Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-22_GP-LCP IC Agenda Meeting PacketAGENDA General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee September 22, 2010 3:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 2010 Attachment No. 1 3:30-3:35 pm 2. Review of and Recommendations on Airport Area Streetscape Improvements 3:35-4:30pm Attachment No. 2 3. Public Comments on non -agenda items 4. Adjourn 4:30-4:40pm Attachment No. 1 Draft Minutes of August 11, 2010 CITY O NEWPORT BEACH GEN ERAL PLANIMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Action Minutes of the General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee held at the City Council Chambers, City of Newport Beach, on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 Members Present: X Ed Selich, Mayor, Chairman X Leslie Daigle, Council Member X Don Webb, Council Member X Barry Eaton, Planning Commissioner X Robert Hawkins, Planning Commissioner X Michael Toerge, Planning Commissioner Advisory Group Members Present: Mark Cross Larry Frapwell William Guidero Ian Harrison X Brion Jeannette Don Krotee Todd Schooler Kevin Weeda Dennis Wood Staff Representatives: E David Le o, Planning Director X Leonie Mulvihill, City Attorney E James Campbell, Principal Planner X Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner E Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner X Sharon Wood, Special Projects Consultant X I Rich Edmonston, Consultant E = Excused Absence Committee Actions 1. Agenda Item No. 1 —Approval of minutes for April 21, 2010. Action: The minutes were approved as written. Vote: Consensus 2. Agenda Item No. 2 — General Plan/LCP Implementation — Master Task List Action: Receive and file. 3. Agenda Item No. 3 — Fair Share Fee Update Action: The Committee received public comment on the report from the Public Works Department dated July 28, 2010. Bryan Starr of the BIA reviewed a letter dated August 4, 2010, from a coalition of business groups. Peter Herzog of NAIOP, Dan Daniels of Ardell Investment Company, Dennis O'Neil of Hoag Hospital and Scott Meserve of the Koll Company supported the positions in the coalition letter. Steve Ray of the Banning Ranch Conservancy, Chris McElroy and Robin Leffler expressed concerns with Bluff Road through the Banning Ranch property. At the request of Chair Selich, Rich Edmonston explained the history of Bluff Road and the reasons for its inclusion in the fee program. Bluff Road has been on the Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways since January 13, 1958, when the Master Plan was amended to be consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, which already included Bluff Road. Mr. Edmonston noted that lack of consistency of the City's Master Plan with the County's could result in the City not being eligible for regional highway funding, such as Measure M. He explained that the General Plan traffic study and EIR found that Bluff Road was needed under either land use option for the Banning Ranch property; without Bluff Road, West Coast Highway would need to be widened, and that may not be feasible. Mr. Edmonston also explained that cities are required to have transportation funding programs to qualify for regional transportation funding. Newport Beach has had its Fair Share Fee since 1984. The fee has been increased over time, but this is the first comprehensive review of the improvement program and fee, and is based on the updated General Plan adopted in 2006. At the request of Chair Selich, Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that the adoption of a fee does not require environmental review of the individual transportation projects that are intended to be funded with the fee. Planning Commission Chair Hawkins noted that the General Plan EIR included the transportation projects in the fee program, because they are in the Circulation Element. PA Vote: The Committee took the following straw votes on the issues outlined in the report from the Public Works Department dated July 28, 2010. (References to options correspond with the text of the report.) Banning Ranch Right -of -Way Option A — Unanimous Banning Ranch Right -of -Way Dedication Option A — Hawkins, Selich, Webb Option B — Daigle, Eaton, Toerge Roadway Network Assumptions Option A — Hawkins, Selich, Webb Option B — Daigle, Eaton, Toerge Other Right -of -Way Considerations Option A — Hawkins, Selich, Webb Option B — Daigle, Eaton, Toerge Right -of -Way Overhead Costs Option A — Unanimous Payment of Fees Option A — Unanimous MacArthur Blvd/Jamboree Road Interchange Option A — Webb Option B — Daigle, Eaton, Hawkins, Selich, Toerge Changes in Construction Costs Option B — Daigle, Hawkins Option C — Eaton, Selich, Toerge, Webb Phasing of Fee Changes Option A — Unanimous Sources of Additional Funds Option A — Unanimous Cora Newman stated that Government Solutions' clients support the positions in the coalition letter. Steve Ray stated that the Banning Ranch Conservancy has opinions on the issues discussed by the Committee, but objects to the discussion because consideration of the fee program should comply with CEQA. The Committee directed staff to have Revenue and Cost Specialists re -calculate the fee based on their straw votes. On issues where the vote was a tie, the fee should be calculated per both options. 