Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/1997Ll • r 1 U CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich and Ashley - Commissioner Fuller excused, Commissioner Gifford arrived at 7:10 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager, Community and Economic Development Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of June 5. 1997: Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway and voted on to approve, as written, the June 5, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: Fuller, Gifford Abstain: none Public Comments: none Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 3, 1997 outside of City Hall. Minutes Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 • 0 SUBJECT: MacArthur Square (1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street, 4251 -4255 Martingale Way and 4200 -4250 Scott Drive) Business Properties (Robert Wynn, applicant) • AmendmentNo.861 Amend the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations to redesignate existing "Retail Commercial Site 1" (MacArthur Square) to "General Commercial Site No. 6' and to add institutional, instructional and educational uses to the list of permitted uses, subject to approval of a use permit. Planning Director Temple noted that the Amendment presented this evening was previously considered by the Commission in the context of specific business proposals within the MacArthur Square area of the Newport Planned Community. At the conclusion of that action, City Council determined that the best action at that time was to leave the property in the Retail Commercial designation of Newport Place rather than to place it in the broader category of General Commercial. The property owner has continued to lease the tenant spaces within this project and has had little success fully leasing the property. He has once again requested the redesignation to General Commercial within the Newport Planned Community in order to broaden the list of permitted land uses and more specifically to add institutional, instructional and educational uses, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. The analysis contained in the staff report is similar to the one presented previously. The primary issues have to do with the compatibility of the additional uses with the area and the propriety of the change given the fact that the parking requirementsare different between the two districts. Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Bud Smull, Business Properties, 17631 Fitch, Irvine, 92714 - at Commission inquiry, stated that he has read the staff report and understands and agrees to the findings of Amendment No. 861. He stated that this is similar to the report from the previous meeting with the exception of the change granting a dance studio to locate in the property. As the owner and original developer of the property, he has been struggling with the occupancy and vacancy of the office spaces. There has been difficulty over the years in adhering to the limited uses of the original planned community text. He is seeking tonight to allow the enhancement of his property by allowing him to appeal to other kinds of retail uses. He asks that the Commission recommend this application to the City Council and that they in turn will affirm this to allow him more business opportunity. Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to adopt Resolution 1454 recommending to the City Council the approval of Amendment No. 861. Item No. 1 A No. 861 Approved INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 • INDEX Ayes: Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: Fuller Abstain: none SUBJECT: California Fresh Mexican Grill (John Petry, applicant) Item 2 4341 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite F UP No. 3610 • Use Permit No. 3610 Request to convert a specialty food service establishment (No. 50) to a full Continued to service, high turnover restaurant facility; and to alter the operational 7/24 characteristics to add alcoholic beverage service (beer and wine) as incidental to the primary food use. Planning Director Temple stated that the applicant has requested that this application be continued to the meeting of July 24, 1997 to allow for additional time to address issues which may affect the design o the project. Staff has no objection to this request. SUBJECT: Kimberly Walsh and Steve Frozelle Item No. 3 2208 Margaret Drive Variance No. 1213 Variance No. 1213 To permit alterations and additions to an existing single family dwelling which Continued to will exceed the allowable 2 times the buildable area of the site. The proposal 7/24/97 also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to allow the proposed addition to encroach 1 foot in the easterly 3 foot side yard setback, 5 feet into the 10 foot rear yard setback, and 2 feet into the 20 foot front yard setback in front of the garage. The existing dwelling encroaches 3 feet into the required 3 foot westerly side yard setback, and t feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. Staff is recommending that this application be continued to the meeting of July 24, 1997, due to additional information received which will require re- noticing of the variance request. The applicant has no objection to this request. SUBJECT: Circulation Element, Newport Beach General Plan Item No. 4 Traffic Phasing Ordinance GPA 91 -3 (G) • GPA 91 -3 (G) GPA 94 -1 (C) • GPA 94 -1 (C) GPA 96 -1 (A) • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 • 40 • GPA 96 -1 (A) • Amendmentto • Chap 15.40 of • NBMC Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to include the following: • The establishment of five intersection groups to assess the over -all function of the circulation system • Trip summaries and average ICU information for the City and the intersection groups (existing conditions as well year 2000, year 2005 and build -out development scenarios) • An analysis of regional impacts to the local circulation system • The establishment of service levels over E for the Airport intersection group, and D for the other four intersection groups in the City • The identification of 5 and 10 year facility and intersection improvement programs to maintain the desired levels of service within the year 2000 and year 2005 planning horizons • On -going assessment of Transportation System Management strategies • Funding program for the improvement program which will shift the use of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to impact analysis and the Fair Share Ordinance as the tool for funding and constructing the improvement program • Participationin regional transportation improvement programs and An amendment to Chapter 15.40, Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to disconnect specific off -site improvement requirements from individual projects, and assess project impacts for the purposes of defining the fair share contribution. Planning Director Temple acknowledged that correspondence had been received in the Planning Department, one from Stop Polluting Newport (SPON) and one from an attorney, retained by SPON, who reviewed certain aspects of the City's environmental determination (copes of which were distributed to Commission). Staff has reviewed the attorney's letter and would like time to further review particular comments made and recommends that at the conclusion of this evening's discussion, the Commission should continue this item to July 24th. This project includes amendments to two of the City's Land Use regulatory documents, the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the ordinance referred to as the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) which have been under staff INDEX Amendment to Chap 15.40 of NBMC Continued to 7/24/97 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 review for approximately two years. A complete update of the City's traffic model was conducted in association with the project. The actual element and ordinance drafts have been pursuant to guidelines which were reviewed, approved