Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/05/2014 -Regular Meeting Planning Commission NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers—100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, June 5, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER—The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Commissioner Ameri III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Ameri, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, and Tucker ABSENT: Brown (Excused)and Lawler(Excused) Staff Present: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director; Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner; Brittany Ramirez,Administrative Technician; and Debbie Drasler, Contract Planner. IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Hillgren invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on items not on the agenda, to do so at this time. Seeing no one wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Hillgren closed public comments. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES- None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES A. STUDY SESSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2014 B. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2014 Chair Hillgren noted corrections submitted by Mr. Jim Mosher. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Seeing none, Chair Hillgren closed public comments. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Myers and carried (4 — 1) to approve the study session and regular meeting minutes of May 22, 2014, as corrected. AYES: Ameri, Kramer, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: Hillgren ABSENT: Brown and Lawler Page 1 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 AT&T MOBILITY- 000323B (PA2013-182) Site Location: 2350 Bristol Street Contract Planner Debbie Drasler provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing a description of the proposed project, location, maximum height of the building, existing conditions, requirement of a conditional use permit, surrounding uses, specifications of the proposed facility, including, antennas and equipment, equipment enclosures, and screening and compliance with the City's Zoning Code and Municipal Code. She added that the project will have no interference with the City's public safety radio equipment and added a Condition of Approval stating, "Prior to permit issuance, Planning is to review and approve the color and material of the proposed screening". Ms. Drasler presented recommendations as stated in the report. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry regarding the importance of two (2) feet to the function of the antennas, Ms. Drasler reported that the smallest antennas are four (4) feet and they need the clearance above. The additional two (2)feet are needed for the antennas to function. Chair Hillgren opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant forward to address the Planning Commission. Tim Miller, on behalf of the applicant, AT&T Mobility, reported working with staff to develop a design and that the project will help to provide coverage in an existing gap of services and help offload existing sites. He addressed the coverage areas, reported reading the conditions and agreed to same. He commented positively on the City's new telecommunications ordinance. Jim Mosher stated that the combination of the architectural blending and the placement of the support equipment inside the building is an example of excellent planning. He commented on a proposal being considered by the City Council to put antennas in the parking lot adjacent to the Newport Beach Country Club and Tennis Courts and stated this project is much better. Charlie Shoff stated opposition to the Sector B portion that extends on the side of the building facing Zenith and stated he does not oppose Sectors A and C. Chair Hillgren closed the Public Hearing. Secretary Kramer commended the applicant for their effort and work. Motion made by Secretary Kramer and seconded by Vice Chair Tucker and carried (5—0)to adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-016 as amended by staff. AYES: Ameri, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Brown and Lawler ITEM NO. 3 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT (PA2013-098) Site Location: Citywide Commissioner Myers recused himself from voting on this matter as he has an interest in real property known as Upper Newport Plaza which creates a conflict of interest to some aspects of the project and departed the Chambers. Chair Hillgren noted that Vice Chair Tucker and Secretary Kramer have been active on the committee working through this process. He addressed the reason for going through the process as well as the Planning Commission's responsibility. He added that the process has been going forward for over a year on a public basis and stated the next steps. He commended staff, colleagues and the community for their work and noted it has had a good and thorough review. Chair Hillgren deferred to Vice Chair Tucker. Page 2 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 Vice Chair Tucker provided background and offered a brief summary of the process at this time. He noted that the Commission would be reviewing and discussing the following matters in the following order: (i)The proposed changes to the Land Use Maps and Anomaly Table would be reviewed first since this is the part of the Land Use Element where the proposed increases and decreases of property specific entitlements would actually be set forth; (ii)the General Plan Policies, which have already been reviewed would be reviewed one more time for any last changes and to go over prior changes; (iii) the Implementation Program which changes little from 2006 except to implement changes to laws that have happened since 2006; (iv) the Glossary, which he noted is a customized generic document where not all words that are defined are used in the General Plan; (v) further comments under CEQA and a decision whether the Supplemental EIR needed to be recirculated, as well as reviewing the Findings and the potential Statement of Overriding Considerations; (vi)the proposed form of draft Resolution set forth the Planning Commission's recommendations and (vii)a brief review of Charter Section 423, which Vice Chair Tucker noted did not relate to the review process, but rather only to whether the public would be voting on the Land Use Element Update if the Council approved the proposed Update. Chair Hillgren requested clarification regarding the objectives including "enhancing the character as a beautiful, unique residential community". Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski reported that each of the policies was developed to support that objective. The objectives were created first and the policies were developed to support them. Regarding Newport Beach being a "City of balance of jobs, housing and services", Community Development Director Kimberly Brandt reported that the City currently has more jobs than housing and that there are several goals and policies in the General Plan stating this is primarily a unique residential community. She added that the intent of the General Plan is to strike a balance and that with the additional units proposed the jobs/housing balance will improve. In terms of enhancing recreational opportunities, this is addressed through requirements to provide park space when adding residential elements. Regarding the objective of"modifying land uses, densities and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled", Ms. Brandt reported that the General Plan has very specific density allocations which are then, in turn, tied to the City's circulation element. She added that the State requires that the circulation element be correlated to the land use map contained within the land use element. It is the intention of the General Plan that the circulation element occur in concert with development within the community so that it remains in balance. Chair Hillgren referenced comments received regarding future approvals and asked regarding subsequent approvals needed before development of property. Ms. Brandt noted that the General Plan is the foundation for development within the City but noted there are other entitlement processes that a property owner would have to go through. She added that companion amendments to the Zoning Code that would allow development to occur have not been included at this time. Provided that City Council approves this General Plan amendment and that it were ratified by the voters, staff will prepare the necessary amendments to the Zoning Code as well as to the Coastal Land Use Plan. The next phase would be a site development review which will require appropriate review by the Planning Division and if necessary, by the Planning Commission or City Council. Relative to overriding considerations, Chair Hillgren requested guidance regarding how the Planning Commission should be evaluating what it does related to public benefits. Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill reported that the legal standard is that the statement of overriding consideration is supported by substantial evidence. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Ms. Brandt detailed the process going forward. Vice Chair Tucker noted that the Commission had a lot to review and would need to make decisions as it went through the material that he had earlier enumerated. He stated that since decisions were going to be made it would be appropriate to first hear from the public, so he opened public comments. Debbie Stevens, representing the Corona del Mar Residents Association, referenced a letter submitted to the Commission and expressed concerns with changes made over the last few years which seem to result in the community of Newport Beach being changed from a residential community to one that advocates for large-scale, high-density projects. She added that residents will be impacted by the traffic generated especially by the two Page 3 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 (2)office buildings proposed in the development of Newport Center. She asked that two (2) policies be retained that are currently proposed to be revised including LU-1 Goal and LU-1.4 (Growth Management). She questioned community benefits from those projects and added that development opportunity should not dictate policies. Doug Lessard, Belmont Village Senior Living, provided information on the organization and reported they are proposing to develop a senior living facility on the site of Jamboree and Campus. He requested an amendment to the anomaly table to increase the FAR to allow the size of building they would need on the site. He stressed that the increase in FAR is trip-neutral and would not generate additional traffic from what is already allowed on the site, by right. He requested that the Planning Commission consider the site separately from all other airport area sites and keep it as part of the land use element amendment. He referenced letters of support for their project submitted to the Planning Commission. He added that currently, there are limited options in the City for senior care facilities and asked for the Commission's consideration. Phil Andoniu, United American Properties, property owners of the corner on Jamboree and Campus, expressed support for the Belmont Village Senior Living facility. Barry Allen presented a letter to the Planning Commission dated April 7, 2014, and stated that it was responded to in the Supplemental EIR but did not answer his question. He noted there have been many meetings regarding this matter but that the Citizen's Committee offered no recommendations and therefore, the Planning Commission should oppose this matter. Within his letter, Mr. Allen stated he asked for a simple calculation as required by Greenlight and using the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual Trip Generation for various uses but that instead staff offered comments, which he opined, are unintelligible. He expressed concerns with increased traffic impacts and urged the Planning Commission to vote against this item. Patrick Strader, Star Pointe Ventures, speaking on behalf of John Saunders, owner of the area known as the Ten Sushi Restaurant and London Coin Gallery and surrounding areas, spoke in support of the project. He reported that he received response to comments