3 4. Agenda Item No. 4 — Items for Future Agenda & Future Meeting Dates The next meeting was scheduled for September 22, 2010, to discuss the Airport Area Infrastructure study and fees. Vote: Consensus 5. Agenda Item No. 5 — Public Comments on non -agenda items Planning Commissioner Eaton expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Planning Commission on the draft Zoning Code, and stated he was considering resigning from the Committee. Planning Commission Chair Hawkins also expressed dissatisfaction, and stated he is resigning from the Committee. Council Members Daigle and Selich encouraged the Planning Commissioners to remain on the Committee. 6. Agenda Item No. 6 — Adjourn - Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. 4 Attachment N®0 2 Airport Area Streetscape Improvements CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GP/LCP IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. September 22, 2010 TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Special Projects Consultant 949-644-3222, swood@newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Airport Area Streetscape Improvements RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction on the following questions: 1. Should the City Council approve the streetscape improvements recommended by ROMA Design Group for the area southwest of MacArthur Boulevard? 2. Should the City Council direct staff to do the work necessary to establish an infrastructure fee for future residential developers in this portion of the Airport Area to contribute to implementation of the streetscape improvements? DISCUSSION: Background: General Plan Policy LU 6.15.18, pertaining to walkable streets in residential villages in the Airport Area, reads as follows. Retain the curb -to -curb dimension of existing streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park strips and generous sidewalks by means of dedications or easements. Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel parking to calm traffic, buffer pedestrians, and provide short-term parking for visitors and shop customers. This policy is to be implemented through amendments to the Zoning Code, preparation of specific plans and planned community development plans, and development impact fees. When the General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee first established its task list, it included an item called "Airport Area infrastructure study and fee(s)". The City retained Airport Area Streetscape Improvements September 22, 2010 Page 2 ROMA Design Group, who had prepared the framework for residential development in the Airport Area for the General Plan update, to study infrastructure changes to implement Policy LU 6.15.18. Residential uses on the northeast side of MacArthur Boulevard were expected to be developed by two major property owners (Koll and Conexant), who were expected to be responsible for creating walkable streets within their developments. Therefore, ROMA's scope was limited to the southwest side of MacArthur Boulevard, where there are numerous smaller property owners and where City coordination of walkable street improvements would likely be needed. ROMA worked with staff in the Public Works Department to determine where traffic volumes and existing underground utilities would accommodate changes such as wider sidewalks, landscaping, bulb -outs, and parallel parking. Their report on recommended improvements is attached for the Committee's consideration (Attachment 1). Although dated August 2008, it is the most recent report; staff has held this item in abeyance while the Committee completed its work on the Zoning Code. Analysis: Because staff worked closely with ROMA Design Group in the preparation of the study, staff is comfortable with the recommendations, and believes that they can be implemented without impacts to traffic flow or safety. Overall, staff also believes that the recommended improvements can be implemented without disruption to existing underground utilities. The one potential exception is the recommendations for Dove Street, where Edison, gas and cable lines are under the existing sidewalk. It is likely that these lines would need to be relocated to accommodate tree planting, which would be very expensive. If the