Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/1999CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Study Session - 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund - all present Sharon Z. Wood - Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple - Planning Director Robert Burnham,- City Attorney Rich Edmonston - Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin - Executive Secretary to Planning Commission • Public Comments None Postina of the Agenda The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, May 14, 1999 • INDEX Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Traffic Phasing Ordinance • Amendment No. 864 Proposed amendments to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, to provide that circulation system improvements required for a development are roughly proportional to that project's impact, to allow the City Council to exempt from improvements intersections that meet criteria established in the Ordinance, and to establish a threshold for traffic impacts that require circulation system improvements. Chairperson Selich noted that this is a continued public hearing from. May 6th and that testimony would resume from Item No. 8 of the Issue Matrix. Issue No. 8 - Trip generation study threshold for smaller projects. Tim Strater, 3801 Inlet Isle - BIA spokesperson He explained about a project of a 7,000 square foot restaurant that was reduced to a 5,000 fast food restaurant. This project was required to do a traffic study which, based on the current TPO, indicated that there could be • an additional 343 trips generated by the fast food uses. That delayed the project some five months resulting in a loss of revenue. If the Ordinance had provided for 500 ADT as the trip generation threshold, this project would have proceeded without the necessity of having to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council in order to achieve an exemption based upon a vote of 6/7. He supported a change in the ADT and recommended a creation of an exempt intersection technique as well as going to a majority vote as the basis to determine what occurs under the TPO. Marko Popovich - SPON spokesperson • Stated that SPON supports the staff recommendation of 300 ADT as an absolute maximum. • The TPO is not meant to stop homes, duplexes, jeweler shops or similar small projects. The threshold should be high enough to make sure that none of them are caught. • The threshold should also be low enough to prevent piecemealing, that is, big projects being broken down into smaller projects. For example, a 40,000 square foot industrial building being changed to four 10,000 square foot buildings to avoid the TPO at a time when the TPO had a 10,000 square foot threshold. • SPON believes that the threshold should be set lower, not higher, and suggested 150 ADT. Concluding, he suggested that the Commission consider using peak hour trips INDEX Item No. 1 A No. 864 Continued to 6/10/99 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 instead of average daily trips. Commissioner Tucker asked about the exemption of the 300 ADT, does it exempt the project from contributing money towards funding and improvements if it were a few more trips? What is the distinction of having to do a full traffic study or not having to pay or nor do a study? Mr. Burnham stated that all projects pay their Fare Share Fee. It is proposed in the new Ordinance a .005 ICU trigger, that is, any project that does not increase an ICU at a critical intersection by more than .005 would be exempt from an improvement requirement. The TPO does have an exemption built in for those projects that slightly increase ICU's or slightly increase traffic congestion at intersections even though the average daily trip threshold may be triggered. Commissioner Tucker stated that everybody who impacts a critical intersection with an unacceptable level of service should have to pay something for their trips. It may be a modest fee because it is a modest project, but why do some people not have to pay anything? Mr. Edmonston stated that is one of the reasons why the Fore Share fee was • developed so that even the smallest project contributed funds towards the construction of the circulation system. The threshold of 300 trips was that if a project comes in with a single - family lot and a duplex is built, you don't have to do a traffic sturdy for those two units. The number of 300ADT has been in place for some time. Commissioner Gifford asked if there was a fee separate from the fare share fee if the TPO is not tripped, or were you suggesting that maybe the Commission should think how to extend some small fee proportionally below the trip level? Commissioner Tucker stated he did not understand the logic as to why somebody at 305 ADT has to pay something and that somebody at 295 ADT pays nothing. If you have an unsatisfactory intersection, you have a rough proportionality test, then, why doesn't everybody pay from trip one? I can understand not asking somebody to do a traffic study for a single - family house, or that the Transportation Manual says will not generate over 300 ADT. Mr. Burnham added that to calculate the fee for 295 ADT you would have to go through the some kind of analysis you would for 305 ADT. To calculate a fee appropriate for that project in relation to some cost of improvement, some intersections would require substantial analysis. This in turn would increase the cost of processing and the times associated with the process. • Mrs. Wood added that it is not always the case that the project with 305 trips INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 would pay some kind of a fee or be required to make an improvement based on the TPO, that is the threshold for doing the traffic study. Depending on the impacts that are found, there is a determination as to the improvements or the contributions that have to be made. Issue No. 9 Criteria for "project impact' ' Jean Watt, 4 Harbor Island - SPON spokesperson • Asked that if the 1% per leg test for an exemption as a threshold is changed, it should be .0025 of I% of the intersection capacity. • Any percent has inherent problems because the bigger the intersection the more traffic and the more exemptions can be made. • The BIA request would raise the threshold four times as high as it is now. • Looking at the sum of all four legs, then 1/4 of I% is somewhat equivalent to the existing 1 % per leg. • If this is how we are going to deal with growth and infrastructure capacity questions now, then I hope you can see the importance that the 1% versus the 1/4 of 1% detail in the bigger perspective. • Reducing thresholds for the TPO are counter productive to important community values such as the elusive quality of life and balanced growth. • • If you need to change the TPO before doing the visioning and planning with this built out road system, then, do not lower the threshold for exemptions. Commissioner Gifford asked Mrs. Watt, as one of the originators of the original wording of the TPO, what she thought of eliminating the provision for exempt intersections and relying simply on an override of the TPO where there were improvements that the City didn't want to make but would conceivably allow the project? Mrs. Watt stated that she would prefer to stick to the override for the moment because it is more informative to the community. If we have exempt intersections, then it is hidden in the process as far as what the community would understand. An override would be explained and discussed. What SPON has been asking for is not to do anything to the TPO other than the proportionality wording until there is a chance to do some planning with regard to what we are going to do to the road system and whether we can make it serve the added growth or not. Yes, I would rather stick with the override. At Commissioner inquiry regarding override votes to approve a project and another time deny another project leading to possible litigation, Mr. Burnham noted that the concept of exempt intersections would apply to all projects. The analysis of each project would be seen on the same basis. Before an • intersection is declared exempt, you have to have the 6/7 vote of City 4 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Council. The concept is to avoid the situation where there is approval of some projects and disapproval of others even though the impacts at the intersection may be the same. The analysis is a little different talking about a different point in time and different base line of volume to intersections. The analysis is essentially the some in terms of the threshold needed to achieve before there was a mitigation requirement. The override is useable where a project, as a whole is, good for the community. The concept of exempt intersections has built into it the some kind of protection that you have with an override, and that is the 6/7 vote of the Council as well as a number of criteria that must be met in order for an intersection to even be considered exempt. The TPO allowing the City Council and the Planning Commission to approve a project on the 6/7 vote does