutional and Public Facilities. Public Facilities includes City facilities, schools and public utility sites which are not required to adhere to lai egulations. Staff is proposing to not assign an FAR to these, and just is pot applicable" for the purpose of the General Plan. Commissioner Tucker asked if the table in the staff report would replace a tabI in the draft General Plan. Mr. Ramirez indicated the table was associated with he next topic, Parks and Recreation. Mr. Tescher indicated it would replace 3 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 11 of 17 X47 and 3 -48. 1 Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the nmissioner Eaton opposed taking out the square footage. He felt the tab uld reflect what is on the ground. He thought both public utilities and Coun lities do have to comply with local zoning as well as public school facilities used for educational purposes. nissioner Henn was concerned that the City should retain control jurisdiction's decisions about land use. r. Harp explained the City could exempt itself from regulations. He added tt State facility used for State purposes is exempt, but a State facility being us r commercial use would be regulated. Typically the County is exempt if faci ,ed for their own purposes. Ms. Wood added that the State Water Co ovides independence to water and sewer agencies so the City is not able aulate them. hairman Toerge asked about the downside of leaving in the square footal s. Wood explained that a General Plan Amendment would be required if ity wants to add a restroom at a park if the square footage listed was what i the ground today. And if we wanted to allow for some growth we would aessing at what that might be. Toerge announced a consensus in support of the b. Parks & Recreation Ramirez indicated staff is proposing language which would provide y for public or private uses in this designation to add incidental buildi )ut a General Plan Amendment. Private uses in this designation are in nalv table and would have to adhere to the those limits otherwise. Tucker supported the staff recommendation. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the pu Toerge announced a consensus in support of the rculation Element Review Wood pointed out the staff report included an amended version of 1 Juction to the Circulation Element. The corrections were made for clarity. (Commissioner Eaton had a concern about the changes to the LOST descriptions. He understood the reasons for changing the previous definitions. file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 However, he felt the new language was too technical. He suggested usinc anguage from other EIRs instead. Mr. Waters indicated the previous lescriptions were taken from the chapter on uninterrupted flow facilities fo reways; the change was made to focus on the intersection level facilities. ,ommissioner Eaton indicated he has seen language describing traffic flow: aking into consideration more than one signal phase to get through ar ntersection. Chairman Toerge indicated he was in favor of the new language. ,ommissioner Tucker indicated the people who care about what level of service s should understand the language. nmissioner Eaton asked why the language is struck from the first par page 7 -5. Ms. Wood indicated if it was added back, the language e to be modified to reflect projects over a certain threshold. Comr on asked to have it added back in. Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the nmissioner Eaton had questions about the Circulation Policies distributed Commission. Page 16, Policy 3.1.6 was deleted, he asked if it was ncil or staff deletion. Ms. Wood indicated the Council deleted it becau oration was received regarding the amount of tolls collected and it was it wasn't worth posing the question and starting negotiations. missioner Eaton continued with Page 21, Policy 7.1.1, asked why the ence to parking facilities which would deem feasible commensurate with the al cost to provide off street parking was deleted. Ms. Wood thought 7.1.: cover the issue and the Council would set the fee after conducting a study. missioner Eaton thought the goal would be more meaningful if the language included. Chairman Toerge agreed and thought the language could be :d to 7.1.2. Commission Henn recalled discussing how the cost would be rmined. Commissioner Tucker indicated he was reluctant to have a policy includes the actual cost of the off street parking; it could be a very large ber. Chairman Toerge indicated he would regret creating an in -lieu parkinc igement generating fees that are inadequate to create the needed parking. missioner Tucker indicated he would not want policies that were no )le. However, he acknowledged areas of the city where there is not enougt missioner Henn asked about page 13, CE 2. enrod Avenue and currently the intersectio n ated LOS F appeared in an earlier draft mined the correct designation was LOS E. pting LOS F anywhere in the City. 1.1 (e), it indicates LOS E is at LOS F. Mr. Watt of the document and * He added that we are i Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the publ Edmonston reviewed the issue on MacArthur Boulevard addressed by i x View Hills Community Association. He indicated the Public Woi rtment has no plans of making any changes there and the suggest ae does not make sense as an operating policy. Chairman Toerge clarif he suggested change would make it more difficult to improve that road Page 12 of 17 file: //F: \Users \PLMShared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 13 of 17 :e lanes all the way through from San Miguel to Coast Highway. Mr, nonston agreed that if the suggested language was added, it would limit the F's ability to correct problems. Chairman Toerge