Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_04-20-2017 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS— 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 2017 REGULAR MEETING-6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER—The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Commissioner Lawler III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Vice Chair Peter Koetting,Commissioner Bill Dunlap,Commissioner Raymond Lawler,Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Secretary Peter Zak, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren Staff Present: Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Public Works Director Dave Webb; PlaceWorks Representative Woody Tescher; Associate Planner Makana Nova;Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher recalled his remarks at the prior Planning Commission meeting regarding Local Coastal Program amendments not being reviewed by the Planning Commission. In hearing testimony tonight that potentially conflicts with staff, perhaps the Planning Commission could recall that sometimes the public was correct. Patrick Gormley questioned the veracity of County plans to expand the airport and whether the City was doing anything about those plans. Assistant City Attorney Torres was not aware of any plans to expand the airport and, if there were plans, the City would oppose them. The City's Aviation Committee was actively involved in Federal, State, and County discussions regarding the airport. Commissioner Weigand heard a member of the Board of Supervisors mention expanding the runway, but there were no plans. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF APRIL 6,2017 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to approve the minutes of April 6, 2017,with Mr. Mosher's comments. AYES: Koetting, Dunlap, Lawler, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kramer,Zak, Hillgren Page 1 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/20/2017 VII. CURRENT BUSINESS ITEM NO. 2 DRAFT MARINERS' MILE REVITALIZATION MASTER PLAN (PA2016-081) Site Location: Mariners' Mile (West Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard) Deputy Director Wisneski requested the Planning Commission review the Master Plan in detail,provide comments or request additional information. The Master Plan would return to the Planning Commission in May for a public hearing and action. In 2011,the City Council identified Mariners' Mile and five other areas of the City as needing revitalization. Staff held three public workshops with a premise of identifying potential barriers to revitalization, incentives for redevelopment,and public improvement realms while maintaining General Plan policies and Zoning Code regulations. Requirements for land use, height, and development intensity would not change. Several studies have determined that land uses and densities are appropriate in the area. The Master Plan is not a regulatory document but an idea document with guidelines for redevelopment and private development and with ideas for public improvements. The Master Plan would not result in any direct projects and would not modify Coast Highway. Associate Planner Makana Nova reported staff had received quite a few public comments regarding widening West Coast Highway. The widening of West Coast Highway is a separate project. The draft Master Plan does not modify density, intensity,or height requirements allowed in the General Plan. The draft Master Plan addresses parking and traffic in depth. Public comments also concern views, view corridors from West Coast Highway and Cliff Drive, maintaining a nautical theme throughout Mariners' Mile, encouraging small restaurants and boutique retail businesses,and keeping the Vision and Design Framework in place. Ms. Nova clarified that the Master Plan is intended to supersede the Vision and Design Framework and set implementing strategies for ideas. Woody Tescher, PlaceWorks, advised that the Master Plan built upon the visions contained in the Vision and Design Framework which provided the foundation for General Plan goals and policies regarding Mariners' Mile. The Master Plan will be an implementation tool for the content of the General Plan. The Master Plan is not contingent upon improvements to West Coast Highway. Mariners' Mile is a series of three distinct places: the village core, the harbor area, and the east commercial corridor. The village core was oriented to pedestrians and contained many underutilized properties. Mr. Tescher outlined proposed changes to the alley and traffic signals in the Riverside Drive/Tustin Avenue/Avon Street areas that could improve traffic, parking, and pedestrian access. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated on-street parking on Avon Street(central)would provide parking immediately adjacent to businesses. Associate Planner Nova clarified that Avon Street currently has metered spaces in this area and the public does utilize them. Mr. Tescher reported the harbor area could be more pedestrian-oriented by integrating public areas into sites where additional building occurred. Buildings could be offset to maintain view corridors of the harbor. The General Plan included the notion of a continuous boardwalk along the harbor frontage, but buildings constructed to the bulkhead would prevent a continuous boardwalk. The Master Plan suggested a number of alternative options to replicate a boardwalk without it being along the waterfront. In the east commercial corridor,automobile dealerships would continue to require a conditional use permit. The Master Plan would also encourage the consolidation of small lots as much as feasible,which would facilitate traffic flow on West Coast Highway by clustering driveways. Consolidation of lots would also create a visual sense of smaller building groups rather than a continuous wall of buildings. Bikeways along the inland properties of the village core would relieve bicycling pressure on Coast Highway, increase safety, and create better pedestrian circulation. Crossing improvements over Coast Highway could include pedestrian bridges, enhanced sidewalks, or scrambles. A technical analysis of parking spaces in the area determined sufficient spaces currently existed for employees and customers but in the wrong places. The Master Plan identified several strategies to manage parking better,such as a universal valet operator,an employee parking permit program,adjustment of time limits and pricing,public access to private lots,and in-lieu parking fees. In reply to Commissioner Weigand's inquiry, Mr. Tescher stated the City could implement a revenue-generating contract for a universal valet operator. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Mr. Tescher advised that the Master Plan contained a strategy for shuttle service that could also serve employees in an employee permit-parking program. PAGE 2 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/20/2017 Mr. Tescher noted the Master Plan suggested the village core buildings be brought to the street and the core harbor areas be oriented to plazas. Mr. Tescher presented three images demonstrating nautical styles of architecture proposed in the draft Master Plan. The implementation program is geared to achieve the concepts presented in the General Plan, Vision and Design Framework, and the Master Plan. Recommendations are to name a Mariners' Mile advocate on City staff,form a steering committee,create a Business Improvement District, designate the Master Plan as the standard for reviewing development applications, determine a pilot project, identify sites likely to change and catalyze change, and identify funding sources. Vice Chair Koetting noted the Master Plan contained the likelihood of additional residential uses and zoning allowances. Vice Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. James Johnson opposed the proposal for Avon Street East regarding private property dedication because it seemed to mean the City would condemn and take property. He suggested view corridors be wider. Sharon Ray requested the 200 block of Santa Ana Avenue not be forgotten in planning improvements. Parking along that block was available until approximately 4 p.m., when employees filled the spaces. She suggested multistory parking lots have roofs. Gary Sokolich requested the inclusion of safeguards to prevent glare from white or"cool"roofs. Craig Kennedy remarked that the report referred to 3121 West Coast Highway as a commercial building when it was residential condominiums. Nancy Skinner did not want the view from Cliff Drive Park to be lost. She recalled residents'opposition to a freeway through Newport Beach. Coralee Newman, Government Solutions, advised that the owners of 2332 West Coast Highway were planning to redevelop the property when the current lease expired. The proposed connection through the property would be a taking of property. She had encouraged the owners to meet with City staff regarding redevelopment of the parcel. In response to questions, she indicated that the owners owned the half-acre adjacent to the City parking lot. Ken Gould commented that owners of 2500 West Coast Highway were opposed to the proposed 12 residential units, because they would block access to 2500 West Coast Highway and surrounding parcels. Slavica Milosavljevic questioned the reality of implementing all the improvements proposed in the Master Plan. She supported multistory parking structures. Jim Mosher noted the possibility of a comprehensive revision of the General Plan and questioned whether the Master Plan should conform to the existing or potentially updated General Plan. He found no mention of the Vision and Design Framework in the Master Plan. The City adopted a specific area plan for Mariners'Mile in 1977 which he did not believe had been repealed. Peggy Palmer did not foresee traffic and bicyclists taking Avon Street (west) unless the bluff was cut into. She noted a high level of traffic from the car dealership and vehicles that park along this section of roadway. Norm Beres expressed concern for the view corridor from the cliff above Avon Street. Making Avon Street a two- lane