and adopted by the City Council. The guidelines which directed the Circulation Element update are quoted within the draft element. One of the criteria, as characterized in the guidelines, was to allow the City Council consideration of projects which may reap some economic development benefit to the City. This is one of the many criteria used in developing the strategy for analyzing traffic and ensuring that the circulation system will work at acceptable levels. The proposals are intended to provide an organized framework for the city to analyze the impacts of both planned development as envisioned by the current General Plan and proposed amendments to the city's General Plan in a way which looks at the comprehensive circulation system. Due to the geography and location in Orange County, there are certain areas in town which experience more traffic demand than others as a result of geographical obstacles such as Upper Newport Bay which limits the opportunity for east /west travel and tends to concentrate travel at either end of the bay. As a result, certain intersections in the current condition and as the • future function is modeled, do not meet the current level of service (LOS) goal 'Y or a maximum ICU of .90. As part of the analysis, staff has looked at groups of intersections individually as well as on an average basis. Since traffic impact modeling gets more speculative as time goes on there is more validity to look at the function of the system in planning horizons which were closer to today's case. Planning horizons are analyzed in five year increments starting in the year 1996 with a first planning horizon the year 2000 and then an intermediate year 2005. As presented in the Element, staff has provided both individual and averaged intersection service information for those planning horizons. In looking at those, at least in the short term, with anticipated growth in those time frames, the City still maintains a good level of service so long as certain improvements can be made which are identified in the Element. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance has been changed significantly. The existing ordinance requires substantial change in order to meet constitutional standards and requirements. Most particularly, the ordinance be of a nature where the mitigations required are roughly proportional to the impact of a project, and not greater than its proportional impact. The ordinance sets forth the requirements for traffic studies and will identify a project's impact to the City's circulation system for the purposes of establishing the required contribution to the completion of the 5 and 10 year improvement programs set forth in the Circulation Element. There is an important distinction between the current Circulation Element and • 5 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 the proposed Element. The existing Element does not set an absolute threshold level of service. It does establish a city -wide goal of LOS D in the buildout horizon, but it does not require that the system function at that level. The new element attempts to put more strength to the city's level of service (LOS) goals through the use of the averaging technique and to actually establish LOS beyond which those intersection group averages may not cross without an amendment to the Circulation Element. As currently proposed they would be at a level D or .90 in 4 of the 5 intersection group areas of the city. Within the airport group, as discussed in the staff report, a level of service E with a maximum ICU of .96 is proposed. Ms. Temple concluded stating that it is very important to understand that the adoption of this draft or modifications which may occur to the draft of the Element does not actually approve any additional entitlement in the City of Newport Beach. No additional square feet of office or retail, no new theater seats, no new hotel rooms would actually be approved through this action. Any proposals which exceed the current limits of the Land Use Element would be required to undergo a General Plan Amendment and its related traffic and environmental review with full public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. It would however, not always require those amendments to amend the Circulation Element. The Element and Ordinance have been • drafted under the guidelines established by the City Council, to maintain good levels of service through the establishment of maximum ICU's for average groups in the City, but still maintain the ability for City Council to approve or deny projects. Mr. Rich Edmonston continued the staff presentation. In the past, Circulation Elements have been reviewed simply by looking at just the volume on the roadways and not recognizing how significant intersections are to the overall movement of traffic. A number of methods were developed to analyze how well intersections function under various levels of traffic. The method most commonly used in Southern California is Intersection Capacity Utilization, (ICU). That is, the volume to capacity that recognizes that at an intersection there are streams of traffic competing for that piece of land in the middle of the intersection. It is essentially a ratio or percentage of the amount of traffic divided by the capacity of the intersection expressed for example, as .85 (85% of the capacity would be used). For the purposes of this project, we have current and projected traffic volumes. The current traffic volumes are actually measured in the field during a two and one half hour period of peak morning and afternoon traffic. For future years, the model is used. This model has been calibrated for the base year of 1995 -96 where staff uses the model to project the volumes and then compare them with the volumes that are actually measured. It did a very good job and presents a comfort level to the extent that staff can predict land uses and driving patterns on into the future. Capacity is assumed for all calculation as an average value, in reality the intersection capacity varies by the time of day, nature of the driver using it and • where in the city it is. Commuter traffic as an example, typically gives a higher 6 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 capacity because commuters are willing to drive closer to the car in front of them, drive more aggressively, more effectively use the green and yellow phase of the signal and are less likely to be distracted looking for an address and are focused on getting to work or to home. A question that is often asked is how can you have an ICU greater than 1.00 if capacity by definition is the most you can move? There is a two -part answer to that. For counts actually taken that are greater than 1.00 there is only one explanation and that is the capacity we've assumed is too low. When staff looks at ICU's greater than 1.00 as predicted by the model, there are a couple of possibilities. The accuracy of the demand that is being forecasted, the capacity may be under estimated, and there is the possibility that the model is correct and that it would exceed capacity and you would have considerable congestion as people could not get through the intersection without having to wait for multiple signals. As traffic approaches an ICU of 1.00 at an intersection, several things happen. Delay goes up and that causes motorists to look for an alternate route which is part of the rationale used for the intersection grouping. As it goes up, riders become more aggressive and the capacity tends to rise as well. The peak period, from actual traffic counts this spring collected from various intersections, varies. The information is summarized every 15 minutes in comparing the busiest measured 15 minutes to the least busiest in that same peak one hour period to • get a percentage. A close percentage means that it is very uniform, a smaller percentage means less so. At one extreme Coast Highway and Marguerite in Corona del Mar, a fairly busy intersection with ICU in the morning of .86 j86% of capacity). The slowest