HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/2005"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2005
Adjourned Meeting - 3:00 p.m.
Page 1 of 17
' file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet\ PlnAgendas 120051mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all
present.
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney
Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager
Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary
Elwood Tescher, City consultant from EIP
Mr. Carlton Waters, City consultant from Urban Crossroads
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
None
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on December 2, 2005.
CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM NO. 1
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the special meeting of November 17, 2005.
Minutes
Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item to the next available
Continued to
meeting.
next available
meeting
Ayes:
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
HEARING ITEMS
SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Review of Draft Land Use Element
ITEM NO.2
General Plan
' file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet\ PlnAgendas 120051mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 2 of 17
of mixed -use in Mariner's Mile. I Update
Wood noted that when the City Council considered the second half of the Land Continue to nex
Element, the question arose again on whether residential use should be available mtng
'nitted on the bayside of Coast Highway in Mariner's Mile. Following a brie
:ussion, they asked that the question be returned to the General Plan Advisory
nmittee with information on which lots in the area would satisfy the 200 feet of
tage requirement that had been written into the policy. She then referenced
exhibit noting the yellow parcels with the 200 linear foot standard that would
J about 69 units. Many of the properties are developed and are not like/
didates for redevelopment. Another question posed to GPAC was if smaller
were combined to meet the requirement, would they want to include those, or
feet parcels as the date of the adoption of the General Plan, or stick to their
inal recommendation. GPAC was concerned about view impacts, preservation
marinas, land use and compatibility with visitor serving uses such as
aurants. They then continued the item and asked staff and the consultant to
ie back with specific policies that could address design to deal with those
ies. The Planning Commission could make different recommendations
Tescher noted that the calculation for the policy was written for a maximum
ut 50% of the land area available for housing, at about 20 units per ac
sity yielding about 140 units; the higher density would yield a greater number
s; however, the expectation is that in this area there is a two -story height lir
the units would be fairly large. The other issue GPAC wanted the traf
sultant input on was the question of the trade off of the loss of a commerc
and what the implications were on traffic for the conversion to housing. Bas
n the types of uses, the expected total generation of trips would be less it
a to be developed strictly as commercial or marine related uses.
�mmissioner Hawkins asked what would prohibit a super developer from
of the parcels together?
Tescher answered that was the reason for the questions to GPAC
ving parcel adjustments, or, keep what is the current parcelization now.
Wood noted that GPAC is looking for better language to tighten up
rperson Toerge suggested that the Commission wait until GPAC has
recommendations.
Eaton asked staff for a review of the calculations.
Wood noted that the language in the draft land use element does not li
ing to any geographical area, it just refers to inland of the coast side
ners Mile.
�nissioner Tucker agreed with the Chairman's view to wait for GPAC to
with their input.
irperson Toerge made motion to continue this item until after the
heard from GPAC.
" file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet\ PlnAgendas 120051mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 3 of 17
mmissioner Cole asked about view corridors, noting the current zoning al
two story structures along Mariners Mile. The proposed mixed use would I
same height limit. What additional view corridors would we be mandating
not there now?
-. Tescher answered the policy that the Commission approved was, "..to require
at buildings be located and sites designed to provide significant visual corridor:
the bay from Coast Highway." The issue would pertain to any use on a site.
'AC felt the policy as written was insufficient to guarantee a viable view, so there
a question of what a significant view corridor would be. As we come back to the
)mmittee we will present information on realistic options and the impacts of them
n Toerge noted that when this comes back we will have an ex,
of land area. Clearly this number of units is far less than anticipated
discussion without specific data.
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn
None
None
None
BJECT: General Plan Update - Review of Draft Circulation Element and ITEM NO.3
Executive Summary of General Plan Traffic Study General Plan
Update
cuss and recommend potential changes to the draft Circulation Element.
Continued to
Carlton Waters of Urban Crossroads, consultant representing the City, 01/31/2006
-ussed the table summaries noting the difference between 'without project' and
h project,' emphasizing that the existing base line is 2002 statistics. Extensive
iew of development has resulted in very minimal changes to future conditions.
then presented and discussed the following tables.