not automatically mean that the use of that option in one case creates the risk of litigation. The risk that we are concerned with is the denial of a project based on impacts to intersections we have chosen not to approve. Not so much as the fact that one project may receive approval and another one might not. Commissioner Tucker noted that the language states that the Planning Commission or City Council makes a finding that the project will result in benefits that outweigh anticipated negative impact on the circulation system. The benefit is not defined. • Chairperson Selich noted that if the exempt intersection concept is adopted, when the Council votes to exempt an intersection, does that have to be consistent with the General Plan? Mr. Burnham answered that the Council would not be adopting an ordinance or resolution that would be crafted in a way to make it as consistent with the General Plan as possible. The City Council is deciding in declaring an exempt intersection, not to make General Plan improvements for a period of at least five years. Mike Erickson - BIA spokesperson • BIA does not disagree with the direction of the staff recommendations or the application of it. • The staff recommendation is .005 that equates to about 8 cars in a lane. That is reasonable. • The problem is that if you are the unlucky project that has a rounding issue and moves it up, then to hit that .005 it could be as little as 1 /10,000 of a point which is .16 cars per hour which can not be measured. • The 8 cars is right, the BIA has suggested a .01 which works to about 2 cars when rounded up. • The idea of an exempt intersection means that you will have to hear and approve /disapprove every project and the same citizens that the City has • listened to will have to keep coming out to each session as each project INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 is reviewed to let their positions be known. • It seems more efficient for the City, staff and citizens to really address this in one big picture decision, make the decision and have it stay until a criteria is broken. • The concept of a 617 vote is a tough issue and is more reasonable and it is necessary to look at 5/7 vote. Issue No. 10 - Decimal place methodology for ICU calculations. Mr. Tony Petros - BIA spokesperson. • ICU's have been calculated to 2 decimal points since being used as a tool to do traffic studies. • The reasoning is the perception of the exactness of the art versus science as this is a prediction of where people will be in the future. • Traffic counts vary by as much as 10% over individual days. • BIA supports the status quo, continuing to use ICU's to the 2 decimal points. • The City of Newport Beach is consistent with Measure M, with the Congestion Management Program, the Growth Management Program and all other traffic consistency measures through the use of the two • decimal points for the ICU. • He recommended a change to the override to 5/7 vote. Karl Hufbauer, 20241 Bayview Avenue - SPON spokesperson. • A calculation of four decimal points gets significantly different results, plus or minus than rounding to two places. • The builders might see it as an arbitrary taking and in such an instance they might prefer a more precise calculation. • In general, there is no harm in being precise then you can see how it is going to turn out. • The trouble is less with the existing TPO than the General Plan. • The General Plan needs to be revised first. Chairperson Selich asked staff about the comments of imprecise science and that the industry of professional standards is more at the two decimal point level. Mr. Edmonston agreed that there is a variation in daily traffic and the ability to predict that traffic even five years out is one of the reasons why there is a limit of five years on the TPO. The farther out you go, the less certain you are that your projections are going to be reasonably valid. The situation here, is that we are trying to identify what the criteria would be which is separate from the issue of the actual preciseness of it. You can pick precise criteria, • and utilize that if that is what you want to do. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 In the recommendation proposed, we have tried to clarify this issue because in the past it has been dealt with a little differently. The guidelines we have now would require you to calculate it to three decimal places. We are trying to avoid in the overall series of changes made rather than a one digit change, that third decimal place, you would have to have a change of at least .005 caused by the project itself, not some small rounding. We have addressed the rounding aspect of it, because that seems to go with the precision that has been brought up. Staff is comfortable with this, but an argument can be made either way. We have tried to eliminate some potential that the existing Ordinance could be applied different ways. If is not clear how to get to those two decimals places, and that is what we are trying to specify here. You carry it to the third, do the math, and then do the final rounding at that point to the two decimal places. At Commission inquiry, Ms Temple noted that the Burger King intersection had to do with the third decimal place rounding over to a higher ICU at two intersections, even though the project's contribution to the traffic at those intersections was small. Issue No. 11 - Approval permitted even if cause or make worse as long as no • feasible identified improvement. Mr. Tom Hyans - SPON spokesperson. • It is not reasonable to ignore the obvious and allow the project to make a congested intersection worst, simply because there is determined to be no feasible mitigating improvements. The worst intersection in town should not be treated in the same manner as the best intersection is treated. • The following amendments to the TPO are suggested to the revision of 05/03/1999 on page 2, last line on the page at A.l.b.(I), strike "...for which there is a Feasible Improvement:' On page 4, at A.2.d.(I), strike "...for which there is a Feasible Improvement:' On page 8, Section 15.40.040, Definitions, delete the definition of "Feasible Improvement:' • He asked that the Commission recommend adopting SPON's simple 25- word change to keep the TPO running while addressing the true problem that is, conflict within two elements of the General Plan. • There can be no reasonable TPO without resolving the obvious and ignored discrepancies in Land Use and Circulation Elements. We've heard that from EDC, EQAC, and others. • SPON wants to remove the ability to approve, by default, projects impacting such intersections. • The change that is an improvement, but not enough of an improvement, is the added language referring to 0.80 ICU near the top of.pages 3 and • 5. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 MITiganon or non- Teasioie sires snouia oe in Tne vicinity OT Tne prolecT, a result that would be achieved if you would accept SPON's definition of "Critical ". Mr. Chip Utera, 512 Redlands - BIA spokesperson. • Supports the staff recommendation keeping the language in the current draft document relative to the feasibility improvements. • Any business decision made on feasibility is an important consideration. • It is also important relative to traffic improvements. • Supports the concept for exempt intersection, the increase in the threshold for small projects and the change for the super majority vote from 6/7 to 5/7. At Commission inquiry he explained that he refers to small projects as being a 7,000 square foot restaurant and a 10,000 square office building. They are to be specifically listed in the Ordinance. Mr. Burnham noted that there is no provision in the TPO for requiring improvements to be made at a particular intersection or another. The current TPO has the concept of allowing approval if there is no feasible improvement • at an impacted intersection as long as there are improvements at other intersections where there is a net benefit. The proposed change would be to require in the consideration whether there is a net benefit, improvements that are proposed to intersections that are different from the one that is impacted and can not be improved or those intersections are predicted to function at or above .80. Commissioner Kranzley asked about having some language that talks about intersections in the vicinity of the intersection where there are no feasible improvements. Mr. Burnham answered that they have tried to minimize the changes to as many provisions of the TPO as possible. We have tried to not change this provision except to the extent it was necessary to deal with rough proportionality because the old language said something to the affect that the other improvements had to substantially outweigh the impact. Therefore, we have moved to the concept of a net benefit with the improvements at other intersections being improvements at intersections that would function at or above .80. If you just talk about in the vicinity, there is more subjectivity built in. Continuing he noted, the traffic engineer would look at intersections on a particular roadway length and look at improvements along that roadway length and if those improvements were related to an intersection that was impacted, that would be one thing. If those intersections were on another corridor then they may not be particularly helpful to alleviate • congestion at that one intersection. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Commissioner Kranzley asked that the determination of which intersections are improved is the determination of the traffic engineer? Mr. Burnham answered that under the current TPO with this particular section, it's within the province of the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. All you determined is whether the impact at that one, or more intersections where there is no feasible improvement that is substantially outweighed by improvements at other intersections. We have tried to at least qualify in weighing the benefits of the impacts, require Planning Commission or City Council to give greater weight to improvements at other intersections that function above .80. Mr. Edmonston added that if the traffic engineering consultant who is hired by the City and paid for by the developer, gets a study completed and identifies that they have an impacted intersection for which there is no improvement, then their next step of work is to look for alternative improvements. At that point, the two options that the project has are to try to identify other improvements at other locations, or to try to seek the 6/7 override. The way the Ordinance works, is that the traffic consultant and I would sit down and talk about what might be candidate locations and what • improvements might be available at those candidate locations. There could be a question raised at the time the traffic study gets to the Planning Commission if there is a something that might have been overlooked. The decision however, still rests with the Planning Commission or the City Council. Commissioner Ashley noted that if an improvement were to be proposed by a developer and it was found that the trip generated from this project was to impact an exempt intersection, he would have to pay money for the improvement at a more isolated intersection problem. If he were to be permitted to suggest which intersections he would like to donate his money to, he would always choose the intersection that would be the least painful in terms of money he would have to contribute. Why would you let this happen$ Mr. Edmonston answered that this would not apply to an exempt intersection. The concern is that typically if there were two intersections that could be improved, that were not the one the developer is tripping, certainly we would look for a rough proportionality of improvement. If he liked one better than the other because it was closer to his project, that would work. One of the things crafted in the Ordinance is that the developer could not fix one near his project that had a very low ICU, but just happens to have a very cheap improvement he could make. The goal is to get improvements made to the system overall not just to allow a developer to find a cheap solution. If a cheap solution exists at a good candidate location, we certainly would • accept that. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 At the time this Ordinance goes forward to the City Council, they will be asked to develop a list from the candidate exempt intersections that staff has identified. There is a potential where a candidate intersection could be proposed and that could be considered concurrently with the project. Commissioner Tucker asked if the intersection is exempt, there is no mitigation that has to be made under the TPO. If the some intersection comes forward in a project and is deemed infeasible, then it has to make a payment, even though the payment may end up improving another intersection. Why would we have exempt intersections when we can have infeasible improvements and collect money? - Mr. Burnham stated that the two concepts are distinct. If an intersection qualifies as exempt, it is by definition an intersection where there is a feasible improvement and the City has chosen not to make that improvement within a five -year period. You can not have an exempt intersection and finding that there is no feasible improvement. It is either one situation or the other. The current TPO does have provision for approving a project that impacts an intersection where there is no feasible, identified improvement. What we are trying to do is fine -tune that language in the proposed TPO so that the money • that is paid by the property owner to offset the impact is directed to those intersections that are most in need of improvement. Commissioner Tucker, referencing Page 2 of b. (I), 'The Project will not cause or make .worse an Unsatisfactory Level of Traffic Service at any critical intersection (excluding any exempt intersection) for which there is a feasible improvement; and...." It seems that the corollary then is that there is no feasible improvement and the project will not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of service for which there is a feasible improvement. If you have something that doesn't qualify as a feasible improvement, then this sub - section (i) doesn't need to be satisfied. It is satisfied in that there is no feasible improvement. I am trying to understand the difference between exempt, why the City wouldn't choose to reject improvements that otherwise would qualify for an exemption and just knock out this feasible improvement requirement and accomplish the same goal. The improvement would not have to be made, but the developer would have to make a contribution that might end up elsewhere in the circulation system. Mr. Burnham answered that we have tried to limit the concept of exempt intersections and limit the changes to the TPO so they are as minimal as possible to deal with what we perceive to be some legal issues. Commissioner Tucker noted that it would be easy for him to support the exempt intersection concept if it was the only way to assist the City in • spending money other than giving it to a developer that sued because of 10 810141 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 that concept. The way feasible improvement has been defined, it has to be initiated and approved in conjunction with the approval of the project that you eliminate the need for a feasible improvement by simply saying that the Council says it is not approved. Mr. Burnham noted that the definition of feasible improvement is not going to be changed. Frequently, there may be situations where as part of an evaluation of a project, we identify modifications to the Circulation Element that will mitigate traffic but they are different from the current provisions of the Circulation Element. We have tried to anticipate the concurrent processing that frequently goes forward on the larger project where you amend the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element to provide for roadway improvements or intersection improvements that were not contemplated by the Circulation Element when the project was submitted. In the case of an exempt intersection they are in the Circulation Element, so they are contemplated but none have been made in the past four or five years. Commissioner Gifford asked if it was possible that the definition of feasible improvement include one that the City is not intending to find or initiate for more than five years. That would bring the feasibility into Issue 11 context. • Mr. Burnham answered that if the phrase feasible improvement include the situation where the improvement was contemplated by the General Plan but was not going to be made for a specified period of time. That would be another way of addressing the concern that we have about denying a project because it impacts an intersection that the City has chosen not to improve to General Plan standards. Commissioner Gifford - would the result of that be that we could eliminate the concept of exempt intersection and we could have some kind of in lieu or an improvement at another location? How does proportionality fit into the concept of what improvement someone is required to make at another intersection? Mr. Burnham answered that we try to make the Ordinance comply with the law and hope that as it is implemented, the property owner whose project that is being considered also believes you are complying with the law. The current Ordinance has a provision that requires the off site improvements to substantially outweigh the impacts at the intersection that can't be improved. We are proposing to remove that language and substitute the balancing provision so there is a net benefit with a greater weight being given to improvements to other intersections which are projected to function at or above .80. The Ordinance as written complies with the law, as I understand it. A nexus is established if an improvement was done by a developer in another • area than the intersection the project is at. 11 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Commissioner Tucker stated that the concept of exempt intersections