fifteen minutes during that peak hour was 97% of the amount of traffic during the busiest fifteen minutes. Looking at a two hour time frame in the slowest fifteen minutes was still 86 %. A quieter location at Superior and Placentia, its morning ICU is only .52, was not as busy and more peaked. During the busiest hour, the slowest 15 minutes was 79% and the busiest hour dropped to 63 %. Concluding, Mr. Edmonston reported that the ICU method has been used since the late 70's, and has proven to be an effective and valuable tool particularly looking at changes over time. If there are some inaccuracies in our assumptions for capacity, that inaccuracy probably is fairly even over time. This method is very good for looking at differences in land use or differences in circulation system that are expected over time. CommissionerSelich asked about the review of SPON attorney's letter. Does this mean a reconsideration on the position of being categorically exempt? Staff answered that the attorney's letter came in late the previous day and is not prepared to answer. Staff will be looking at the determination and the facts cited in the letter. Commissioner Selich continued asking about the intersection averaging concept and the safeguards available to keep abnormally high or abnormally low intersections from distorting how that intersection group actually operates. U INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 Staff answered that the intersections within the group are the intersections modeled within the Newport Beach Traffic analysis model, and are all arterial intersections. Any intersections used primarily for driveway access are not used, for example the signal used for the Balboa Bay Club access on Coast Highway is not a modeled intersection. In terms of abnormally highs and lows within each group, there are higher and lower intersections but staff believes that by using the primary arterial intersections, we are using those which contribute to the capacity of the system. There is no proposed individual cap for individual intersections at this time. When staff looks at individual projects, the traffic study will present the information to the Planning Commission and City Council on the individual intersection ICU's and the contribution to that ICU from the project. During the evaluation process this information will be available as the Commission or Council make their decisions. At Commission request, staff addressed how the proposed Element and Ordinance address regional traffic versus how it was treated in the past. All the ICU information, including the averaged intersection ICU's within the groups, include all of the modeled traffic within Newport Beach, traffic generated by land uses in Newport Beach and also by regional traffic. The existing Element took out regional for the purpose of LOS compliance determination. • Continuing, Commissioner Selich asked for information on the ICU numbers of the 1988 traffic study being higher in many instances than now. Staff answered that there are several reasons. In the new modeling a complete review of the land use categories was done as well as the trip generation rates for each of those categories with adjustments to many, some going up, some down. The model, by law, must be consistent with the County's model. Their model that was used for this analysis is a different model than the one used previously, resulting in some changes. The land use assumptions are basically identical in terms of the amount and number of units of square feet of various types, so the changes are either coming out of the regional traffic as shown in the county model or the difference in trip generation rates factored in for land uses within Newport Beach. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston stated that the package before the Commission, revised Circulation Element and the revisions to the TPO, adequately provide for analysis of impacts and indicate what those impacts are. Commissioner Ashley asked staff about the ICU summaries by intersection group in Table 1, page 8, noting the West Newport Group. Noting the Capital Improvement Program submitted, he continued, there were no recommendations for mitigation within this group. Staff answered that the intersection noted does show a relatively large increase over time compared to some due to a number of things, i.e., large amount of undeveloped land. The improvements are listed and one that will happen in the near future is a second thru lane which will also provide for left turn onto Coast Highway from Superior. • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 Commissioner Gifford clarified that the old ordinance tended to place an inappropriate burden on the last development to come in that might be the development that pushed the intersection over the .90 limit. She asked whether the new Ordinance would still require the first development to increase the average ICU levels to make an entire improvement. Ms. Temple clarified that there is on -going contribution by projects which contribute to increases in the intersection average ICU over time as it approaches it's lid. The purpose for the traffic study is quite important in the system or program presented within the Element and Ordinance. The traffic studies will look at the impacts the project produces to the intersections and the averages. If the project on its own, even if the average stays below the lid, would create new unanticipated improvement requirements, then it would be assessed its proportional share of that improvement which would be placed into the list and readjust all of the city's fair share fees. The program in the end would result in those improvements occurring at, the some time as the development. In the context of a General Plan project, if it increased the predicted overall ICU average, it could increase the fair share contribution to the program as well as identify its own fair share contribution to any new improvements which may be identified. All projects leading up to any threshold or LOS would still be contributing to the improvements even though • they were not carrying it over any threshold resulting in everyone paying their fair share. Would there begin to be an artificial limit to development that would impact a different intersection because the capacities in the earlier developments in that group has all been used up, asked Commissioner Gifford? Staff answered that as currently proposed there is no actual total ICU lid on any individual intersection, so the answer would be no. However, the average for the group would continue to grow up and at a point in time a proposal may require a reconsiderationof the Circulation Element or would simply be denied because it would not be consistent with the General Plan. Chairperson Adams stated that this is structured so that someone could develop their land to its full entitlement under the current General Plan and we meet these goals that are referenced in the last column (referencing Table 1, page 8). The only opportunities that could be used up early would be amendments to the General Plan that would raise this last column in Table I above and beyond the predictions for full build -out. The whole purpose is to come up with a plan that allows people to develop their property to their current entitlementand still have a viable circulation system. Ms. Temple stated that this is one of the reasons for the five year update. The averages and intersection groups will be revisited and how they change over time based on the interim development. This would allow staff to be ahead to know where the intersections and averages are going before a situation is • created where people with general plan entitled land use may not be able to 9 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 implement it due to the nature of the Ordinance. Commissioner Kranzley asked staff: a. a clearer analysis of peak periods, the effect of peak periods as we approach certain levels of ICU and the impact on the length of the peak period b. when