. General Plan Build -out with project average daily traffic (ADT).
. List of all the roads within the City that are expected to have a growth
excess of 10,000 trips per day throughout the City both without project a
with Droiect numbers.
. The 2002 data baseline represents (and has been verified) an exc
worst case scenario for evaluating decisions about the future of the City.
. Tables of data presume no improvements whatsoever to the roadway
with traffic growth in the region around the City, in addition to the
within the City, the total number of deficiencies increases with
condition and without project condition.
. Failure rates, locations that might experience deficiencies if nothing
done and what types of improvements are required to achieve an accep
level of service at all intersections within the City.
. Intersection level of service summaries
. Study Area LOS (level of service) Comparison
" file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet\ PlnAgendas 120051mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
. Improvement Needs Summary
. Intersection Improvement Summary and Comparison Table
Total of 18 intersections in the current adopted General Plan that w
projected to experience LOS E or F operations with proposed improveme
compared to a limited number (4) of intersections that the feasib
constraints warrant a discussion of whether accepting a LOS D
reasonable.
missioner Henn asked about the county -wide increase of 18% expectatior
the next 20 years and how it relates to the presented tables and summaries.
t about this increase and is it something that would be layered on to these
counts in these analyses as time goes by?
Waters answered that increase has been included in the analysis of
,ground condition against which the City's decision making process
sured. It is a static 18% increase and is consistent with regional growth.
mmissioner Henn asked about the factors used such as mixed use and the
the low range numbers in order to present a worst case scenario of tr
ws. How did we decide to present the worst case scenario and on what b
we think a 10% factor or mixed use is better than an average of the range?
Waters noted the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act is t<
ure that the decisions are made upon conservative and worst case scenarios.
ig the lower numbers minimizes the challenges to the adequacy of the
ironmental process and documentation that has been produced.
Wood noted these adjustments had been discussed with the General
ate Committee (GPUC) and we have been using this approach following I
w and acceptance.
issioner Tucker noted this is the Executive Summary of the traffic stu
This summary is a plan to plan analysis but I think CEQA requires a plan
I analysis.
Tescher answered it requires both for General Plans under State Law, yc
two no project alternatives which is a comparison to existing use as well as
parison with existing plan.
Waters noted the summary tables have existing conditions with current
the proposed plan as well.
Wood noted that GPAC did not go through the Executive Summary in
Waters noted that all the tables and graphics from the summaries are in
rerPoint presentation.
Tucker, referring to the Executive Summary, noted:
Page 4 of 17
" file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet\PlnAgendas \2005 \mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
. Page 1 - an explanation is needed for paragraph 2 ('..with only
improvements.....').
Ir. Waters noted that the preliminary alternatives report that has been reviewed
PAC, City Council and Planning Commission, has that explicit list and will ens
is reproduced in this current study.
s. Wood asked if these additional details would be in the Executive Summary
the full traffic study. She was answered in the full traffic study.
Commissioner Tucker asked about:
The 10% savings as referred to on page 5; this needs to be documented
agrees that the more conservative number is the best approach.
Asked for and received clarification of charts on page 12 with
numbers and definition of grading system of LOS's.
. Page 17 - problematic intersections and the possible ramifications of makinc
the interchange at Newport Coast and the 73 Freeway and make it toll free.
GPAC has asked for more information on this possibility.
ssioner Henn, referring to pages 7 and 8, noted the daily trip traffic
Peninsula seemed to be dropped and asked that they be reinstated.
ig, Commissioner Tucker referring to pages 6 & 7 asked for and rec(
on of increase of trips versus without project build out north of
Hills Road and south of Ford Road.
rsioner Eaton, referring to Table ES1 asked if another run was reserved
at the reduced numbers resulting from the final decision of the Land I.
Wood answered that there will be two reduced intensity alternatives studied
EIR, one being the GPAC recommendations and another being the old SL
r only minimum.
rissioner Eaton asked about Irvine Company entitlement reductions and
are reflective in these summaries.