and improvements that are deemed not to be feasible seem to be almost alike except in one case you pay nothing and in the other case, you contribute. One Council may decide that an intersection is exempt and two years later something changes on that and somebody went ahead and put a big development and didn't pay anything. The next guy is all of a sudden held to • different standard. I believe that everybody ought to chip in and if there is • way to call something not feasible and have a contribution to the circulation system versus exempt where the result to the developer is the same. He would not have to make an improvement to an intersection that the Council doesn't want to see improved, than at least there are improvements made elsewhere in town. They would be paying twice if they were to make worse an unsatisfactory level of service because they pay the Fare Share fee anyway. Chairperson Selich restated the comments. If someone were to be in a situation where there was an improvement and we didn't have exempt intersections, that we had them as a feasible improvement that is contemplated to not be done in five years. They would pay their Fare Share fee and then whatever percentage by the Ordinance, their proportional • contribution to the make worse condition that would normally be satisfied at that point in time, whatever those dollars transferred to that would be contributed by the City in addition to the Fare Share fees. Commissioner Ashley added that Section 15.40.030 referring to standards for compliance, approval and exemptions. Standards for approval should be expanded. If we change the wording and add another insert that, 'The project will cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any critical intersection for which there is no feasible improvement:' This is saying that at that time the project will still have to make a substantial contribution to the improvement of an intersection elsewhere equal to the cost of what would have been reguired at the intersection where there was a feasible improvement. In this instance, there is no feasible improvement. Mr. Burnham agreed that he understands where the Commission is going with this concept. He noted that when you are trying to get equivalent contributions based upon a project's impact at an intersection that can not be improved to one that can be improved, you are running into some analytical difficulty. That is why we have tried to minimize the changes to the existing TPO to do as little damage to the analytical structure as possible. I understand the concept of eliminating exempt intersections and then taking some of those concepts and putting them into the definition of feasibility so there is at least some contribution in every case where there is an impact at a critical intersection. 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Also to be further examined is the issue of a nexus. The connection between the condition you impose on a person whose project impacts the intersection A and doesn't impact intersection B but whose project would be approved if improvements are made to intersection B. The current Ordinance allows that. One of the reasons we are trying to modify the Ordinance is to deal with legal issues. In the definition of feasible improvement, the contribution requirements to other intersection improvements needs to be linked to the Ordinance itself, as well in practice. Issue No. 12 - Cost sharing provisions for mitigation of a project involving a GPA. Mr. Philip Bettencourt - BIA spokesperson • Stated that BIA supports the staff recommendation. In attempting to reform the Ordinance, it was recognized that the rough proportionality provision was a reality of law. • If you go against staff's recommendation on this issue, you compromise that important determination. • The recommendation treats all projects evenly and does not put an applicant seeking a General Plan Amendment in a lesser stand to make • his case. • It requires proportionality be applied in all instances, even if a General Plan Amendment is part of the entitlement proceedings. • Dean Reinemann, 1877 Parkview, Circle Costa Mesa - SPON spokesperson • SPON' s position is that there are two different issues, the TPO and the General Plan Amendment, which branches out into a different category. • These should be dealt with in a separate distinct way. • It is important to discuss a General Plan. • You can't have a system that handles absolute, critical peak hours at maximum demand. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple stated that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is an operational ordinance and tool used for the analysis of short term impacts relating to projects that are seeking permits. The General Plan is a more comprehensive look at the overall picture of the City. The TPO can be viewed as one of the tools used to implement the General Plan because it is a tool to achieve Master Plan Improvements. The TPO does not provide an analytical framework for long -range traffic analysis. When we deal with General Plan issues, we do two separate analysis. One is related to the TPO and one related to the long -range build out program through the traffic model. It is not inconsistent to review the TPO prior to any update of the General Plan. 13 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Issue No. 13 - Timing to status of mitigation. Don Harvey, 2039 Port Weybridge - SPON spokesperson. A project that has traffic mitigation measures as required by the TPO for development, can fail for several reasons: • Traffic mitigation measures require substantial funding. • Funding availability can change. • Residents can be subject to traffic delays • Taxpayers are left holding the bag. The present Ordinance requires a completion of mitigation measures. The proposed administrative procedures requires bids for them be accepted. Does either wording suffice? SPON recommends that the situation would be clarified once written fully executed contracts for most of the traffic mitigation measures (80%) are in place. The taxpayers and residents would be at less risk then, and that is all we ask. Jeff Gordon, 332 Catalina - BIA spokesperson. • Traffic is always a concern. • Rarely does a particular project cause a problem to occur in an intersection or roadway, it is usually cumulative and occurs over time. • Traditionally, developers have always paid their fare share of the percentage of the dollar amount that the ultimate fix will take as recommended by the traffic studies. The notion of having 80% of the funds on hand for a particular improvement is totally unfair. It would basically stop a smaller project, because as a developer, you can never obtain an 80% funding commitment. • In conclusion, he asked that the Planning Commission reconsider the super majority of 6/7 in favor of 5/7. Commissioner Gifford asked about the language to preclude issuance of permits until improvement budgeted and committed for construction. What would be a test for whether something is committed for construction, what criteria would meet that? What would be reasonable and objective? Mr. Gordon opinioned that all the dollars would be in place and committed for those improvements. Some type of bonding mechanism would be reasonable and objective. Mr. Burnham said this discussion addresses when the City is able to withhold the issuance of permits, or, when is the City required to issue permits, when does the City have a level of certainty that the improvement will in fact be • 14 TZFI �1 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 made within one year after occupancy of the project. What is proposed is to incorporate the administrative guidelines that have provisions relative to requirements for issuance or not issuance of improvements based upon findings. Whenever there is an improvement that requires a condition to approval, the City under the current guidelines has to make certain findings before it issues permits on that project after the project is approved by the Planning Commission or the City Council. There are still decisions to be made by staff as to whether the improvements that were conditions to approval are in fact going to be made within reasonable time frames. Mr. Bettencourt, BIA spokesperson stated that there has to be enough certainty on the funding mechanism in order to add on the nature of the improvements to be able to prepare a forecast of the cost of the improvements. You have to use that as the basis for setting the mitigation in the first place. Mr. Burnham noted that in some cases, the TPO does allow projects to be approved if it simply pays a fee. But in many other cases, the TPO requires the project proponents actually make an improvement. An improvement • that is contemplated to be in place either as a result of the findings and fee or improvements in place in order to allow you to make the finding that the project does not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory LOS. In the later case, you are dealing with actual improvements. We have had this process in place in the.guidelines at the end of the Appendix