the modeling is done for build -out, is the maximum trip generating use for a mix use Staff answered that the maximum level for entitlement is used in terms of square footage and to the growth is applied a standard commercial mix based on the character and nature of the area. Commissioner Kranzley continued, during the course of formulation for this element there was a differentiation between ultimate and logical build out. Could staff give an idea of some of the thoughts on ultimate build out in this proposal and if there is any possibilityof what a logical build-outlooks like? Ms. Temple answered, no. The full build -out needs to be analyzed in order to • comply with the requirements of state law. Staff has discussed over the years the idea of using a logical build -out (trend growth in the past). The problem is that it is very speculative and in lieu of that the approach of this Element was to look at more predictable planning horizons where staff could rely on the development experience and produce shorter term projections as presented in the 2000 and 2005 land use analysis. The land use projections, the validity of the traffic impact analysis and the benefits of planned improvements are more reliable in these nearer term horizons. The information provided in the build -out scenario should be of interest, but the reader should not presume that this is in actuality the long term either build -out or circulation function scenario that the City would experience. As the Element is updated and higher levels of build out are approached, staff may be able to project those better. Commissioner Kranzley continued, asking whetherwe have the ability to set up a model that has a mix that is consistentwith the area being modeled, inherent in that would be a mix of resident, commercial and office, this would be able to give us some type of determination of types of revenue that would be added to the City. A key concept would be looking at economic development, for instance, the build out of the airport area. Mrs. Wood answered that assuming the 2 million square feet that the staff report talks about in the office area, probably some estimates of what the revenue would be could be done at least in terms of property tax. Where the difficulty for projection is if we do not know what kinds of uses there will be. As we look at economic development planning for the future, one of the things • we are learning is that certain kinds of businesses are more likely to be a point 10 aril 1 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 of sale and able to produce sales tax. Beyond that, you have to be able to look at the way the business actually functions to see if it can be maximized. The city has some fiscal model capabilities but is not sophisticated enough to deal with the sales tax projections. Staff clarified that the 2 million square feet is hypothesized as a result of the last meeting of the Planning Commission. Staff was given direction to provide some analysis as to what the implications of the LOS proposal in the airport area was. In order to answer that question, staff performed a "sensitivity analysis ". Staff did a simple extrapolation of the number of additional under that LOS scenario and compared it to the existing entitlement and estimated that if we establish LOS for the intersection group of the airport at .96 that somewhere in the general range approaching 2 million square feet might be able to be accommodated. However, the analysis was based on an increase of the number of trips. Depending on the location of the trips and the intensity of the uses, that number could be substantially less. Mrs. Wood emphasized that there is nothing included in this proposal to say that staff is proposing that there these additional square feet, that number the 2 million square feet, is just a rough analysis of what might be accommodated if the ICU for the airport group would be raised to .96. is Commissioner Ridgeway commented that proposing and moving forward with a circulation and TPO as proposed is a backwards way of changing the General Plan. Chairperson Adams commented that back up material which was mentioned at the last meeting, the output from the model, etc., was to be an appendix to this document and still is. None of the appendices were given to the Commission at this time. Not only is that material missing but other exhibits were not provided and asked that for the next meeting that those certainly be made available. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that a General Plan Amendment will have to be, performed in order to change any land uses in Newport Beach where this Circulation Element, TPO takes effect. Staff reiterated that any proposals to change any permitted land use entitlements would require a General Plan Amendment. He questioned why we wouldn't wait and allow the circulation element to be part of a proposal for a GPA? Ms. Temple answered that in the existing system because there is no lid established, simply goals. Whenever a large General Plan entitlement project would come forward they would be Land Use Element Amendments unless the proposal included an alteration to the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. This process has taken us two years and if there is a development proposal, perhaps one of even a moderate nature but still in the General Plan category, • staff felt that some accommodation to just allow it to be addressed as a Land 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 Use issue and not have to fully revisit the Circulation Element was a more appropriate way of dealingwith it. Commissioner Ridgeway then asked when the modeling was done and an assessment or inventory of current traffic uses at that intersection, did that model take into consideration land uses in Cost Mesa and Irvine or did it just specifically address the traffic in the intersections in the City of Newport Beach? Mr. Edmonston answered that the model does include land use essentially for all of the county. There is a core area with smaller subdivisions of land and the land use around that includes all of Newport Beach and portions of Costa Mesa and Irvine, but the rest of Costa Mesa and Irvine land use and projected land use for each of these different time periods is included in the County model that is used for the surrounding data. All the other cities' general plan developments are represented in the long range forecast and their projected developments for the years 2000 and 2005 are included. The County documentwas done in either 1995 or early 1996. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Philip Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150 - spoke on behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California (BIA /SC) and in support • of the General Plan Circulation Element and Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He presented a written statement and commentary. After a brief personal history, he introduced a legal critique of the TPO provided by Mr. Nick Commarota, general counsel to BIA /SC noting these points: The current TPO fails to satisfy rough proportionality standards dictated by recent Supreme Court decisions. The current TPO is inconsistent with state law requirements for consistency with general plans. The current TPO seeks to exact payments as a condition to development that are contrary to recent legislation. The package as refined and supplemented by staff's commentary in response to Commission's concerns is deserving of your endorsement and presentation to City Council. Mr. Richard Luehrs, President and CEO of Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce representing more than 1000 business asked for Commission support of the revised TPO as presented. The Chamber took an active role in this revision and pointed out the reasons for the support: 1. Current TPO is out of date and quite possibly illegal in its current state. 