was not supportive of any nge that would make it more difficult for the City to make changes in the ire. Commissioner Tucker agreed and asked if added to the General Plan amendment would be required to take it out in the future. Commissionei on asked if the current language restricted the City's ability to re- stripe the yet. Mr. Edmonston stated he thought it does and recently a change wa: Je which was considered a localized improvement. However, more i; :ded. Chairman Toerge suggested no change be made based on the letter I the Commission agreed. Implementation Plan . Tescher recommended revising the implementation plan to be a mo neralized description of futue zoning ordinance changes, which wou eamline the document and not reiterate the policies. He indicated if tt :ommendation was approved, staff would bring back a revised document f view. Chairman Toerge asked if the references already completed wou ve to be revised. Mr. Tescher indicated the references would be retaine wever the detail would be more generalized. Commissioner Eaton asked : implementation was required in the State guidelines. Mr. Tescher indicate es are required to show how the plan is being implemented. Commission ton agreed with the recommendation, as long as the new document met tl idelines. Chairman Toerge supported it as well. No opposition ws EIR hairman Toerge read the following statement for the record: 'he purpose of the hearing on the General Plan Update EIR is to review IR's adequacy, including proposed mitigation measures, comments timately responses to comments which are and will be provided to lanning Commission. Our responsibility is to review the draft EIR and final r adequacy. If we find that the final EIR adequately addresses the pote tpacts to the environment of the development and land use threshold set i the General Plan then we should recommend that the Council certify the IR. If not, we will make a different recommendation to the City Council. rtification of the final EIR is not an approval of the General Plan, merely tha final EIR adequately summarizes the affects the development and land use sholds proposed within the General Plan would have on the environmen r mitigation measures are implemented. The Planning Commission woulc the administrative record to demonstrate that a discussion of the issues tool :e at the Planning Commission level and that we understood the sequences of the project before us for consideration. The Planninc nmission intends to demonstrate that understanding by discussinc stantive issues raised in the EIR, the public's written comments to the EIR responses to comments as well as credible and relevant verbal comment: i the public. The foregoing will provide the basis for the Planninc nmission to make a recommendation to the Council and, as required bl. �A, will be based upon substantial evidence in the record. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 14 of 17 Many issues will be discussed tonight and at continued public hearings on t :IR. Please keep in mind that not every impact is a significant impact. The E addresses what is significant and what is not, and how significance ktermined. Some of the effects are judged on empirical data such as trai ind noise and some of them are judgment calls. Substantial evidence lefined by CEQA. Substantial evidence does not include personal opinions # ire not supported by fact, no matter how heartfelt. The Planning Commission pound by CEQA to disregard arguments, speculation, unsubstantiated opini, ind other evidence which is not credible. After we initiate our review of t ;sues, we will take public testimony. Each and every one of you speakers c here may raise EIR related issues which the speaker believes merit fur& liscussion. After members of the public have commented we will close t' ublic hearing and bring the matter back to the Commission to provide a omments a commissioner has on the issue. After that we will continue tl searing to allow the proper responses to be prepared, circulated and discuss lefore the Planning Commission. At a continued public hearing in the futu fter the responses to comments are considered we will decide whether or r ecirculation is necessary. Finally we will vote whether to certify the final EIR the final EIR is certified and thereafter challenged in court, the administrative ;ord will include an actual verbatim transcript of our hearing. We want th4 ;ord to be complete and to demonstrate that the Planning Commissioi derstood its responsibilities under CEQA and that the Commission considerec substantial evidence that was presented to us before we reached ou cision. Thanks to the diligence of our staff and consultants and the ohistication of the commenting public, I believe we and the public will easil, able to understand the consequences of the project and the General Plai date which, of course, is the goal of the hearing." Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the ner Eaton indicated he had read the complete document his comments in writing and, therefore, he expects to have to be included in the response document. Ms. Wood indicated ner's comments would be included in the response document. ommissioner Tucker indicated he prefers to start with the comment letters an( !sponses which identifies the issues and then review the full document. hairman Toerge thought that was a reasonable approach, and indicated then ould be additional hearings on the EIR to allow everyone to comment. imissioner Tucker asked Commissioner Eaton if he saw any signif es in the document. Commissioner Eaton indicated there were no s that could not be corrected. He was critical about the schools im ion. He added that the revised project needs to be described comply to all the changes that have been made, including the traffic generation. ommissioner Tucker asked how the final EIR would be handled. Ms. Wood indicated it would be the draft EIR with comments and responses. Commissioner Tucker clarified that the document that will be certified is the original EIR as opposed to the changed project. Ms. Wood confirmed that fact, file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 15 of 17 'and indicated that certifying that document would allow for approval of a project f lesser intensity with lesser impacts. ,sioner Eaton asked that the traffic data includes existing and propose( Ms. Wood indicated that there will be traffic information, includinc uses, current General Plan buildout, the original project and the fina data. However, this information will not be complete until August. - sioner Tucker pointed that. the final project would have reduce( from the original project. Ms. Wood agreed with the reduction of trip: ad and added that it may not change the mitigations or circulatior ments needed to obtain the LOS standards. mmission Tucker asked for a summary of the overrides needed. mmissioner Eaton responded that he had included three overrides in hi: nments, one in hazards, one in land use and one in noise relating to the ;sibility of residential in the 65 CNEL in the Airport Area. He asked if takinc mixed use out eliminated the need for override for those items. He adde( re were 2 or 3 overrides based upon exceeding the SCAG populatior imate. In his comments, he asked if the numbers had been reduced enougt be within the SCAG limits. Ms. Wood thought Commissioner Eaton wa; rect with the airport area residential, however was not sure of the outcome arding the SCAG projections. ,ommissioner Tucker asked about the certification process. Ms. We ndicated there is the certification of the EIR, which says the EIR was prepai (cording to CEQA guidelines and is adequate. Then there is the action proving the project; which says that we did an EIR, we considered the E ve know there are significant unavoidable impacts in these areas, but will tpprove the project because of these overriding considerations. She added t is it stands now, there are unavoidable impacts in air quality, not >opulation /housing, and transportation. Wood reported that the public review period was scheduled to end June staff received a letter requesting to extend the review period 45 days. S )onded that the period had been set according to CEQA guidelines and State Clearinghouse at 45 days. However, because the Council had a put ring scheduled for June 13th and they will be accepting comments on , the comment period for written comments was extended to June 13th Land Use Element: Review of Policy Revisions > mmissioner Henn suggested adding "non -water dependent marine relate sinesses" to the second bullet point of LU 3.3. Ms. Wood suggested adding where industrial uses are permitted. Commission Henn agreed. ission Tucker, asked about LU 6.15.24. He thought the Commis: i "unless City Council makes appropriate findings for an override." indicated the Council added it back. However, it might be deleted al se there is no need after taking the mixed use out of the 65 CNEL and ian of the ALUC does not like the phrase. Tucker continued with LU 6.19.8, he felt this section file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 Page 16 of 17 I honfusing. Commissioner Eaton agreed and added that only one or two word ere changed, but it made it different. Ms. Wood indicated the Council though is was clearer because access could be achieved through a view corridor or ccess could be achieved on the waterfront from other properties. sioner Eaton asked about LU 4.1 (d). It refers to Appendix A table. It was his understanding that table was to be moved up fi would require a change in the language. Mr. Ramirez agreed. ;loner Eaton asked for clarification regarding several sections regardi wording and deletions. ;ommissioner Eaton asked where the new goal /policies came from on 14. Mr. Tescher indicated the addition was due to the findings of the EIR; ormerly were mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, and were m nto the plan as additional policies. >airman Toerge opened the discussion to the public. No one from the K esponded. Notion was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item to June 15, Eaton, C None Hawkins BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council continued the permit for Sober Living by the Sea hearing to June 27th; reviewed the Land and Circulation Element policies; and, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian p to amend their existing Development Agreement as part of their Master update. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Committee - no report. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan UK Committee - Commissioner Eaton gave an update of the subcommittee meetir commercial designations, FARs, caps, traffic model numbers and entitlement. Wood noted emails received that had been distributed to the Commission po: as a result of a newsletter sent out a few weeks ago. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none. Project status - Ms. Temple noted the EIR for the Bridgeport project is about to gc into circulation as is the environmental work for Our Lady Queen of Angels. Discussion then followed on the schedule of the regular Commission. �) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Cole asked to be excused from file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \06012006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/01/2006 15th 0 L� CITY OF NEWPORT PLANNING COMMISSION file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \06012006.htm Page 17 of 17 07/26/2006