A, Subsection 7. It is an area that can be refined. There are three tests for staff to be able to issue a permit in a case where the project proponent has bee required to make improvements. Mr. Alan Beek clarified that in Appendix A, Subsection 7, b. it is proposed to be amended to add the words "signed contracts by..." Issue No. 14 - Treatment of development agreements. Bob Break, 2605 Vista Ornada - BIA spokesperson. • Section 15.40.030 recognizes the uniqueness of the development agreements in terms of early contributions to circulation improvements in the City. • Under state law, vested protections are accorded to projects approved with a development agreement. • The purpose is to support comprehensive planning and contribution to the City that are over and above other contributions made by other projects. • SPON's proposal ignores these attributes. • • The staff recommendation is consistent with the long- standing practice in 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach is Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 the City with respect to the TPO and development agreement projects. It is appropriate and we support the staff recommendation with the exception that the threshold for re- analysis should be at 500. Barry Eaton, spokesperson for EQAC • The Fare Share Fees are based upon a long -term assessment of the ultimate built out of the circulation system, assuming a lot of contributions from Measure M and the Congested Management Program and the Arterial Highway Program. • The TPO is looking at the intermediate situation and the timing of the improvements relative to a specific project. • The TPO has a provision that says these fees are in addition to any others. • That is the concern, that that provision be retained. Where that is provided for is in Section 15.40.075. • The only need for a development agreement here is to waive traffic mitigation fees and allow one to count toward the other. This is not consistent with what EQAC thought it was recommending. • It is not consistent with the general purpose of a development agreement, which is guaranteed entitlement for the builder, some concessions and improvements and mitigation for the City. Please drop that last clause. • Issue No. 15 - Treatment of entitled developments annexed into the City. Phil Arst, 2601 Lighthouse Lane - SPON spokesperson. • This applies to two annexations, Banning Ranch and Newport Coast. • Banning could be subject to a development agreement, which may or may not be difficult on the developer. • There should be no exemption from the TPO analysis at the time of annexation. • The Newport Beach taxpayer would have to pay to bring any road up to standard. • The people living in those areas are in an area of lower traffic quality than Newport Beach. • I propose that this exemption be dropped. Looking at the median prices in the adjacent of $729,000 in Corona del Mar is three times that of Irvine. Certainly a developer will take advantage of that price differential that is much larger than saving some money in not bringing roads up to a LOS D standard. • Newport Beach is a premier City and others want to join us. We don't need to provide inducements; we do not need to give away City traffic improvement dollars. Commissioner Ashley asked if we would be exempting Banning Ranch and • Newport Coast from the TPO analysis if we agree to annex them to the City. 16 INDEX • City of Newport.Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Ms. Temple answered that in the case of Newport Coast, that is a fully entitled project with a development agreement. As part of the approval a full traffic analysis was done and mitigation set of criteria was established. Were we to annex that particular area because it has a fully committed and vested development agreement that there would be no additional traffic analysis under the TPO unless changes to the project were proposed by one or more developers which would generate an increase in the ADT by 300 or more. In terms of the Banning Ranch project, the entitlement program for that project is in the initial stages. One of the things the City has asked for and the County has agreed to, as part of the environmental work prepared, is analysis that would have been required should the area been in the City of Newport Beach including a TPO analysis. Through that process, we will identify the sufficient mitigation necessary. Mr. Break - BIA spokesperson. • Stated that the Irvine Company financed Newport Coast Drive. Without that Pacific Coast Highway through the City of Newport Beach would still be operating well above LOS E. • The provisions provide the City full and adequate protection and invites • earlier annexation. • With that annexation, as projects are built in the City fees are being paid to the City. • The unintended result of not providing these types of provision in the TPO is the same unintended result you see around the airport. • We support the City's recommendations. A five - minute recess was called. Issue No. 16 - Treatment of the Ordinance's Findings and Purposes. Richard Luehers, President of the Newport Chamber of Commerce - BIA spokesperson He stated that BIA agrees with the staff report for the following: • No substantial amount of change • Establish a balance of development • Avoid misleading verbiage such as moratorium Mr. Alan Beek - SPON spokesperson • He stated that the TPO is a law to protect the public health, safety and welfare. • Provided in the TPO is that the developer doesn't have to wait until the • City improves an intersection. He can improve the intersection himself 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 and proceed with the project if he chooses. • The TPO has turned out to be a fund raising vehicle. • Keep existing wording as being more legally defensible Issue No. 17 - TPO Override /Exempt intersections Vote Gail Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive - SPON spokesperson • 1 live in a community behind one of your proposed exempt intersections. • Overriding the TPO is making an exceptional approval. • A moratorium is making an exceptional disapproval. • It is fare they should both take the same 4/5, super majority. • Do we want congestion, or do we want enough infrastructure to prevent congestion? We have to have one or the other. Answer that question, and we won't have any problem with the TPO. Philip Beftencourt - BIA spokesperson • This Ordinance draft has been worked on for months and months. • We are considering tonight crafting new concepts that are untested. • There are a number of tools to control land use. • Suggest that five votes as a premium is more representative with the democratic process. • We propose a 517 (71 %) vote required (super majority requirement maintained). Commissioner Gifford stated that the existing TPO has had the requirement of 6 out of 7. Where has that created a real issue? Mr. Bettencourt answered that the 4/5 provision was removed from a Carlsbad Ordinance that dealt with the common, general law, city provisions for special circumstances. He was not aware of any projects where there were serious problems with the vote. We think the majority of the Planning Commission and the majority of the City Council ought to govern life in a democratic society. There will be some extraordinary circumstances. Ms. Temple noted that projects have been approved through an override vote both at the City Council level twice in twenty years. The first time was for a project called the Corona del Mar Homes Project. The second one was the Burger King Project and was approved on the basis of the timing of an available improvement. Working with development projects over time, there is a high level of sensitivity to the prospect of needing that kind of majority. If an intersection would be impacted for which there is no available improvement, the most common affect would be for the project to be reduced so as not to create the mitigation requirement or not move forward • at all. 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Commissioner Kranzley asked why you couldn't get four City Council members to amend the TPO to allow a development to be built that was tripping the TPO? Everyone seems to be holding onto the 6/7 majority, yet, it only takes four votes to amend the TPO. I am perplexed and do not understand the BIA and SPON positions. Mr. Bettencourt noted that there was a different set of findings and different due process requirements for the Ordinance. It would require two hearings, less immediacy involved in the process. You are pointing out the unusual circumstance where four members of the Council can adopt the Ordinance, but it takes six members to deal with the failure to comply. Commissioner Kranzley suggested five votes all across the board. It would take five votes to amend and to override. This would make it consistent. Mr. Burnham noted that the Planning Commission could recommend any vote it wanted to the City Council. He noted that the rational for proposing these amendments was legal issues. We didn't feel the 6/7 vote was a legal issue requiring modification. • Issue No. 18 - Inconsistency between predicted levels of service in the Circulation Element and LOS D standard in the TPO. Mr. Philip Bettencourt - BIA spokesperson This item could be addressed in a separate process as the TPO operates to enforce a standard that is inconsistent with the General Plan. Accepts the staff recommendation. The adoption of a more stringent requirement is not likely to affect the actual operation of the intersections in question. Jennifer Winn, 515 Gorgonio - SPON spokesperson • The General Plan is general, is a long -range tool and is a vision. • The TPO is a tool for achieving that vision. • SPON asks for a second phase of this work effort should occur as a review of the consistency between the build out and the circulation. • A review of the TPO should then be done to determine its consistency with the Circulation Element. Issue No. 19 - Airport Area Level of Service Philip Bettencourt - BIA spokesperson • • BIA accepts staff recommendation. 