Committee and City Council approve the recommended improvements and wish to take the next step to establish a development impact fee for them, staff (or a consultant) would need to estimate the cost of the improvements, and then distribute the cost based on the number of residential units reasonably expected to be developed in the area. This project is not included in the Public Works work program, nor are additional consultant expenses included in the budget for this fiscal year. Staff believes that the Committee should consider the potential impact of the recommended streetscape improvements in light of the potential scope, likelihood and timing of residential development in the area to the southwest of MacArthur Boulevard. As shown on General Plan Figure LU22 (Attachment 2), much of the area bisected by Dove and Quail Streets is designated for mixed use development, but Westerly Place and Spruce Avenue have limited exposure to potential residential development. If residential development occurs only on the opportunity sites identified in General Plan Figure LU23 (Attachment 3), the case for streetscape improvements on the full length of Dove and Quail Streets appears less strong. Airport Area Streetscape Improvements September 22, 2010 Page 3 Since adoption of the General Plan update in 2006, no applications for residential development in the area southwest of MacArthur Boulevard have been filed, and staff has received very few inquiries about residential development in this area. This would indicate that residential development is not likely to occur in this area in the near future. If the City were to establish a development impact fee for streetscape improvements based on current costs, it could be out of date by the time residential development does occur. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.12 and Municipal Code Chapter 15.45 require development agreements for infill residential development in the Airport Area, and the City could require the streetscape improvements or a contribution towards them in a development agreement, even if a fee has not been established. However, it may be in the City's interest to have a plan and fee for streetscape improvements in place to be prepared to implement General Plan Policy LU 6.15.18 with the first residential development proposed for the area southwest of MacArthur Boulevard. Submitted by: Sharon Wood Special Projects Consultant Attachments: 1. Airport Business Area West Side Streetscape Improvements 2. General Plan Figure LU22 3. General Plan Figure LU23 Attachment N®o I Airport Business Area West Side Streetscape Improvements August 6, 2008 10190), a KOO, AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA WEST SIDE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS August 6, 2008 The Master Plan for the Airport Business Area, and the policies adopted in the General Plan recommend that streetscape improvements be implemented in the project area to provide a more pedestrian -friendly environment that can support residential and mixed-use development. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the issues and opportunities associated with making such improvements on key streets west of MacArthur Boulevard, and to formulate reconunendations that can provide the basis for a development assessment fee. The streets throughout the Airport Business Area were designed in the 1970's and 1980's for the existing pattern of commercial and industrial land uses. Much of the right-of-way is consumed by the vehicular roadway; sidewalks are typically narrow (approximately 10 feet), and landscaping is sparse. Several of the streets have excess vehicular capacity and offer opportunities for traffic calming measures that could include: introduction of curbside parking, bike lanes, and/or intersection "bulb -outs", all of which could reduce the speed of traffic, and create a more attractive and safe pedestrian environment supportive of residential and mixed-use development. There are also opportunities for the introduction of street trees and landscaping along the curb, which could reduce the perceived width of the streets, and provide shade and greenery. The Land Use policies of the General Plan call for such enhancements to be implemented throughout the Airport Business Area, while generally maintaining the existing curbs in their current locations. Two principal constraints exist to the introduction of these streetscape improvements: I. Utilities within some street rights-of-way may preclude the introduction of street trees, due to conflicts and the potential costs associated with relocating such utilities. (A description of the utilities beneath each street within the west side of the Airport Business Area is attached to this report). 