Temple answered that they are reflective; however, the numbers are still
rperson Toerge asked about the airport area mixed use and the increase
with project as opposed to without project.
Waters noted the increase was greater in this analysis than seen in previor
lyses and is a result on the discussion related to the Conexant site. Tt
Jential uses in the airport area were replacing either office or commercial usi
are currently entitled. The Conexant site is an industrial site and industri
s generate few trips per day on a per acre basis. Replacing that with housir
s that would be an area where you would see a higher trip generated total as
Page 5 of 17
" file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet\ PlnAgendas120051mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
of that industrial /residential change. The total is based on 4,300
Sion continued.
rperson Toerge asked for information to be presented that indicates what
impacts would be without mixed use development in Lido Village; Marin
and McFadden Square.
Waters noted that the concept of vertical mixed use is based on three stc
citation in order to be a viable mixed use concept. The uses being mixed clea
suit in a higher level of trip generation. Yet, looking at the daily traffic volum
hibits, you see the mixing of uses has had the desired affect of creating
vitalization potential for those areas without resulting in any substantial increa
traffic volumes that are shown on the arterial roadway systems.
Tescher added that in these areas of mixed use such as Cannery Villa!
e is a reduction because you are replacing ground level retail with housing.
�r areas of suggested mixed use there is still a retail component on the grOL
and most of what is there today is one level retail as well. There is
:ssarily a loss of square footage, you are adding in housing. Where there is
al change of use, as in Cannery, there is a slight increase as well.
Toerge asked if it was possible to get traffic figures
ision of mixed uses in those contentious areas?
Waters answered the current General Plan scenario reflects that air(
ussion followed on traffic uses, generations, impacts, increases
iairperson Toerge offered that this needs to be well documented and
the summary as it is going for a vote.
Temple noted that on Old Newport Boulevard a stronger mix of medical
;h is a high trip generator, and an increment of residential is planned.
ssioner Tucker discussed the Airport Area, Mariner's Mile and
noting the zoning does not match up with actual use.
ussion followed on the Airport Area with an increased residential
pared with Mariner's Mile retail; traffic distribution and trip generation con(
the need to make clear the most important factors to rely on.
Wood noted that the mixed use adjustment and trip generation rates w
ervative nor did we apply that adjustment everywhere mixed use is allow
explained that there already was a coastal adjustment in the coastal area,
the 10% applied in Mariner's Mile. We tried to apply it to only those areas
ght we would get a significant concentration of mixed use, so you would re
ive those benefits.
;sioner Tucker asked about the description of the improvements,
, the number of trips versus the level of service.
Toerge noted that the legends could be clarified for the reader.
Page 6 of 17
' file://N:1Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet\ PlnAgendas 120051mnl2- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
Temple noted the bulk of when traffic study analyses are done is shouk
-on peak hour, which is when we have the most congestion on a city -wi
s and experience those commute related traffic issues. The peninsula tral
lems are discussed at the end of the Executive Summary in general and
er detail in the full traffic study with regards to issues of visitor peaks a
mertime traffic, which is different and a more qualitative type of analysis.
comment was opened.
comment was closed.
Element:
arson Toerge noted discrepancy on page 1 under Setting; relevance of
Catalina Ferry as a transportation solution; page 10 under pedest
rs and the use of the words'mixed use'.
Tucker noted the use of water transportation services on page 2.
ier McDaniel noted the discussion of water taxi service from boaters
with water access.
Eaton asked why reference bus route 178 on page 8.
iissioner Hawkins noted the ferry serves the goal of serving people out of
For 'trails' on page 8, a more general term should be used, e.g. 'alterna
Waters noted the Catalina Ferry is a part of the regional transportation system.
iissioner McDaniel asked about a cap on the number of trips that can
out of the harbor and is a transportation source that is limited.
ussion followed on regional traffic coming to the City to use the ferry anc
Cher it is considered as a traffic solution or a traffic magnet. A straw vote (4;
taken to not reference the Catalina ferry as a traffic solution.
comment was opened.
comment was closed.