2. Current TPO hinders economic growth in the airport area i.e., Rockwell International expansion plans or the redevelopment of some of the smaller parcels while neighboring City of Irvine continues to secure business • opportunities providing them with revenues and us with their traffic. 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 3. It hampers renewal plans of the older areas of our community which are continuing to struggle for economic resurgence and improved residential serving tenants. 4. The proposed changes result in an improved correlation between the General Plan and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 5. The proposed changes better reflect and assess the circulation network system -wide capacity as related to the impacts of a proposed project. 6. The recommended approach is more compatible with the assessment techniques and capacity criteria of surrounding jurisdictions. 7. The proposed changes result in an increased focus of implementing a five and ten year capital improvement program for the city that maximizes correlation to projected development patterns. 8. The proposed amendments will allow for a better balance between establishing the size and function of the road program with other desirable city -wide goals such as community design and economic development. Because of the complex nature of this issue, the Chamber retained the services of a qualified traffic engineer, Mike Erickson. The Chamber urges you to approve the amendments as presented and recommend a position of support to the City Council. • Jean Watt, 4 Harbor Island - spoke as a representative of SPON and presented the following issues in opposition: 1. these amendments eliminate the TPO as a planning tool 2. lift the limit on the intensity of development 3. the discretion used by the Commission and Council without the findings that are in the current TPO SPON objects to changing the TPO from what it is now, a traffic impact limitation ordinance to a simple requirement for a traffic study and a fee. If it is changed to this, it should not be called a TPO at all. SPON objects to removing the limitations stated in the TPO. Once before SPON had hired their own lawyer and objected to the planning process when the City was changing the TPO. The culmination of that was sitting down and agreeing to compromises. Some of those. changes amounted to everyone getting what they wanted. It allowed for findings to be made in order to exceed the limits. These findings and phrases, i.e.. ... where there is a feasible identified improvement benefits substantially outweighing increased traffic congestion..., 4/5 vote allows the TPO to be overridden with the appropriate findings, allowed for a workable ordinance. Under the new version, not only is there an increased threshold of .96, but the decision makers can choose to ignore it with no findings and that is what has happened in Costa Mesa. If it's Rockwell that is at stake, then we could use the existing ordinance and make the appropriatefindings. Mr. Eric Cahn - agrees with the SPON position. He stated that these amendments are not easily understood by the layperson. He expressed • 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 concerns wi the • change to averaging of intersections • increased levels of service that are allowed He asked if we want these intersections to be so congested that cars have to take longer routes and add congestion to other roads. The staff report refers to intersection averaging used by Costa Mesa and Irvine in the airport area. In checking with Irvine, they used averaging only in the General Plan for commercial areas at the Spectrum and at the airport but do not use intersection averaging for the rest of the city. Their current policy is to not allow averaging. Costa Mesa requires traffic studies, and does not use averaging near the airport. Costa Mesa does not consider averaging to be a viable concept for large areas. Both cities try to keep each of their intersections at or below LOS D and both have caps. Why are we allowing higher LOS and more congestion in general than Costa Mesa and Irvine, who benefits from these changes and how do you know what a reasonable grouping of intersections should be or what an acceptable LOS is? How do you account for changes outside or new development outside the city which will impact the LOS that were predicted? The anticipated volume levels predicted do not include the impact of traffic generated outside the city for areas such as Bonita Village and • Newport Coast. Don't you have to predict traffic coming through the intersections regardless of what city it comes from? You can't reduce the density and congestion later. All you can do is spend tax money to better accommodate the increased traffic. He recommends that the policy not allow any individual intersection to exceed LOS D. He concluded asking Commission to take another look at these changes, that the residents be informed and in agreement with these policy changes. Chairperson Adams commented to Mr. Cahn that he had posed many, good rhetorical questions to ponder. However, one of the more direct with regard to outside traffic being incorporated into these projections, it is indeed incorporated through use of the county -wide traffic model. Commissioner Ridgeway asked staff to answer some of the questions posed by Mr. Cahn as they are inconsistent with what is in the report, that is the averaging of intersection uses and policies of both Costa Mesa and Irvine. Ms. Temple commented that the adjoining communities had been researched as to what was done in the past as a result of questions of the Commission at the last meeting. The City of Irvine General Plan does not actually include the concept of intersection averaging and if this was implied in the report, it was not intended. An intersection averaging concept was used in consideration of the zone change for the Irvine business complex and also tried to stay at certain ICU thresholds to keep the average at 1.0 with a maximum of l'I but their actual approvals did exceed those thresholds even with their 15% trip • reduction factor put into all trip rates which the City of Newport Beach does 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 not do. Chairperson Adams clarified and affirmed this is for a buildout scenario. We must be careful in distinguishing between all the cities' caps for current proposals versus what has been done in their Circulation Element for buildout. In the discussions we may be mixing the two inappropriately. Ms. Temple continued stating the in Costa Mesa staff received information regarding averaging as noted in the Red Hill /South Coast Metro area. Their General Plan calls for a requirement of a traffic study however, staff went and talked to a traffic engineer at the counter and the response was as long as you pay the fee they really don't require a study. Staff did not pursue beyond that. For major General Plan Amendments and for any project that requires an environmental document, a traffic study is common. However, traffic studies are not required for every project. In our case, we set a level of daily traffic trips for a project which automatically requires a traffic study. Chairperson Adams followed up stating the Commission at the last meeting wanted to find out Costa Mesa and Irvine's vehicle for meeting requirements at buildout. Again, we are mixing applications for current development with buildout analysis. Commission does not understand with both of these cities • how they have approached long range in their Circulation Element and the vehicles used to show the required correlation between land use and traffic. Mr. Philip Arst, 2051 Lighthouse Lane, CDM - as president of the Broadmoor Hills Community Association and chairman of the Community Association Alliance (group of ten associations representing 2500 families). He stated support by vote of the Community Association Alliance for the letter of SPON and the attorney's opinion letter. The Association intends to work with the City to come to a sensible resolution of what appears to be an extreme proposal. Working with other groups in the city, they hope to have more citizens become aware of this situation. We have a balanced residential, ocean bay and business community. The proposed changes appear to be the first step in permitting commercial development in the airport area. Is this metropolitan city the Newport Beach we want. The changes proposed by the economic development, but how much is enough? Certainly, we need sales tax and business revenues to support a balanced city concept, but nowhere have we seen what amount is needed and how much development is needed to supply that. He concluded by suggesting: 1. Publish the General Plan which would define the commercial development and what Newport would look like if the traffic changes were allowed to go through. 