19 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 • Recommend that there be consideration of crite adjacent jurisdictions when the airport area is studied. Chairperson Selich then invited a representative of the Economic Development Committee to give a presentation. Mr. Gary DiSano, 1840 Leeward Lane - EDC spokesperson • Thanked the Planning Commission for their work on this topic. • The EDC has had a long- standing interest in revising the TPO. • Recommended an earlier proposal to revise the General Plan Circulation Element as well as the TPO. • EDC supports and recommends that the following be added to the current provision: Exceeding LOS D in the airport area and changing the override vote from 6/7 to 517. • EDC recommend that traffic studies are required that generate 500 ADT rather than the existing threshold of 300 ADT. • EDC recommends the approval of the proposed TPO even without the three recommendations listed above. • Rough proportionality provisions are needed for fairness and to limit threat of lawsuits from developers. • The rounding problem needs to be corrected so we are not requiring mitigation for minuscule impacts, especially when those impacts are calculated using a lot of assumptions and data as much as two and a half years old. • Need to be able to exempt some intersection requirements so that property owners can re- develop their property in a way that brings economic benefit to the City. Barry Eaton, EQAC spokesperson. • Supports the 4/5 vote for all votes. • The General Plan does need to be updated. Public comment was opened. Dick Nakles, 519 Iris - • TPO was set up to allow small projects to be able to build out. • TPO did not include large projects, which come in via county land with a lower zoning. • Annexed land impacts people's rights who have been paying taxes all along. • Override vote should be a super majority. • All communities need to have proper traffic infrastructure. 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Bob Break, 2605 Vista Ornada • The TPO was originally proposed as an interim Ordinance and was never intended to survive the twenty years it has now survived. • The TPO has significant problems: • Constitutionally a City can not expect a project to provide more in public improvements that what is roughly proportional to the project's impacts. • The TPO is not consistent with the General Plan. • No city has followed the example set by Newport Beach on a TPO. • The TPO invites clever developers to find ways around and get to a project approval that is contrary to the best interest of the City. • Drop the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Barry Eaton, representing the Eastbluff Homeowners Association noted: Two of the three entrances to the Eastbluff Community are on the Appendix B candidate list for exempt intersections. Representing himself: • • Compliance with CEQA category is classified with minor alterations, land use limitations. • Provisions in CEQA limit the extent of this category. • The process of creating exempt intersection is guaranteeing that those intersections will go to a significant impact. • Either get rid of exempt intersections, or, do an initial study of a Negative Declaration. Ms. Temple stated that the issue of CEQA compliance, we do believe that they do fit within the Categorical Exemption Class 5. Should the Council actually adopt exempt intersections, that would be an act subject to CEQA and at that time some specific analysis as to the environmental effects of that decision could be subject to further environmental review. Elaine Lynhoff, 1760 East Ocean Boulevard Suggested that the Planning Commission get a new perspective. The purpose of the TPO is to keep the traffic flowing in the City of Newport Beach. Any amendments passed to the TPO won't allow the traffic to do that. The TPO has worked and I am glad that we have one. At Commission request, Mr. Edmonston stated that the proposed changes were done to address the legal issue and the rounding issue. This Ordinance as proposed tonight, would not operate with any noticeable difference from • the way it has operated for the last twenty years. 21 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Mr. Beek, SPON representative. • Decimal points and accuracy - keep it accurate to four digits and do not do any rounding. Rounding off two places then the threshold of LOS D is not 90% it is 90.5 %. They are getting another .5% free and since most of the troubled intersections are around 90 to 90.5% that is a significant thing to give them. • Proposed definitions of benefit as the increase in intersection capacity. Definition of impact as traffic through the intersection at a peak hour. Definition of critical intersection that would confine improvements to the intersections that are relevant to the project. • Deal with exempt intersections as if they were not feasible is a creative solution. Remove exempt intersection from the Ordinance in Section B and leave it in the one place where you need it to make exempt intersections. • We are not addressing proportionality. Create deficit intersections. Mr. Philip Bettencourt - BIA spokesperson • Staff has pointed out planning tools for you to utilize. • • Fare Share Fees is a reasonable method. • We have identified legitimate impacts. • Reformed package is a reasonable balance of the pros and cons spoken. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich stated that the Commission would take straw votes on each issue. He suggested that Item No. 17 would be taken third in order and every other item will fall down one. General Plan Update Commissioner Ashley agreed with the staff recommendation of not applicable. However, a General Plan update is essential and the TPO that we act upon tonight, should be reviewed at the conclusion of the General Plan update. The Planning Commission was in agreement Straw vote - All ayes • 22 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Commissioner Fuller stated: • He is troubled by the fact that with an exempt intersection, you are exempt from a TPO fee. • He asked for discussion on the extraction of some sort of fee towards improvements at collateral intersections that would possibly be impacted. • If a project is built that will impact an intersection at Riverside which is designated as an exempt intersection, the developer does not pay a fee. • The developer should pay some sort of fee. Commissioner Tucker stated: • He would like to see the definition change in feasible improvements so that we could potentially do away with this concept of exempt intersections. • Not necessarily in favor of somebody having to pay both the Fare Share Fee and a mitigation amount under the TPO. • With the exempt intersection you can have a circumstance where somebody would have to pay if there is a feasible improvement but yet, • somebody who is contributing to a troubled intersection it becomes exempt doesn't have to pay anything. Commissioner Ashley stated: • Need to address having exempt intersections in order to avoid litigation. • Opposed to allowing anyone who wants to build a project that negatively impacts an exempt intersection to not have to pay a TPO fee that would be equal to the impact his project would have caused to happen at another intersection that is critical. • It is a 4/5 vote by Council that is required to exempt an intersection. Commissioner Gifford stated: • A practical solution to a problem we are facing and supports staff recommendation with the addition of a change in the definition of feasible improvement. Commissioner Kranzley stated: • Would we look at each project as it comes in? • Would we have a blanket exemption at an intersection? • Are we just calling exempt intersection a different name just to extract fees from a developer? Commissioner Tucker stated there needs to be consistency when the needed • improvement for an intersection is not made for whatever reason. Why is 23 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 someone off the hook with the concept and two years later, a new Council has a different concept. It ought to be the same and the TPO fee as well. Until an intersection