CE 1.0 Mobility
Elwood Tescher presented an overview of the goals and policies on mobility.
noted there were no changes by GPAC on this section.
Hawkins asked how the word oversized is being used in Goal 1.1.
Waters answered oversize concept works with the relevancy of the level
ice goals of the community.
Hawkins discussed the need for an operational component
Page 7 of 17
" file: //N:1 Apps1 WEBDATAI Intemetl PlnAgendas120051mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
I seems to be a physical characteristic, i.e., adding lanes; level of service
)erational characteristic of how we are going to operate the roadways or in t
of service, the intersections.
Waters noted the concept of the Circulation Element of the General Plan star
the system and work down to facilities then from there down to operations.
it now, we are dealing with the global system. Operational standards become
e of a facility specific characteristic that is discussed under the roadway
em goals and policies.
er Hawkins suggested to include, "or operated ", in addftion
in Goal 1.1.
followed on consistency of the goals and policies under mobility.
1.2.
Tescher noted these policies address the issue of summertime traffic.
1.3.
Tescher noted these policies address truck routes and that GPAC had
minimize noise and vibrations.
Hawkins noted that construction truck trips are not noted in
section.
noted the goal encompasses all trucks.
comment was opened.
comment was closed.
CE 2.0 Roadway System
Tescher reported this section addresses the nature of the roadway networl
t is depicted on graphic C3.1 which is the road classification for the City.
ditionally, there has been earlier discussion in terms of the issues associate(
h 2.1.1 addressing the standards of Level of Service (LOS) capacity. LOS B, C
and E are deviations from the existing General Plan. The current General Plar
)ulates a LOS D. LOS B, C and E are the street intersections that are o
icern after the mitigation measures and is a reflection of reality and what wouk
;ur at those intersections as well. He went on to explain the depictions of th(
phic Master Plan of Streets and Highways.
ssioner Eaton noted there are requirements in the Measure M sta
to LOS classifications, does this section meet those requirements?
Edmonston answered that after review with the Orange County Transpo
iority, they do periodic counts at key intersections in the County to det(
rall compliance. There are three intersections counted in NE
iboree /MacArthur, MacArthur /Coast Highway, and Newport Boulevard at
Page 8 of 17
" file:H N: lAppsIWEBDATAI IntemetlPlnAgendas 120051mnl2- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
way. The conclusion was that this would not pose inconsistencies with
and does not fall within the parameters that they would monitor and then
an issue with.
,sinner Eaton asked about the manual referred to in the Grc
ment Element as part of the Measure M and his concern of whether
prohibits or discourages the City from declaring LOS F as acceptable.
Edmonston answered that they were unable to find a version of the manual
element that was current within ten years. The version that he has is a dr
shows potential changes in the wording, but I don't know which way it end
�r Eaton noted his concern declaring any intersection at an LOS F
He asked about potential changes to bring the LOS to an E.
Edmonston answered they were not available as the primary constraint is
me on Coast Highway.
>ioner Eaton noted intersections not on the list, could Goldenrod
from the list?
Edmonston answered it is part of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)
re are some 105 intersections that the City operates. We only monitor
ort on selected ones. Goldenrod is specified on the list of primary intersec
the TPO.
mer Eaton discussed the possibility of LOS E in the airport area as it
by the regional traffic, Irvine traffic, and airport growth. He th
if the Riverside intersection would end up as LOS E.
nmissioner Hawkins discussed the ultimate impact to traffic from Irvine and the
change the LOS in connection with the 73 Freeway at CE2.1.1 C, and Avor
Net improvements and effect on Riverside Avenue.
Edmonston noted the impact of that has not been analyzed in terms of
ief or detriment to the Coast Highway road intersection. It is a physically dif
nnection because of the grade of the street and the grade needed to ramp E
to use.
imissioner Tucker noted the traffic study and the Circulation Element
i prepared as if Coast Highway is going to be widened through Mariner's
the 19th Street Bridge is installed. Is that correct?