in the Supplemental EIR on Monday and referenced a letter he submitted today. He commented on a project alternative that eliminated all of the airport area projects and that because of it, they have been put in a position of criticizing the project. If that alternative is included, he stated opposition and noted that the letter points out flaws in the Supplemental EIR for the project alternative only. He added that the Saunders property was not properly accounted for in the record and commented on the Airport Settlement Agreement noting that the EIR has been released and it answers any remaining question relative to the Saunders property. Steve Rosansky, former Council Member and Mayor of Newport Beach and current President of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce, reported that the Chamber is currently in the process of conducting and educational campaign, "The Coalition for General Plan Accountability"to educate the public on the General Plan and the current process. He noted there has been extensive outreach to the public and encouraged the Planning Commission to move this matter forward and put it to a vote of the residents. Greg Sullivan spoke in support of the UAP/Belmont Village Senior Living property and asked the Planning Commission to separate the use from the remaining airport properties. He addressed the FAR of the property and reported that this will be a Class A facility, will be a great use for the community and asked for the Planning Commission's support. Carol McDermott, representing the Koll Company, referenced Correspondence Item No. 3A relative to LU- 7.14.14. She provided a brief background on an integrated conceptual development plan that will allow two hundred and sixty(260) residential units on the Koll Company property. As part of the project, there was a park design that was conceptually approved and revised language was offered to help clarify what the dimensions of the park should be. However, she reported finding that the clarification was not consistent with the approved ICDP and it might make difficult that flexibility they need on the park design, if imposed as currently written. She provided suggested language and requested that the Planning Commission allow them to work with staff or determine that the suggested language is a reasonable modification to the proposed language. The suggested language includes, "...shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet along any edge of the park site, except as may be approved by the Planning Commission as part of a site development permit review". She addressed the dimensions of their proposed park and asked for the Commission's favorable consideration of the language as proposed. Page 4 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 Jean Watt, Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON), referenced a letter submitted to the Planning Commission asking to not recommend certification of the SEIR or approval of the land use amendment. She commented on prior traffic amendments noting that there is the exclusion of certain intersections which provide loopholes. Additionally, she commented on the connection between what cities do and what freeways accommodate and on unmitigated parts of the proposal. Jim Mosher reported that the State-required advertisement to be published in the newspaper for the present hearing was not as large as State law requires and that the notice of availability of the SEIR for public review failed to list public hearings related to this matter. He referenced a question in the comments to the SEIR by Debbie Stevens regarding whether a Supplemental EIR was sufficient, he submitted that the changes are not minor and that the SEIR is not appropriate. He added that staff felt that this was an appropriate time to update the General Plan, and not City Council. He commented on the City being 'jobs rich" and questioned adding more commercial to Newport Center, thus creating more jobs which would tip the balance away from the desired direction. He recommended that the Planning Commission not approve this item. Vice Chair Tucker closed public comments. In response to an inquiry from Vice Chair Tucker as to whether the release of the John Wayne Settlement EIR would change any of the environmental analysis, Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill commented that the release of the John Wayne Airport Settlement and EIR does not change anything as far as the analysis before the Commission tonight and that all that has happened is the release of the EIR for public comment. There has been no action to certify the JWA EIR or mitigation measures adopted. The analysis recognizes the existence of the Settlement Agreement and that there is environmental review but that issue is not before the City of Newport Beach. To imagine what will occur with the JWA EIR would be speculative, at best. Staff disclosed that there was uncertainty with the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement EIR, as a result, issued the Notice of Preparation and completed the SEIR analysis based on information available at the time. Because the impacts of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement cannot be analyzed at this time, the release of the JWA EIR does not change the analysis before the Commission at this time. Vice Chair Tucker preliminarily asked if there was a belief by Commissioners that there is new information that would require the SEIR to be recirculated. Secretary Kramer stated there is not and that the Supplemental EIR is appropriate. Vice Chair Tucker moved on to discuss the Land Use Map and the Anomaly Table. He listed the properties for which changes are proposed and reviewed details of each. Regarding Harbor Day School, it was noted that the proposed change relates to square footage of building area rather than the intensity of use (i.e. the number of students, which is covered in a use permit). Regarding 100 and 150 Newport Center Drive, discussion followed regarding the current development limits, divisions between commercial and the hotel and the vertical aspects of the project. It was noted that a hotel use would be a new anomaly and that the building height would be