is categorized as exempt, the improvements may not be feasible or it never gets done. In one case somebody pays and in the other case, they don't pay. Commissioner Kranzley clarified that the net result is that somewhere in Newport Beach and close to the intersection that is impacted, we will have improvements on intersections that are projected to function at or above .80 ICU. We will be seeing improvements on troubled intersections in Newport Beach. The overall impact will be that we are going to get an improvement of traffic if we use the feasible language as opposed to the current language of exempt intersection. He stated his support for this type of language. Commissioner Hoglund supported the comments of Commissioner Kranzley. He noted that one troubling thing to him in looking through the draft TPO and listening to the tapes from the last minute, is the concept that somebody could come along to an exempt intersection and basically not have to pay any mitigation fees other than their Fare Share Fee, which is assessed to everybody. There is a parity issue that needs to be addressed. Whether we are not going to have exempt intersections and call these feasible or • infeasible, the point is that everyone is treating equally. You don't benefit from the fact that you are developing a project at an intersection that for whatever reason is not going to be improved. Mr. Burnham commented that he understands where a majority of the Planning Commission wants to go with this issue. That is, to delete the definition of exempt intersections and to expand the definition of feasible improvements to include the situation where the intersection could be approved and for whatever reason is not in the five -year plan. We would impose a mitigation requirement so long as we can create a nexus or connection between the project impacts and the project contributions. Whether that is contributing to a plan to mitigate the impacts of the additional traffic in a residential community, or, mitigation the impact of some project of traffic on another intersection, there needs to be a nexus. As long as there is that nexus, I am comfortable legally that we can do that. You are comfortable that we have established a level of parity between people that impact exempt intersections. The motion is to give staff direction to draft language that is consistent with what I believe is your intent. Chairperson Selich clarified to delete the definition of exempt intersections and the concept of exempt intersections. There was a lot of work and discussion in the working group on this and I am concerned that the concept can be so easily discarded. • Mr. Burnham noted that it would allow a project to be approved under Sub 24 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Section B. You are not discarding the concept entirely, you are preserving the ability of the City Council and the Planning Commission to approve a project that impacts an intersection that could be improved, and if it was improved would function better than LOS D. What you are doing is changing it from a situation where no mitigation is required to a situation where you are requiring some mitigation, but you are saying that mitigation will be connected to the impacts of the project. I can take what I need from the exempt intersection concept and definition and put it into the definition of feasible improvements and still carry through a mitigation requirement. Commissioner Kranzley noted for the record that he would support this only if there was some relationship between the impacted intersection and mitigation that will be required. Chairperson Selich noted that if the City Attorney is comfortable with this, he was too. He wants to see the exact language before it is forwarded to City Council. Commissioner Tucker noted that one of the legal purposes of the TPO was to address the circumstance where an improvement that is on the General Plan Circulation Element has not been made and somebody therefore can't • develop. If an improvement is deemed not to be feasible, it has the same consequences. Ms. Temple noted that the suggestions being made by the Planning Commission accomplish the goals intended by exempt intersections. The suggestions level the playing field whether an intersection is not improved because there is no feasible improvement or because the City declines to make an improvement. Being required to make a nexus finding that the mitigation is in fact connected to the project's impacts also accomplishes the interest of the Commission. Mr. Edmonston stated that this is something we can work with. 1 would like to see it in writing and think through some hypothetical cases. I am not sure how it deals with being able to avoid a lot of two sides of an issue at every development project that comes before the Commission and the Council. I am not sure this does that or not, and I want to see it in writing first. Discussion followed on the timing of forwarding the recommendations to the City Council and seeing language regarding this issue. It was decided that all items would be decided on in concept tonight, with the exception of this issue and any other one that may have a change of language. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to direct staff to integrate the concept that previously existed with the exempt intersection into something • that is an expansion of the feasible improvement definition and then delete 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 references to exempt intersections. This language will both treat everybody equitably that comes before the Commission and the Council as well as provide for a solid legal position. Ayes: Fuller,.Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Override Vote Commissioner Hoglund stated that the objection seems to be that we are setting up super majority, yet it is so easy to amend this. Maybe as a compromise we should change the whole thing to be 5/7. Personally, we should stay with the 6/7 as it is. We did not intend this TPO to revise every aspect of it. The reason it came before us is to revise what was detected as a legal problem. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the ability to amend the TPO with 417 vote is a huge hole in this entire Ordinance. He proposed a 5/7 vote across the board, including any amendments to override or amend. • Commissioner Gifford agreed with Commission Hoglund to leave the way it is. Commissioner Ashley supported a 5/7 vote on the override only. Commissioner Tucker agreed with Commissioner Kranzley and go for a 5/7 vote for everything. Commissioner Fuller supported a 5/7 vote. Chairperson Selich noted his support of 5/7 on the override only and leaving the remainder of the Ordinance as is. Commissioner Ashley noted an example. Say that the Council wanted to change the definition of what is a critical intersection. If you make it that you need an extraordinary majority just to do that, it is taking to an extreme. He recommended to leave it 5/7 for some of the other things. Commissioner Gifford noted that she found a balance of 6/7 and then a standard majority to amend the Ordinance. If there are real problems with the Ordinance, it needs to be amended. If you leave it as is, then create exceptions, the exceptions should have a super majority. Making exceptions within the context of an Ordinance that you choose not to amend, I am comfortable in having the balance work out with a 417 for amendment but • 6/7 to override. 26 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Mr. Burnham noted that the Charter specifies that four affirmative votes are necessary to amend any Ordinances and to adopt any Ordinance except for an emergency or urgency Ordinance and then five affirmative votes are necessary. .Talking about amending the TPO with some number more than four, that provision may not be consistent with the Charter. We should be confining the discussion to the provisions of the Ordinance that are internal to the workings of the TPO rather than how it should be amended which is a subject covered by the Charter. Commissioner Tucker withdrew his 5/7 overall and keeps it to the override. Commissioner Fuller moved to utilize the 5/7 vote for the TPO override. Straw vote - Commissioners Gifford and Kranzley - No All others - Ayes Provisions for trip generation reductions Commissioner Fuller moved to support the staff recommendation for the Traffic Manager review. • Straw vote - All Ayes Use of mixed crlterla versus exclusive use of peak hour standards Commissioner Gifford moved to support the staff recommendation. Straw vote - All Ayes Source of trip distribution for each protect Commissioner Kranzley noted a potential language change. Mr. Burnham stated that the language in the administrative guidelines which proposed the incorporation of the tighter language into the Ordinance. Commissioner Gifford moved to adopt the staff recommendation. Straw Vote - All Ayes • 27 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 by aroiect that is too small to pay full cost (Section15.40.030.A. t.011) Commissioner Gifford moved to support staff's