Waters noted that the preliminary alternatives were analyzed without tt
provements. The special issues discussion in the Executive Summary after
highlight what would occur if those improvements are not constructed to the
:as. That analysis is relative and will be included in the special issue discus
the whole traffic study report and carried forward into the Environmental Im
:port. If you don't widen Mariners Mile, you are looking at LOS F. He expar
the additional intersections that would be impacted.
Page 9 of 17
" file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet\ PlnAgendas 120051mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
nmissioner Tucker asked staff to confirm if Irvine has LOS E. Mr. We
veered, yes.
itinuing, Commissioner Tucker suggested re- wording LOS E so that
sistent with what Irvine has. He noted he is fine with the concept and
:tion of Goldenrod at Coast Highway from the Policy and the TPO. Or,
Id leave it in and limit the LOS to refer to the ICU values. He n4
nmissioner Eaton's solution is probably the best. There are few places al
ist Highway where people have the ability to outlet from side streets of Coi
Mar and make that left turn, and that happens to be one of them. You n
traffic signal to act as a block.
nan Toerge noted that if we were to change the LOS in the airport area n
the TPO, what would trigger the intersection to go beyond LOS D then 1
�pers are obligated to pay additional funds to be used to improve that
point in time?
r. Edmonston answered yes, the TPO provides that developers pay a share
based on the amount of the added capacity that their project uses up.
airman Toerge noted his concern of changing all the intersections of LOS E di
the setbacks in the areas, the ability to accommodate expanded traffic aisle
d intersections. It seems a gift to the development community to do that and
nalty to the public driving the roads. He noted he is not supportive of changh
use LOS E throughout the airport area if that is the end result. As for the LOS
Goldenrod, he noted possible solutions. He stated the traffic study ai
nmary should expand and include this along with the 19th Street bridge and ti
tening of Coast Highway in Mariners Mile as a not so certain improvement
s could have a dramatic affect on the intersection. He noted he is okay wi
G F at Goldenrod; and not change the airport area beyond the couple
arsections discussed.
ier Tucker noted that LOS E is okay in the airport area with
that the mitigation measures that are listed will be done. He asked
on the TPO and subject of fair share fees.
Edmonston stated that prior to 1999 the wording in the ordinance provided that
developer had to physically implement the improvement at his cost. However.
1999 to make the ordinance compliant to state law, it was changed to where the
velopers have to pay a pro -rata share.
ssioner Tucker noted that we need to have a policy that says we
any lengthening of the bond indenture to cover the toll period. The
be on record.
)mmissioner Hawkins noted his opposition to the change in the LOS in
-port area as that policy change is driven by a LOS in another jurisdiction.
not consistent with Goal 1.1, as we revised. We should not determine our
a surrounding jurisdiction, rather, we should require the surroun
•isdictions to mitigate, to the extent possible, those traffic impacts on our
used by a lower level of service.
Page 10 of 17
" file: / /N:1 Apps1 WEBDATAI Intemetl PlnAgendas 120051mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
)mmissioner Henn noted we seem to be stuck with what other surround
•isdictions do so the real issue is what can we, or should we, do about that?
airport area there are alternatives to deal with the intersections level of sere
at would be acceptable to the population even though it might place an additio
rden on the developer. I would not accept a LOS E in the airport area wh
are are viable alternatives. I don't consider changing the toll booth a via
ernative for Goldenrod, that is just not going to happen. I would sugg
gypping Goldenrod from the list of intersections as I don't see another alternal
deal with that.
Tucker then proposed:
. Policy B leave the language that is in there and add, ...'and any
shared with Irvine.' This would make it consistent.
. Policy E - Goldenrod Avenue, remove from the list and change the TPO.
this is not done by Council then add language at the end to...' not exceedi
an ICU of 1.10.'
imissioner Hawkins asked if a development remote from Goldenrod could
ICU number?