reviewed at the project specific application stage which would also entail a Zoning Code amendment. Height limitations would have to comply with the development standards. Regarding 150 Newport Center Drive, Secretary Kramer expressed concerns regarding the wide variety of additional uses that go along with development of a hotel. Basing the development limit just on hotel guest rooms is not necessarily the best method of providing development direction. Ms.Wisneski reported that the reason the number of rooms is important is that it is factored into the traffic model and hotels allow for ancillary uses. Ms. Brandt added that the amendment to the PC text would define that. Secretary Kramer noted there are multiple uses besides guest rooms in the structure of a hotel and stated that the development limits are not the same as was used with the Lido House. He believed that using square footage would be a better way of determining a development limit. He wondered why square footage was not considered in establishing the development limit. Page 5 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 Ms. Wisneski reported that it is typical for this type of level of entitlement to provide a general type of density. In this case, the density is based on the number of rooms because that is what trip generation is triggered by. Regardless of the square footage of the amenity, the trip generation is the same. Development standards are created with the amendment to the PC text as well as at the project level. At this point, identifying the square footage of other amenities would be speculative. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine added that trip generation for the Lido House was based on the number of rooms. Other uses are considered ancillary uses to the hotel. He reported consideration of ancillary uses would be determined by the proposed use and whether it will be a stand-alone use. Vice Chair Tucker referenced anomaly number 43 (Marriott)and stated the hotels in Newport Center do not look like they are limited by square footage, but rather number of rooms. Ms. Brandt indicated that the Zoning Code is the next tier in regulations where definitions and standards can be set. The Zoning Code includes the definition of hotels as part of the visitor accommodation land use portion and read same into the record. It is anticipated that there will be ancillary uses in connection with guest rooms. Discussion followed regarding the need to be consistent and considerations needed at the time of a project approval. Ms. Brandt reported that would be considered through the site development review process or the Conditional Use Permit process. That is when the City's discretion of applying the Zoning Code would come into play as guidance is provided to an applicant that may come forward with a proposed conceptual plan. Secretary Kramer commented on the interrelationship between parking, traffic, square footage and number of rooms and noted the need to be careful and cautious. Vice Chair Tucker referenced anomaly 84 in Newport Center noting it will have to go through another project- specific process. Chair Hillgren stated acceptance and noted that his questions relate to the SEIR. Vice Chair Tucker commented on traffic and noted that the Assistant City Attorney's memo that discusses the use of the 2006 Program EIR as the baseline for the analysis in the 2014 draft Supplemental EIR. He noted that there are no additional impacts in Newport Beach in addition to those noted in the 2006 Final EIR but also observed that if the projects in the update are built it will affect different parts of the City differently. He added that if there are no environmental impacts in the City, then he does not see a basis for opposing the update at the Planning Commission level. Chair Hillgren commented on the movement of development opportunities from Newport Coast to Newport Center and on the diversion of traffic to specific arterials including PCH through Corona del Mar. Mr. Brine stated that it is not traffic neutral from a daily standpoint and that consideration was given to a.m. and p.m. peak hours and noted there will be a shift in the location of traffic. Trips will be spread in the area surrounding Newport Center and will not necessarily impact one area. He added there will be different levels of trips associated with the different land uses. Chair Hillgren commented on the importance of understanding where the traffic is moving from and to. Mr. Brine added that it will depend on the land use, trip generation and the model. Discussion followed regarding the traffic study and specific CEQA analyses required as projects are reviewed. Ensuing discussion pertained to traffic levels of service, the study and model, comparing the 2006 General Plan with the 2014 General Plan and empirical testing done on current traffic as well as reliability of the data. Mr. Brine reported that the model used has been completely updated since 2006 and addressed validation of the model. Page 6 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 Vice Chair Tucker addressed the airport area and the series of proposals for different properties and expressed concerns that besides the UAP parcel, none of the parcels are owned by the parties proposing the changes. He commented on the proposed changes to the so-called Lyon property, the possibility of having a non-conforming use for someone that did not ask for the changes and suggested eliminating that property from the project. He inquired if the changes for the Saunders property would allow the existing uses to stay and not be inconsistent with the land use designation. He expressed concerns with creating non-conforming uses going forward with changes to zoning that was not requested by a property owner. Ms.Wisneski recalled that the car rental agencies could become non-conforming. It was noted there is not much zoning for the MU zone at present. The only project that has been approved is the Uptown Newport project which has a companion PC text. The car rental agencies would be allowed to stay as a non-conforming use. Should they want to make changes, it would need to be determined whether the use was compatible with a mixed-use designation. Discussion followed regarding the Lyon property. Ms. Wisneski reported that the City has not received an official withdrawal for the request and Secretary Kramer questioned why Vice Chair Tucker requested striking the proposal. Vice Chair Tucker reported that he met with Lyon months ago and the broker communicated to him very recently that Lyon did not close the purchase of the property for which Lyon had requested the land use change.. They may not have notified the City as they did not have any further interest in the property. Vice Chair Tucker invited a former representative of Lyon in the audience to address the Commission. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning, reported representing Lyon previously in this effort but has not been working with them recently and is not aware of any formal withdrawal of the request. She urged the Planning Commission to maintain the request. Discussion followed regarding options if the Commission were to act or not act on this matter tonight and the effects on the traffic model if property in the airport area were dropped from the proposed Land Use Element Update. Vice Chair Tucker noted that the airport area is not trip neutral. Ensuing discussion pertained to impacts of the alternatives and whether there is a recommendation from staff on this specific issue. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that staffs recommendation is, in light of the issues with the airport and the unknowns,to not include the airport projects. Relative to the Lyon property, Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that staff has had discussions with various property owners near the property who indicated that Lyon was not going to pursue the development, but reiterated a formal withdraw has not been submitted. Ms. Mulvihill reported that this was a City Council initiated General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Ameri stated that the Lyon property should be a "non-issue" as if there were still an interest, they would be represented. He did not see any reason for discussing the matter. He would prefer accepting staffs recommendations rather than attempt to make a decision for someone who is not even in attendance and had no interest in telling the Commission where they stand. Discussion followed regarding minor changes to The Hangars. Community Development Director Brandt reported she was just advised that the property interest who originally proposed the additional square footage for The Hangers is no longer interested in the proposal and is not here to support it. Page 7 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 There was consensus to eliminate the Lyon property and The Hangars proposals from consideration. Relative to anomaly 6, UAP Properties. Vice Chair Tucker opined that it is a very good use for the property and pointed out the unintended consequences of ballot box planning that would require such a benign use to go to the voters. He indicated his support of the item. Discussion followed regarding the Saunders property and addressing non-conforming uses within the zoning context. Ms. Brandt stated that they would need to go through a planned community text which can reflect the existing conditions and where it is appropriate for uses to continue or not continue. She confirmed that by zoning text any nonconformity that might otherwise seem to come out of a land use designation different from the structures on the ground should be able to be addressed. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Brine reported on the impacts associated with all of the airport properties noting there were six (6) freeway segments and two (2) freeway ramps impacted. In the 2006 Final EIR, there were 6 segments and one ramp impacted. Eliminating all of the airport properties,there would remain six (6) freeway segments and one (1) ramp impacted. There was a reduction of one (1) impact with no airport area properties in the update. However, the impacts were not broken down and analyzed for each individual property so it is possible that eliminating the Lyon property and the Hangars might mean that only one ramp would be impacted as was the case with the 2006 Final EIR, even if the Saunders property were included in the update. Commissioner Ameri pointed out that knowing that UAP is trip neutral, it can be said that if UAP is considered separately, it will have no effect on the traffic. Mr. Brine reported that UAP did not factor into the traffic impacts. Vice Chair Tucker suggested staff evaluate the Saunders traffic alone, prior to going to City Council, to be able to advise the Council as to whether the removal of the Lyon and Hangars projects would mean that only one ramp would remain impacted as was the case in 2006.. If that were to be the case, then there would be no impact from the update including the Saunders project. Chair Hillgren commented on the airport area being a fantastic opportunity to bring together housing and commercial in a mixed-use environment. He expressed concerns addressing this on a piece-meal basis without having a good master plan, over time. He stated that the City is missing a huge opportunity, from a long-term perspective. Secretary Kramer noted that is not the issue before the Planning Commission at this time. He added there have been many studies of the general area and commented on the UAP and Saunders properties adding that it would be short-sighted not to approve Saunders as part of the airport area. Vice Chair Tucker agreed with Secretary Kramer's comments and noted that the area is in need of a "shot in the arm". Vice Chair Tucker next addressed the policies and specifically related to the development scale language pertaining to the proposed hotel site in Newport Center. He focused on the language stating, "...to enable distinguished quality architectural and site design, and provide for increased heights for the development of a hotel in the eastern portion of the 100 block"and suggested using language that makes it clear that the only time extra height would be granted is if a project is found to have quality architecture and site design. Chair Hillgren agreed but questioned the basis for increased