recommendation to determine project share by dividing project -added trips by increase in intersection capacity. Straw Vote - All Ayes Definition of Critical Intersection Commissioner Gifford moved to support staffs recommendation. Straw Vote - All Ayes Trio generation study threshold for smaller eroiects Commissioner Fuller noted his support for 300 ADT. • Commissioner Tucker noted his concern with the categorical exemption for projects that are smaller when projects that are slightly bigger and have to pay a traffic mitigation fee. I believe that a project that does not generate at least 300 ADT should not have to do a traffic report and should not have to go through a traffic analysis but should have to pay if it impacts an intersection that is performing at an unsatisfactory LOS. I would support the 500 ADT in B.1 and .01 in B.2. Discussion followed on the need for some type of traffic analysis, fare share fees, impact on intersections and how to determine how much a developer would pay beyond the fare share fee. Mr. Burnham stated that the TPO is the short-term analysis that is focusing on impacts on intersections one -year post occupancy. Even though it would be nice to try to equalize everything, there will be some projects that are big enough to have that requisite impact on the intersection short term. If you try to ratchet down the number so that you have a fare share fee plus some sort of additional traffic fee, you will run into problems with rough proportionality. You will also create even smaller increments in increases in intersection congestion that would trigger some additional analysis. Commissioner Tucker stated that when he has a traffic study prepared, it covers a whole wish list of concerns to address issues that local residents might want to know that are too for away from the project to have much of an impact. It is all study. Would it be possible for smaller projects to have • 28 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 abbreviated study, somewhere between the 300 and 500 ADT where the Traffic Manager looks at the likely intersections to be impacted are and gauge it on that. Mr. Edmonston answered that the analysis his staff makes when a project proponent comes in is to try to determine whether they would exceed the threshold of 300 ADT. If they are, the traffic study they do is strictly to conform to the TPO. The larger projects include larger topics such as CEQA impacts on neighborhoods, and the TPO does not deal with that. That is the minimum amount of study that is required and we select the intersections based on project size and location. Commissioners Ashley, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker and Hoglund noted their support of the staff recommendation of 300 ADT. Commissioner Selich noted his support of 500 ADT. I know what is entailed in doing a traffic study. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt the 300 ADT pursuant to the staff recommendation. • Straw Vote - 6 Ayes Chairperson Selich - no Criteria for'brolect Impact' Motion by Commissioner Fuller to support the staff position. Straw Vote - 6 Ayes Commissioner Tucker - no Decimal place methodology for ICU calculations Commissioner Ashley stated he supports SPON position to do all calculations to fourth decimal point and not do any rounding. Commissioners Hoglund, Kranzley, Gifford and Tucker supported the staff recommendation to calculate to the third decimal point through addition of critical moves, then round to two decimal places. Commissioner Fuller supported carrying calculations to two decimal points. Chairperson Selich supports the BIA position to perform calculations at two decimal places. Motion by Chairperson Selich to perform calculations at two decimal places. • 29 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 Shaw Vote - Aye - Selich, Fuller, Ashley Noes - Hoglund, Kranzley, Gifford, Tucker Motion by Commissioner Ashley to perform calculations to third decimal place and not round off to two decimal places. Substitute Motion by Commissioner Fuller to substitute staff recommendation to calculate to the third decimal point through addition of critical moves, then round to two decimal places. Straw Vote - Ayes - 6 Ayes No - Commissioner Ashley Approval permitted even if cause or make worse as Iona as no feasible identified improvement Commissioner Fuller stated support of staff's recommendation. Mr. Burnham stated that the Planning Commission has stated support of this • concept so long as there is a nexus established between the impacts and project related improvements. Commissioner Kranzley stated that under the old, now gone, concept of exempt intersections, we would exempt an entire intersection. Under the no feasible improvement, we would look at each project as it comes forward. Mr. Burnham stated that the definition of feasible improvement would apply to an intersection or a category of intersections, it would not be project specific. You would have uniformity in treatment of projects. If there is no feasible improvement that means the intersection is incapable of being improved or the City has chosen not to improve. If it is not on the City's five - year plan, it is not feasible. Commissioner Gifford reiterated that this is on an intersection, not a project. Commissioner Kranzley asked if there was going to be a list of no feasible improvement intersections? So what is the difference? Mr. Burnham answered that the core difference is that you are going to require some mitigation that where there is a nexus between project impacts and the mitigation you require. There will be a definition given of the feasible improvements. Commissioner Gifford stated that before we contemplated making the • 30 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 change with respect to incorporating the exempt intersection into the definition of feasible, this provision was there and there were going to be these identified intersections with no feasible improvements. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to direct the City Attorney to supply wording that will allow this item to dovetail with establishing exempt intersection criteria. Straw Vote - All Ayes Cost sharina provisions for mitigation of a protect involving a GPA Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to support staff recommendation. Straw Vote - All Ayes rimina of development permits relative to status of mitigation Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to support staff recommendation. • Straw Vote - All Ayes Treatment of develooment aareements Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to support staff recommendation. Straw Vote - All Ayes Treatment of entitled developments annexed into City of Newport Beach At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that included in the staff report was colored exhibits which show both intersection and roadway link function. All of the roadways and intersection perform at a Level of Service C or better in the Newport Coast area. Mr. Burnham stated that to be added to the Ordinance is that properties within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach will ultimately be annexed. This is a way of trying to accelerate the annexation rather than the decision of whether it will or will not be annexed. Motion by Commissioner Gifford to approve the staff recommendations and • 31 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 to provide for the addition of language that it applies to annexations the sphere of influence. Straw Votes - All Ayes Treatment of the Ordinance's Findinas and Purposes Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt staff's recommendation. Straw Votes - All Ayes Inconsistency between predicted levels of service In the Circulation Element and LOS D standard in the TPO Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt staff's recommendation. • Straw Votes - All Ayes Airport Area Level of Service Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt staff's recommendation. Chairperson Selich noted his support for going to LOS E. The City's General Plan recognizes that the airport area can not be mitigate to LOS D and is stated in both the Land Use and Circulation Elements. In this regard, the TPO is inconsistent. Straw Votes - 6 Ayes 1 No, Commissioner Selich Chairperson Selich noted that the Commission wants to see the language on the exempt intersection issue. He suggested that the Commission take a vote and adopt everything that was done with the exception of items two and twelve being in concept subject to approval at the June 10th meeting. At that time, we would open up public hearing on those items only. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to adopt everything that was done with the exception of items two and twelve being in concept subject to • 32 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1999 approval at the June 10th meeting. At that time public hearing opened on those items only. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None axr ADJOURNMENT: 10:25 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 40 33 be INDEX Continued