Edmonston answered, yes; however, these projections are for 20 years
Hawkins noted his concern of providing an ICU number without
imit.
iirperson Toerge asked for a straw vote for language on B: which was to add
end, .... "and any intersection shared with the City of Irvine." The result w<
-aw vote: Policy E - leave in and add language opposing any extension of
I booth, put in the General Plan our desire to end that toll booth there. Leal
in place and accepting LOS F at Goldenrod. Straw vote - remove E from
'O and do not set standard for it in the General Plan and if this is not accept:
;n put a cap of ICU 1.1. The result was yes.
comment was opened.
comment was closed.
`tea
Tescher noted that these policies address the safety and efficiency of
Way system. He noted that GPAC had no comments on this section.
nmissioner Hawkins noted exhibit CE2 is actually referred to in Policy 2.1.5.
asked about the deletion of the right turn lane at MacArthur Blvd and Sar
quin Hills Rd. with the inclusion of a directed lane would end up creatinc
>lems on the other side of the intersection with merging. Deleting this woudc
cerbate the problem in my opinion.
Page 11 of 17
" file: //N:1 Apps1 WEBDATAI Intemetl PlnAgendas120051mn12- 06 -05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
Toerge agreed to not delete it.
Eaton asked if this would mean a widening.
Edmonston answered it would either be a widening or a re- configuring of the
right turn lane that comes from westbound San Joaquin and makes that turn.
se are simplistic diagrams for ease of the reader. We have looked at this
section; we are attempting to maximize the existing right of way without the
1 to acquire additional right of way.
Waters added that the median could be narrowed to preserve the parkways
extent possible. He explained potential reconstruction.
'nissioner Hawkins then noted Newport Blvd. and Hospital Rd with adding
left turn lane for the n/b traffic. He asked if this would cause problems c
itai Road and asked why it is needed.
Edmonston answered that the lanes are fairly wide. The second left turn is
current General Plan as a needed improvement and has been identified. It
3ntially not as productive as it looks depending on where people are going 1
steep hill and a large percentage turn left into the hospital or right or
issioner Hawkins noted this seems problematic as there is not left
at Hospital Road.
missioner Tucker suggested that we allow staff to figure out the mechanics
these intersections will function.
airman Toerge noted there is a strong desire of the residents in Corona del M
3 to encourage through traffic from MacArthur to Laguna to not drive throut
village and to use Newport Coast. While it might be a further distance, it is
er drive particularly as Goldenrod gets more and more traffic. Addition
cage to promote traffic on San Joaquin Hills and on MacArthur to avoid ti
qe is recommended.
Wood confirmed the language on CE 2.1.5 as suggested by GPAC
;d by staff.
comment was opened and closed.
2.3
Tescher reported that CE 2.3.4 language was added by staff to consi
ovements in areas with operations issues based on monitoring of tra
litions. GPAC added the word 'additional' to clarify they are in addition
e previously discussed in this Circulation Element.
Cole asked what ultimate width means and how it relates to
Mar.
Edmonston answered this is focused on Mariners Mile and the reason it is
Page 12 of 17
" file: / /N:1 Apps\ WEBDATAIIntemet\ PlnAgendas 120051mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
the City's plan for future reconfiguration of the road requires dedication
)perty and lease interest in various setbacks. These have been based on
sign configuration that does not fully meet CalTrans current standard ai
�refore, it would take more right of way to do that. Staff does not believe that
-essary and this goal is to avoid that. If we take it over from CalTrans, then
i use our own standards. That is what essentially happened in Corona del M
that we could do the landscaping without doing a widening.
Wood asked if the widening could be specific to Mariner's Mile. It was agreed.
sioner Eaton asked if there was a way to get the rest of the third
Mariner's Mile by re- striping.
Edmonston answered staff has looked at it but to do that it requires removal
;ing and a shift of traffic to the south and in that area there is no parking on t
thside adjacent to Bay Shores. Once you get beyond the Bay Club there
;ing on both sides and that could be impacted; however, you need more th
the parking lane to provide that third lane, certainly as long as it is a CalTra
away, and even if it weren't, it is not wide enough to prudently do it in tl
iion. Discussion followed.
comment was opened and closed.