2. Need an EIR to show the resulting congestion and pollution that will have a major impact on the citizenry. 3. Define amount of money that is needed to reasonably run the City and not • write a blank check for unlimited commercial development as proposed. 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 4. This should be delayed for the simple reason that the community is just starting to learn about this and you need to build a consensus of the citizenry with their input. The groups he represent favor a balanced community, residents, environment, beaches and bays and a stable business climate. But this is a disproportionate move to commercialization and urges that be considered during the deliberations. Mrs. Wood commented that the Land Use Element precludes 2 million square feet developmentof commercial space at the present time. Public hearing was closed. A ten minute recess was held. Chairperson Adams stated that during the discussion by the Commission if someone in the audience wanted to bring up points, Commission will give latitude. He would, however, like to keep the discussion among the Commission tonight as the public will have an opportunity at the next public to be held in two weeks. Continuing, Commissioner Selich has asked as representative to the EDC to begin the discussion and put into context the work the EDC has done. Prior to that there are a few things in the report that need • to be highlighted to get us all on the some playing field with the same understanding of the presented data. Some inconsistencies in the report in Table 1 of the document page 8 summarizes the ICU's for the existing condition (1996) and the three planning horizons (1996, 2000 and 2005) - table assumes all of the programmed improvements discussed in the report are done (he then referenced page 21 and the list of facility improvements noted for the five, ten year program). Commissioner Selich commented that as the Commission representative to the EDC he is involved with review of many of the items reviewed by either the Planning Commission and /or City Council. On this particular item he was involved with the EDC in its review. Staff has been working on this item as part of their periodic update of the Circulation Element and the EDC was invited to participate in that process. He characterized the thoughts and ideas that evolved from the EDC process. EDC was involved in the review of the Circulation Element and TPO. EDC felt the character of the city has changed in the last twenty years and the methods that may have been appropriate twenty years ago are not appropriate now. Some of the issues looked at: 1. Bringing into conformitywith the latest legal and court decisions. 2. City approaching a build out status with very little undeveloped land available. 3. City's basic circulation system is set with few if any additional roadways to be constructed - now a matter of fine tuning the roadway system through widening, improvement of intersections and management of that system. • 4. A more realistic treatment of dealing with regional traffic in traffic models. 16 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 5. Although the ultimate buildout projections of land uses are in square footage, they may not really be achieved as the horizon data continues to move out as plans are changed. There is always an amount of "phantom" square footage (land use entitlement that will never be used either from vacant land or under utilization of certain parcels). 6. Committee felt that the land use element itself should be the driving force in setting planning decisions and not a Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A lot of comprehensive planning issues have been ignored in the past because of the attitude of, " if it meets the TPO, it's okay ". The EDC is also concerned with how to improve the economic growth in the tax base for the City without impacting city residential areas. The most obvious area to look at was the airport area. It is physically separated from the rest of the City with no residential uses in it and is a prime area to look at improving the City's economic base. A study was done in this area about a year and a half ago that showed the City is deficient in revenue that this portion of the airport area is providing and there are many ways to improve it. Another factor was that we are using a different standard in that area than the cities surrounding us. Traffic does not stop at the city border, but comes through into Newport Beach, but we have a cap on the development potential that the other cities do not have. The EDC suggests that the airport area has the greatest potential • to increase the economic base of the city with the least amount of impact. Another aspect is how to charge the impact mitigation fees. The so- called "nexus" issue has been addressed in the staff report. The cost of traffic improvements should be directly related to the amount of impact that any particular project or land use element change creates and would be charged to those projects. Those projects must be required to make their fair share improvements. The way the existing system works now, we are not fully identifying and accounting for regional impacts and are in fact charging a percentage of fees for regional impact (.30 on the dollar). The cost of the improvements benefit that is received should be related to the impact. In the airport area residents may have short term peak hour inconvenience due to the proposed traffic but those have to be weighed against the economic benefit received. In trying to build a roadway and circulation system that addressed all traffic needs, you would have a city that would have streets totally out of scale with the community. Additionally, there will always be a need to make some type of philosophical decision that maybe we want to provide all the ultimate improvements but there are other over - riding factors that we may want to limit them. For example, Coast Highway going through Corona del Mar, if CalTrans had its way, that would be a six lane road, but that is totally unacceptable to the community. In evaluating this in relationship to City Council policy which was adopted and is incorporated in the elements and presented tonight, their are a number of factors which need to be restated. This policy went through the EDC last year, the Planning Commission and was adopted by City Council. This is the policy and the direction used in the final stages of the preparation of this Element in the last year's worth of . work. Council's policy was the land uses should be correlated with the 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 Circulation Element, that the LOS D would be used in the City and the LOS E in the airport area, regional traffic needs to be addressed, that the LOS E in the airport is based on accepting that type of LOS in that non - residential area, that we go to the focused impact analysis with the five and ten year planning horizons and we have a capital improvements program that is tied to the short and mid -term impacts. The major changes that have been recommended is that the Circulation Element intersection grouping number be changed; intersection averaging LOS D in the city and LOS E in the airport area. The concept of intersection averaging is