2. The traffic capacity of some streets may preclude the ability to reduce the number of travel lanes (e.g., from four to two), in order to introduce streetscape or traffic -calming fiir-DI-Yl11MV Working in collaboration with, the City's Department of Public Works to review these traffic and utility constraints, ROMA Design Group has developed the following recommendations for streetscape enhancements that could be implemented on the west side of the Airport Business Area (Figure 1): Roma Design Group • 1527 Smcklon Streel • San Francisco, California 9413 3 TEL (415) 616-9900 • FAX (415) 788-8728 DO � 0, 1 , M1401 Dove Street Dove Street is the principal collector street traversing the west side of the Airport Business Area, connecting Campus Drive on the west with Bristol Street in the southeast. As such, the Department of Public Works has determined that the existing four -lane traffic operation of the street needs to be maintained. Streetscape enhancements will be limited to the introduction of street trees at the curb edge, constructed in a 5 -foot wide parkway, with the trees placed at approximately 25 -foot centers (Figure 2). The predominant width of the sidewalk would be 5 feet. Future development (whether residential or commercial) should be set back by 10 feet to create a landscaped front yard that provides additional greenery and a suitable buffer between the street and the development. Further investigations need to be clone to determine the extent of conflicts between future street trees and dry utilities, which are currently located beneath the sidewalk. Quail Street and Westerly Place Because these streets have less traffic demand, it is possible to reduce the number of travel lanes from four to two lanes, and to introduce curbside parking and bike lanes within the 48 - foot wide carriageway (Figure 3). If dedicated left -turn lanes are required at intersections, the curbside parking lanes could be removed and the street striped accordingly. Alternatively, if a dedicated left turn lane is not required, intersection bulb -outs are recoumnended to calm traffic and to create a safer crossing condition for pedestrians. As with Dove Street, sidewalk trees are recommended at approximately 25 -foot centers, in a 5 -foot wide parkway. Paved areas between each tree could provide access to the curbside parking spaces. Any future residential development would be set back by 10 feet to create a front yard that would also contribute to the landscape character of the street. Although nnuch of Westerly Place falls outside of the residential opportunity zone, because of the 65 CNEL noise contour, its improvement is recommended to support adjacent non-residential development, to create a more enhanced pedestrian environment, and to help transform the industrial character of the area. Spruce Avenue Spruce Avenue is a short street of approximately 600 feet in length, connecting Bristol Street with Quail Street. It serves as one of several gateway streets into the Airport Business Area., Whereas most other streets within the Airport Business Area have a typical right-of-way of 68 feet, Spruce Avenue is 84 -feet wide, with ten -foot sidewalks and a 64 -foot width of pavement. This excessive width is more than what is necessary to accommodate the relatively light levels of traffic that the street carries, and so there are opportunities for enhancements that will both calm traffic and create a more attractive landscaped entry into the area (Figure 4). It is recommended that the street be reduced to two travel lanes, with curbside parking, a continuous bike lane, and an 8 -foot wide landscaped median at the Quail Street and Bristol -2- Vb' M 17— at i Street intersections. It is recommended that the median be open in the central portion of the street (approximately 300 feet) to provide for a central left turn lane to provide access into the adjacent properties. Street trees at 25 feet on center within a 5 -foot wide parkway, and bulb - outs at the intersections with Quail and Bristol are also recommended to create a narrower pedestrian crossing. Other Sheets No additional streetscape enhancements are proposed for Newport Place Drive (which already has a landscaped median) or for Bowsprit Drive, as these streets have a relatively high level of traffic demand. Summary of Recommendations: In summary, the following six streetscape enhancements are recommended for the western portion of the Airport Business Area: 1. Replace the monolithic sidewalks on Dove Street, Quail Street, Westerly Place and Spruce Avenue with a detached sidewalk, a 5 -foot wide parkway strip and shade trees planted at 25 to 30 -foot intervals along the curb edge (Figures 2, 3 and 4). 2. Remove one travel lane in each direction from Quail Street, Westerly Place and Spruce Avenue, and introduce curbside parking and a bike lane in their place (Figures 3 and 4). 