CE 3.0 Regional Transportation
Tescher related that the policy and goals that relate to the regi
insportation system on CE 3.15 and CE 3.16 were modified by the GPA(
ding exploration of feasible alternatives to the 19th Street bridge and
iguage for the opportunity to remove the tolls from the 73 Freeway to rel
ngestion on Coast Highway. He noted this is where the language for oppos
the lengthening of the bond indenture could be inserted.
Hawkins asked what alternatives GPAC had in mind.
Waters answered that they specifically referenced the City of Costa Me
tion that there could be spot improvements made at various points through
em of the existing roadways that could eliminate the need for additii
sinas of the Santa Ana River.
Hawkins noted his opposition to deleting the Santa Ana
Tucker agreed and noted we should defer to the original language.
Henn agreed
Toerge agreed.
comment was opened and closed.
CE 4.0 Public Transportation
Page 13 of 17
" file: //N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet\PlnAgendas \2005 \mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
Tescher noted the policies address a provision of public transportation. '
iges by GPAC were on CE 4.1.1 the committee noted the opportunity
tie services to be included. In CE 4.1.7, they discussed working with
)of district to look at and monitor the demand for all students transportation
)cate for improvements as well.
Eaton noted he agrees.
ssioner Hawkins noted student should be qualified in some fashion such
schools ".
nissioner Cole asked for language clarification of CE 4.1.4 noting this is
as to how we accommodate residential densities.
Wood noted it is accommodated with our policies in the land use element.
policy may not be necessary. It means we should support having densities
are high enough that support transit.
owing a brief discussion it was decided and agreed to change the wording to
commodate adequate residential densities sufficient to support ......" and add tc
4.1.7 .... "and advocate for improvement needs of K thru 12 students."
is comment was opened and closed.
CE 5.0 Trails .
Tescher noted this addresses bicycle trails, pedestrian and equestrii
ties. The graphic is of the Master Plan for bicycle and equestrian trails in tl
GPAC on policy 5.1.1 suggested 'promote'. as it may be constructed by
ber of different techniques. In Policy 5.1.3, GPAC added the word 'trails'
e it more inclusive; on Policy 5.1.13 remove the word 'high'; in Policy 5.1.1
L changed the word to 'develop' rather than provide; and subheading
nsion instead of extend. Policy 5.1.16 addressing the safety of bicycli:
-ence to specific locations was deleted and the inclusion of 'where feasib
the language change. This updates the map of trails.
Wood noted Commission Hawkins suggested changing the title of trails
native transportation modes.
Toerge noted to delete'continue to' in CE5.1.5.
Tucker noted in CE 5.1.3 to add language '...and, where
ssioner Hawkins noted that CE 5.1.13 really refers to Mariner's Mile;
state that.
Waters noted this allows the Commission to consider these crossings and
in very limited areas where the City will invest the money to do this.
Tescher noted this was a suggestion between Newport Blvd and the
:es at Hoag Hospital.
Page 14 of 17
' file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet\ PlnAgendas12005 1mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/0612005
Toerge, add biking in CE 5.1.11.
comment was opened and closed.
CE 6.0 Transportation Systems Management (TSM) /Travel
dement (TDM)
Tescher noted the policies address the transportation management and t
iel demand strategies to reduce the use of the automobile. CE 6.1.2 chang
the GPAC was a clarification of language; CE 6.2.2 the input was from staff
uire development projects to provide facilities commensurate with developme
e and intensity; and GPAC recommendations added water transportation docl
Wood suggested deleting, ....'and result in levels of service below'
cinq with ..."from that'...in CE 6.1.2
Commission inquiry, Mr. Waters noted that these policies would reduce
sioner Hawkins noted that people would be confused using the
and agreed with using Ms. Wood's suggestion.
Commission agreed
comment was opened and closed.