something that the professional traffic engineers have worked on and accept that this will work for the system. The LOS E in the airport area, adding in the short term impact analysis of the five and ten year horizons, makes a more realistic treatment of how to approach regional traffic in the new element and again the five year updates are very important for this type of system. The City then has to commit to going through and doing these updates which mean the Council will have to agree to fund almost a continual transportation planning process. It has taken a number of years to get to this particular amendment to where it is this evening. The TPO is moved from being a funding mechanism to an impact analysis tool, it would take the fair share ordinance to be the major funding mechanism. Results of the change as • proposed tonight, will not have impacts on residential areas above what the existing plan has and there is a potential to make a major economic impact in the airport area. We will create virtually an on -going transportation and circulation planning process and will more closely tie the capital improvements to the planning process and recognize the regional traffic impacts more rationally. The Land Use Element and other policies that the City has adopted will play a more balanced role in making land use decisions. It is a system that Will more fairly charge project proponents for the impacts their development creates on the City. It does not entitle any additional square footage, it is really a policy document. Any additional square footage that is going to be approved is going to have to go through a change to the Land Use Element and any other elements of the General Plan that would be affected by those land use changes. The last thing the EDC felt was to eliminate the 4/5 vote requirements, a process that is virtually the only one in the city that requires that type of voting majority to pass something. In conclusion, the EDC felt that the element and ordinance clearly reflect the adopted city council policy. One of the questions raised in the SPON letter was the philosophical aspect of it, which has already been discussed and incorporated in the City Council policy and adopted and was the framework under which the staff did the work. Discussion continued on the land uses, elements, policies, reviews and system of checks and balances. Staff established that the last time the Circulation Element was updated it was in association with the Land Use Element update which established all of the commercial floor area limits but did not address any new entitlements. Subsequent to that time, the Land Use Element has been amended on the entitlement side without any amendments to the • 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission. Minutes July 10, 1997 Circulation Element. Commissioner Ridgeway commented on the public participation. He continued stating that Commission needs more information before proceeding with the decision process. There are two roads that go through the City, Pacific Coast Highway and Bristol. Bristol is in the airport area and is not immune from the residential community and is heavily traveled. He agrees that the City does need an amendment to the Circulation Element and TPO to bring them into conformity with modern case law. However, this is a back -ended way to change the General Plan. He does not agree with a policy that espouses a .96 ICU and a LOS E. This appears to be a fiscalization of land use being done by a ruse, the Circulation Element and one he can not support. Commissioner Selich referencing page 5, Policy E (policy adopted on and voted on by the City Council and Commission) read into the records, ..Accordingly, the City's goal is to establish service levels in the Circulation Element as close as possible to LOS -D throughout the majority of the residential areas of the City or LOS -E in the primarily non - residential areas and use these service levels as the basis for establishing correlation of the circulation system and projected land uses as well as approval or modification of plans, ordinances, policies, resolutions, and projects... This is exactly what this element • does. Commissioner Gifford stated she does not have enough information to understand what would be the best final product of revisions to the TPO or Circulation Element. She appreciates the concerns and ideas that the EDC had in mind when they worked on the draft, but this does not mean it should be adopted simply because there was a lot of thought without the input of the residential community. A lot of questions have been raised and notes that they need to be addressed. Chairperson Adams then made the following points. A comment made by Mr. Luehrs, "excessive road capacity has been provided at the expense of development".. and in the staff report it is noted that, ....we have too big a road system just to accommodate peak hour traffic.... On face value there may be some truth, however, he continued, that what is being overlooked is that capacity also gives us capacity to accommodate the tremendous visitor volumes in the summer and these are not included in any projections Commission is looking at. This is an important consideration for economic development. The benefit we get from "over capacity roads" to support the amount of revenues brought in by.our visitors will out weigh any conceivable economic benefit from an expansion of the land use in the airport area. He continued by noting: 1. That the concept of intersection averaging leaves a difference between • the projected average and the cap. 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 2. Why impose a cap of .96 for the airport area versus 1.0 - all we really need in using this intersection averaging technique is to meet the guideline that we have some plan for correlating our traffic system with our Land Use Element to accommodate the projected ICU of .91 average, why go beyond? If there is a special project(s) that need to amend the Circulation Element, then that is what they should have to do. 3. Applies to all other four areas in the City. There is room for general plan changes. 4. Concern about the elimination of the need of findings for exceeding guidelines and disposing of the 4/5 vote to go beyond those guidelines. Those rules are responsible for the fact that this table of ICU's and levels we have today are enviable by every city in California. There are 6 at .90 and above, and if we do the programmed improvements within the next five years there will only be 2. 5. Pursuing intersection averaging, it could be applied to different planning horizons and individual groups as a safeguard in lieu of the 4/5 vote if necessary or some of the specific findings in the TPO. . 6. Serious thought should be given to caps on individual ICU's increases. This averaging allows any one intersection to go out of control as long as there are enough lower ICU's in the area without blowing the cap on the average. Looking at East Newport in the year 2000, we are projecting .54 for the a.m. and .58 for the p.m. Maybe what is reasonable there is to say that in the year 2000 our cap is .60 average and that any developer that comes in that area and does a traffic report and finds their impacts don't trip that .60 up to the year 2000 is okay. But that developer also has to make sure he does not increase the ICU at any individual intersection by the average .60 and if he did, than maybe that would require some finding. If this was approved with reasonable caps it looks like a good program, the ICU's seem reasonable. However, with these gaps between the programmed average and the projected average and the average we are considering allowing, make me nervous. He concluded stating he would like additional time to take a closer look at some of the appendix material and an opportunity to review existing LUE and TPO. CommissionerSelich requests that the staff articulate how this would work in the planning process if this is adopted and what other things have been evaluated