3. Introduce an 8 -foot wide landscaped median along Spruce Avenue to improve its gateway appearance. (Figure 4). 4. Introduce sidewalk "bulb -outs" (of approximately 6 -feet in depth) at intersections along Quail Street, Westerly Place and Spruce Avenue, wherever traffic capacity and turning movements allow (Figures 3 and 4). 5. Require new residential or commercial development to set back 10 feet from the property line to create additional front yard landscaping in the case of residential development, or a wider sidewalk for commercial development (Figures 2, 3 and 4). 6. Encourage all uses to have a street orientation (e.g, flush storefronts or elevated front residential entries) to promote activities and "eyes on the street'. 3- Airport Area Utility Survey Dove Street — Westerly PI to Quail St Storm Drain - 48-54", located 5' north or east of the centerline Water Main — 12", located 6' off of the north or east curb Sewer Main — 8-10", located 5' south or west of the centerline Dry Utilities — in the 6' parkway on the north or east side under the sidewalk Street Lights — various locations in both parkways Quail Street — Westerly PI to Dove St Storm Drain — 24", 5' south of the centerline Water Main — 8-16", 6' off the southerly curb Sewer Main — 8", 5" north of the centerline Dry Utilities — centered in the south parkway under the sidewalk Street Lights — various locations in both parkways Westerly Place — Dove St to Quail St Stam Drain — none shown on plans Water Main — 8", 6' off the west curb Sewer Main — 8- 10", approximately 20' off the east curb Dry Utilities — centered in the east parkway under the sidewalk Street Lights — various locations in both parkways Corinthian Way — MacArthur BI to Birch St (48' curb to curb with 6' sidewalk and 4' parkway behind sidewalk) Storm Drain — none shown on plans Water Main — 8", 6' off the north curb Sewer Main — 8-10", 5' south of centerline Dry Utilities — centered in the north parkway Street Lights — south parkway only Newport Place — MacArthur BI to Dove St Storm Drain — 60", 11' north of the northerly median curb Water Main — 8", 6' off the southerly curb Sewer Main — 15", 14' off the northerly curb Dry Utilities — centered in the northerly parkway Street Lights — in the raised median Spruce Street — Bristol St North to Quail Storm Drain — none shown on plans Water Main —16", 6' off the west curb Sewer Main — 8", 5' cast of the centerline Dry Utilities — centered in west parkway Street Lights — both parkways Bowsprit Drive — MacArthur Bl to Dove St Storm Drain — none shown on plats Water Main — 8", 6' off north curb Sewer Main — 5' north of centerline Dry Utilities — none shown but likely centered in the south parkway Street Lights — south parkway only Notes: 1. Sewer lines do not follow coves in the street, but rather use tangents, so in curve areas the location is not a fixed distance from the centerline or either curb. 2. Agreements with the dry utilities were not readily available. Commonly such agreements require the utility to bear the cost of relocation for a City project. Legend - Dove Street - Quail Street/Westedy Place Spruce Avenue Cam Ddw BRch Street ab �9r C Forch/ld Rea, c a G, ns p reel Fig.1 STREET SECTION KEY MAP Pig. 2 DOVE STREET 0 10 20 Street Tree @25' o.c. I VT Z 7 W W n 10.0' 10.0 72.0' 17.0 17.0 17.0 10.0 10.0 Setback SldemikSidewalk Setback 68.0 Right Of Way Pig. 2 DOVE STREET 0 10 20 FOU Street Tree Bulb -Out at A A `I A Fig. 3 QUAIL STREET /WESTERLY PLACE 0 f0 201 Street Tree (M'ox. j Bulb -out at Intersedlons 14.a 14.a A mill T� 4 10.0- 1 10.0 B.a 6.0' 12.9 12.a 12.a 6.a' S.a 10.a 70.0 Setback Sidewalk ian/LeftT n Sidewalk Setback e4.a Right Of Way Fig. 4 SPRUCE AVENUE 0 Io 20 it .r �r 1 Fig. 4 SPRUCE AVENUE 0 Io 20 it Attachment No. 2 General Plan Figure LU22 CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FIGURE LU22 AIRPORT AREA QSub-Areo Conceptual Q Development Plan Area Tidelands and submerged lands City Boundary Land Use ^� Delineator Line ^i Highway 65 CNEL Noise l' Contour Refer to anomaly table g v a 25050010M SIUW ON .fY g2WOIW P 000 NU.MR 105790. EIP Attachment No. 3 General Plan Figure LU23 _--- •. — _ ..__ --- _ _—__.— F, 0 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure LU23 AIRPORT AREA RESIDENTIAL VILLAGES ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPT DIAGRAM Legend , ";'ORIUNITYSIZES j PRO POSED OPEN SPACES UPROVED RESIDENTIAL STREETS -M PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STREETS 0.1 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN WAYS • 65 CNEL NOISE CONTOUR* CONCEPIUAL PLAN REWIRED TM 65 CNEL Nolle Contour Is shoran Ing ouslrab" purposes only B e R0%%Ms,9a GeouP PROJECT NUMBER 1057401 Mt. 0603,08 E I P