CE 7.0 Parking
Tescher noted the policy changes by GPAC in 7.1.1 clarify that the in -lieu f
Ad not apply to existing development. 7.1.3 refers to the possibility of o&
irces of funding and a priority established to assign to those areas benefit
n the parking improvement. 7.1.4 clarifies land use for residential a
nmercial lots. 7.1.5 is a comparable policy about conversion of commercial k
beach use and incentives were deleted. 7.1.11 clarifies policy by adding lists
ics for water related uses.
Toerge asked:
1.2 - does this serve the goal for on site parking for larger homes?
iswered that was put in the Land Use Element and this is consistent as
new development.
Hawkins:
.1.1 - in -lieu parking fees are not going to apply to existing development and th
efeats the goal. We have waived parking requirements and I think we have lost
�t of money. My goal would be to generate sufficient funds to provide off -strei
arking. I would want to insert , '....including site acquisition, constructioi
peration and maintenance of the off - street City owned parking facilities.'
in Toerge agreed that assessment should be done on projects granted
waiver.
Page 15 of 17
" file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet\ PlnAgendas 120051mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
Eaton asked to be excused at 6:39 p.m.
nmissioner Tucker stated that to be in a position where we have to charge
eu fee wherever there is a waiver is ill- advisable. My other concern is to
will set an in -lieu parking fee that is commensurate with actual costs that cc
I up being a big number. We are not going to create any more on -str
king so this will be for off - street parking which means that land will have to
chased and with today's cost that comes out to about $45 a square foot
J. It becomes impractical and is different than what we have done with of
,inesses. This is a questionable policy to load on to businesses.
Wood added that the City Council suspended the in -lieu parking fee
y years ago. The Commission can waive the provision of parking.
airperson Toerge noted that there are occasions where a parking waiver mi
justified and collecting a fee might not be justified for some projects. How
craft this in such a way that accommodates both of those?
mmissioner Hawkins noted that 7.1.1 goes that far. The Zoning Code or the In•
fee ordinance are where you get your exceptions. There are going to be time:
ere we waive parking and not require payment of an in -lie fee. We want to se
fee and have a policy discussion regarding the application of that requirement.
is does not require the payment of those fees. This says we are setting an in•
i fee.
Assioner Henn noted that in many circumstances it may be impossible for
development to determine the cost of off - street parking.
Wood suggested a substitute proposal. "Establish an in -lieu fee that the
require to be paid when a development is not able to provide the regi
.__ 11
Cole asked why this ordinance was suspended.
Temple explained that the Council suspended it because the Municipal C
blished it at $150 per space per year, which was nothing and it was costing
more to chase after payment.
Wood added that at that time the City Council did not want to set the
mensurate with the actual cost to provide the parking. Staff is now working
a fee at the direction of the City Council.
McDaniel noted there should be a number but it is difficult for us
one.
a brief discussion it was agreed to accept the new wording.
iissioner Hawkins, referring to 7.1.12 proposed to strike "public parking"
"on- street parking spaces ".
ission Cole asked about a policy area to encourage the City to a<
feasible, residential parcels for parking, particularly in Corona del Mar.
Page 16 of 17
" file: //N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet\PlnAgendas \2005 \mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005
Tescher answered the policy indicating the City acquisition makes it i
acquire the residential parcels for parking to support street fronting c
es. It could also be a private citizen acquiring for that purpose as well.
1.6.
review it was determined to use the words "consider relocation ..... for
7.2
Tescher noted the policies related to parking system. There were
vents from GPAC on this section.
comment was opened and closed.
CE 8.0 Transportation Funding
Tescher noted this section refers to transportation infrastructure an(
ations funding. GPAC suggested an additional policy that stipulates tha
sure M sales tax revenues shall not be used to replace private develope
ing that has been committed for any project or normal subdivision obligations.
�r Tucker referring to CE 8.1.9 suggested adding, ..' or
approvals.' it was agreed.
comment was opened and closed.
Page 17 of 17
ADJOURNMENT: 7:00 p.m. to the next adjourned meeting at 6:30 p.m. JADJOURNIVIEN T
BARRY EATON, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
" file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet\PlnAgendas \2005 \mn12- 06- 05gp.htm 06/26/2008