noting the checks and balances. Commissioner Ashley noted that the tables in the report represent what would be the allowable trip generation if all of the land as presently zoned in the City was built out to its maximum under current zoning restrictions. Other than the • airport area, the other four areas within the city show trip generation levels at 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 LOS A and B mostly at the present time and moving toward LOS C, with few exceptions already at LOS D. Most all of the represented intersections suggest if all of the properties were developed to the highest level there would not be major impacts at the intersections. In intersection averaging there can be some particulars that would be unsatisfactory. We need to look at accepting LOS D anywhere in the City outside the airport area. Chairperson Adams directed staff for Commission distribution: copy County Master Plan of Arterial Highways copy of existing Traffic Phasing Ordinance table showing ICU's without programmed improvements (problematic intersections) Commissioner Selich recommended that Commission members visit the areas referenced on Page 3 of the staff report to see first hand the traffic volumes. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting on July 24,1997: Ayes: Ridgeway, Kronzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none • Absent: Fuller Abstain: none SUBJECT: Speedway Restaurant) 353 East Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3598 Discussion item to review the revised landscape plan and parking lot striping plan for the previously approved restaurant. Ms. Temple referencing an exhibit depicting the parking lot and landscape plan for the restaurant explained to the Commission what had been done. She proceeded to explain what the Commission had expected to be done particularly along the Bayside Drive area and along the back of the restaurant and in the parking spines. The implementation of the additional landscape could result in a reduction of parking spaces provided on site. The exhibit now submitted addresses most but not all of the requests of the Commission. What has not been done is landscaping in the parking lot "spines ", rather, they propose an enhanced paving treatment. Their reason was concern and the interaction of leaves dropping on cars and the cost of irrigation in the spine. Three spaces were lost as a result of the redesign of the parking lot and its landscaping. Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission on the acceptabilityof the plan. • 21 INDEX Discussion Item • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 Discussion followed regarding trampling of landscape in spine areas, insertion of trees in the spine areas, and cost issues. Mr. Jerry King - representing Speedway stated that they have achieved a high percentage of landscaping on site. The three parking spaces were lost due to the reconfigurationof a turning aisle. He stated they may risk loosing additional parking spaces if they were to put trees in the spine areas in square planters. To help soften the back of the building they will install large trees and ground cover all along the major avenues with additional planters behind the building and a six foot hedge along the patio area. He stated the belief that the intent of the Commission's direction has been achieved without incurring the additional hardship of the potential loss of additional spaces and the cost of irrigating landscape in spine areas. John Hirsch, architect stated that the additional planters along the perimeterof the backside of the building was not a request of the Commission but was added to try to mitigate that sore spot on the property. There is no dimension for the spine as a planter now, currentlyit is a stripped parking lot. Chairperson Adams articulated that what is proposed is a field all at the some level with no curb, to which he was answered yes. So, it will be an enhanced paving at grade. He questioned whether the reason to do this is to have a big open area for outdoor events. Mr. Hirsch answered no. Mr. Hirsch stated the reason is that the client asked not to be put to the hardship of sawcutting to irrigate additionally those spine areas. Discussion followed regarding any enhancements and /or trade off with revision of circulation plan. Referencing the exhibit, Chairperson Adams noted a triangular area within the easterly boundary and asked if a tree could be planted there. Mr. King noted that his client is not at odds with what the understanding of the requirement of the Commission as it is very clearly stated in the minutes. Where the differences occur, if you recall the plan you approved showed three additional parking spaces. Those spaces have been removed at staff's request. As the architect indicated, we have planted a six foot hedge around the patio area and created a planting area for trees and large pots along the back side of the building to attempt to screen the majority of the building rear. We have tried to meet your concerns with a layer of landscaping at Bayside Drive and one against the building and along the auto centerside. Chairperson Adams asked about the size of the trees and was answered they will be about 15 to 18 feet. He requested that one more be placed in the corner planter area as previously noted. Mr. King and Mr. Hirsch agreed. • 22 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway that Commission find that this be insubstantial conformance with the addition of the tree. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Selich that trees also be added in the spine area and let staff work with the applicant. Ayes: Gifford, Selich Noes: Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Ashley Absent: Fuller Abstain: none Original Motion: Ayes: Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: Fuller Abstain: none ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - Planning Director Temple reported at the last meeting, on June 23, Council considered two ordinances for introduction: the Corona del Mar Bid and an Amendment to Title 10 regarding alcoholic beverage services in the public rights of way and approved the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church project and the Upper Castaways Planned Community amendments. Council approved the city budget and also set for further consideration the supplemental budget list, including a request of the Planning Department for an additional part time Code Enforcement position. Additionally, Commissioners Kranzley and Selich were re- appointed for another four year term. b.) Oral report by the Planning Director regarding Outdoor Dining Permits, Specialty Food Permits, Modification Permits and Temporary Use Permit approvals- Modification Permit was approved for 1422 Sea Ridge Drive; a Planning Directors Use Permit was approved for 504 South Bay Front, Suite 102 and Temporary Use Permit for Certified Farmers Market, 151 East Coast Highway is continued at applicant's request. C.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich reported that the committee has referred to City Council a recommendation on Mini - Marts which will probably be referred to the Planning Commission for . action. 23 INDEX Additional Business . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1997 d.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee - Commissioner Kranzley stated that BPPAC has sunset. He thanks all the members for the work and urged all Commissioners to continue to be involved with this project, informing them of a meeting on the parking management scheduled for July 22nd. e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting- CommissionerSelich asked of the report on the Environmental Center and was told this and the ATM issue are scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting. f.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report- none. g.) Requests for excused absences - none. kkt ADJOURNMENT: 10:40 p.m. ED SELICH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 40 24 INDEX