height and whether there is a limit of what it might be. Vice Chair Tucker stated there is no limit and commented on the way Newport Center is set up in terms of building heights. Page 8 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 Regarding policy LU 7.13.9, Chair Hillgren asked if there is a reason that hotels are not included as requiring a development agreement. Vice Chair Tucker reported that the hotel takes the place of something else that exists today and the policy relates to new entitlements. Generally a development agreement is not required where one project is substituted for another project. Vice Chair Tucker referenced and explained the ROMA plan and presented language that"requires a regulatory plan for each residential building...in conformance with the ICDP". He stated that approval was made to a plan (Uptown Newport)that was not technically in conformance with the ICDP and suggested language indicating that a project"is developed consistent with the concept of the ICDP"would be more appropriate language. Next, Vice Chair Tucker addressed the policy related to park development standards for which Ms. McDermott previously suggested language and indicated that her recommendation makes sense. Chair Hillgren agreed and suggested requiring a development agreement for use of new entitlements in the airport area. Vice Chair Tucker suggested changing language to require a development agreement if a project, "includes residential units or additional commercial entitlement"and so that would include the Saunders property. Secretary Kramer stated it seems consistent but was unsure if Saunders would agree. Ms. Brandt suggested clarifying language and tying the development agreement to additional residential units in specific anomalies as well as commercial-office in specific anomalies. If the Planning Commission agrees with the language, staff can refine the language prior to presenting to City Council. The Commission was in concurrence with such an approach and asked the staff to develop the language. Vice Chair Tucker added that the same approach to development agreements can be used as was used in Newport Center. Vice Chair Tucker commented on LU 7.18.13 relative to coastal bluffs noting that the property that has a coastal bluff should maintain the visual quality and the structural integrity of the bluff face rather than the property that abuts a coastal bluff. He suggested deleting "abuts" and using the word "includes". Otherwise, it sounds like a property that does not have a coastal bluff but abuts one that does has to address the coastal bluff on someone else's property. Chair Hillgren suggested deleting references to"snowpack". Vice Chair Tucker then responded to comments from SPON and the Corona del Mar Residents Association with respect to the deletion of the phrase "conservative growth strategy." He noted that the Land Use Update Committee had discussed the use of the phrase "conservative growth strategy" on three (3) different occasions, suggested that the language should be consistent throughout the document and addressed the purpose for eliminating that language. He noted that the Land Use Maps and the Anomaly Table detail the level of entitlement that each property in the City is allowed. Adding a phrase that sounds like each property also has to reflect a conservative growth strategy sounds like the specific entitlement in the Land Use Maps and the Anomaly Table is subject to a further test based upon an undefined term or standard (i.e. "conservative"). He added development capacities allowed in the General Plan should speak for themselves. Vice Chair Tucker commented on moving the word "primarily" in terms of the City being a "unique, primarily residential, community" under Goal LU1. He noted that using one word in place of many words did not change the meaning of the phrase. Additionally, he commented on the deletion of"designated" relative to open space and read the meaning of"open space" in the General Plan. Since the "open space" is defined in the glossary, the deletion of "designated" will not change its meaning so he dropped his suggestion of inclusion of the word designated as being unnecessary. Commissioner Ameri commented on the dangers of using certain terminologies when the definitions are not stated. Page 9 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 Vice Chair Tucker commented on language in policy LU3.1 regarding "Maintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and improvement districts, commercial centers, corridors, harbors and ocean districts", and suggested including language indicating that it would be that way"substantially". He added that the General Plan proposals before the Planning Commission actually do change the pattern of development in certain areas. So there will be changes if the update is adopted, just not much in the way of changes so saying the pattern of development would remain substantially unchanged seemed appropriate. Additionally, he commented on policy LU 4.6 in terms of deleting the word, "comparative" as well the West Newport Mesa Sub- Area narrative related to mobile home parks representing a source of affordable housing in the City. Relative to the latter, he stated that the existing language implies that mobile home parks were designated affordable housing, noting that they are not. He noted that the existing language indicates that mobile homes have been a source of affordable housing but they are not required to be.. He recommended deleting "represents"and using "has been" a source of affordable housing so the language is more precise (handwritten page 57). He then discussed why removing the words "work with" found in several polices including LU 7.5.3 and LU 7.5.4 was appropriate. Vice Chair Tucker continued responding to the comments within the SPON letter and explained the changes referenced therein. Vice Chair Tucker addressed the implementation plan and the glossary and proposed a change in the latter relative to greenhouse gas emissions. He suggested deleting the reasons for greenhouse gas emissions and simply listing what they are and adding language stating, "...contributing to global climate change". Ms. Brandt reported that the reference to "snowpack" was found within the glossary and Vice Chair Tucker stated that as it is used in the glossary it is part of the definition of"climate change"therefore, it is acceptable. Vice Chair Tucker highlighted a note in the glossary, which states that not all terms used in the glossary are used in the General Plan. In response to Chair Hillgren regarding the source of the definitions, Woodie Tescher, consultant, explained that the definition of"climate change" is used by the State Office of Planning and Research. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill explained that the memo issued by her office was in response to comments received during the draft EIR comment period. She added there were many questions relating to the appropriateness of a SEIR and she distributed the memo to let the Commission and public know that it was an issue that was thoroughly reviewed and is an approach allowed under CEQA. She stated she would like it included in the record. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Ms. Brandt addressed the basis for growth projection and the use of same by SCAG. In response to Chair Hillgren's question regarding greenhouse gasses being less in 2014 than in 2006, JoAnn Hadfield, consultant, reported one of the benefits of the project is that the project improves the per capita greenhouse gas emissions and explained how that is done. She added that the General Plan is consistent and will meet 2020 goals and improves per capita greenhouse emissions relative to the 2006 General Plan. There was consensus that there is no additional information that would merit recirculation of the SEIR. Vice Chair Tucker addressed the findings. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill requested that staff include a reference to the 2006 General Plan EIR in the findings and that it is incorporated throughout the SEIR. Discussion followed regarding the statement of overriding considerations relative to impacts that were significant, unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts and comparing same to the benefits of the project. Vice Chair Tucker stated another benefit of the project is that there will be development agreements that will generate a substantial amount of public benefit fees that will be available for public improvements including parks, infrastructure and environmental enhancements. The Commission concurred to add this to the reasons for the override. He commented on freeways and ramps and the unknown potential of the Settlement Agreement. Page 10 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 In response to an inquiry from Chair Hillgren, Ms. Mulvihill reported that the City is the decision-making agency. Chair Hillgren commented on promoting land use patterns and encouraging the use of alternatives relative to single-occupancy automobile use. Vice Chair Tucker indicated that the statement of overriding considerations is appropriate and reviewed the resolution. He stated that it was supposed to have language in it that made it clear that the policy amendments would not become effective if the General Plan amendment was not ratified by the public and stated he did not see anything in the document that indicates that was the case. Ms. Mulvihill stated that staff will add that language. Vice Chair Tucker stated it should include the implementation plan. Ms. Wisneski suggested including language that without the enactment of the land use and map changes the General Plan amendment would not be in effect. Vice Chair Tucker commented on Charter Section 423 and that that Section of the Charter does not change the manner in which the Commission reviews a project, but just adds a layer of a public vote to the approval process. He also clarified the lack of a recommendation from the committee related to a decision by the Committee not to recommend including or excluding the airport area. Secretary Kramer stated that not having a recommendation does not equal not supporting the amendments but rather is a vote of confidence of moving everything forward. Vice Chair Tucker then revisited whether material new information had been presented that would require recirculation of the draft Supplemental EIR and verified that no Commissioner felt that recirculation would be necessary. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Secretary Kramer and carried (4—0)to adopt a resolution recommending City Council certify Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-002 and approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2013-001 to amend the Land Use Element with changes to the policies as discussed above. AYES: Ameri, Hillgren, Kramer, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Brown and Lawler RECUSAL: Myers VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO.4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Community Development Director Brandt provided an update on a recent meeting of the General Plan/Local Coastal Implementation Committee and addressed items reviewed and discussed during that meeting. 2. Update on City Council Items Ms. Brandt provided a status update on the proposed General Plan amendment on 191 Riverside. Ms. Wisneski provided a status update on the Echo Beach appeal being considered by Council on June 10, 2014, and referenced a Planning Commission meeting schedule through the month of September as well as topics to be discussed. She reported that the Planning Commission's meeting of July 3, 2014, will be cancelled. Page 11 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 ITEM NO. 6 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Chair Hillgren commented on a service station at the corner of San Joaquin and San Miguel noting that its sign is excessively bright. In response to his inquiry, Ms. Wisneski reported that the Commission will reorganize at its second meeting in July. ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES - None IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on May 30, 2014, at 3:55 p.m., in the binder and on the City Hall Electronic Bulletin Board located in the entrance of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive. ra ey it Kort'Kr mer eVrry Page 12 of 12