highway did not conform to a village concept. He suggested the Avon Street(east)extension should only be extended for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Deputy Director Wisneski reiterated that the Master Plan and images shown were conceptual. The intent was to repeal the Vision and Design Framework. Staff pulled from the Vision and Design Framework the areas most relevant to today's vision. Associate Planner Nova indicated the improvements shown on private property were concepts and with the uses shown are allowed under current zoning. PAGE 3 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/20/2017 Commissioner Dunlap remarked that the City could not inhibit existing planning applications from continuing through the process. Deputy Director Wisneski reiterated that the Master Plan did not propose any changes to the General Plan or Zoning Code. Thus, projects currently in the planning process would be consistent with the Master Plan. Public Works Director Webb reported the public perception is that the Master Plan was driving the widening of Coast Highway. The General Plan's Circulation Element was drafted to support land development. Existing congestion would increase as development followed the General Plan. In the late 1960s, the City opposed a freeway through the town, and the freeway was moved north. In 1975, the City adopted a resolution for the Mariners' Mile segment of Coast Highway to be six lanes and to be 12 feet wider on the north side. As part of requirements for Measure M funding, the City's Circulation Element had to conform to the Orange County Master Plan Circulation Element. Over the years, many plans for roadway improvements did not occur which resulted in increased pressure on Mariners' Mile. Traffic counts showed 48,000 cars going through Mariners' Mile between Newport Boulevard and Tustin Avenue and 44,000 cars between Tustin Avenue and Dover Drive. General guidelines for the size of roads indicated a six-lane roadway for 30,000 and 45,000 average daily trips. The General Plan called for Level of Service D for arterials and roadways. Currently, the level of service was E. If the General Plan was developed to its full potential, the level of service would be an F. In 1975, the City Council determined the minimum width for Coast Highway through Mariners' Mile could be 112 feet. As a general rule, traffic signals should be 1,000 feet apart. The signals at Tustin Avenue and Riverside Drive are closer together than 1,000 feet and cause more congestion. With six lanes,the lanes would be narrower,which would slow traffic. The third lane would increase traffic capacity. In 2016, the City Councilreviewed the traffic analysis, confirmed the plan for six lanes and a width of 112 feet, and directed the removal of ort-street parking and the addition of a Class 2 bike lane. The preferred configuration was an 8-foot sidewalk on the inland side, a 7-foot bike lane,three 12-foot lanes, a 12-foot center lane,three more lanes, a 7-foot bike lane,and a 6-foot sidewalk on the ocean side. This concept for Mariners' Mile would not be a freeway or a superhighway but comparable to Harbor Boulevard through Costa Mesa. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Public Works Director Webb advised that Caltrans no longer had jurisdiction in Corona del Mar. The median of Coast Highway through Corona del Mar is likely 14 feet wide with landscaping. City Traffic Engineer Brine added that the traffic lanes are 12-14 feet wide through Corona del Mar. The preferred width for a through-lane is 12 feet with 11 feet being the minimum width. Public Works Director Webb stated the traffic count in Corona del Mar is 51,000 cars a day. The two congestion spots in the City are Mariners'Mile and Corona del Mar. The Council has instructed staff to work on a bypass around Corona del Mar in an attempt to relieve traffic congestion. In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiries, Public Works Director Webb stated Measure M funds did not expire. The City could apply for those funds but had not yet done so. Once the City obtained the right-of-way, it would likely apply for funds for a spot widening. The City is currently in the process of pursuing a spot widening at West Coast Highway and Old Newport Boulevard.City Traffic Engineer Brine reported the traffic volumes on Tustin Avenue were relatively low, primarily serving the residential area. The City plans to add an additional left turn-lane from Coast Highway onto Riverside Drive in the future. Because of the number of driveways, raised landscape medians were not feasible along most of Coast Highway due to a number of driveways. Landscape medians were an aesthetic consideration. Public Works Director Webb added that the medians did not have to be raised. Patrick Gormley remarked that Mariners' Mile had been an issue before the City and the Commission since 1963. While the City and the State seemed to prefer accommodating traffic, the residents preferred to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. He suggested that bike lanes be redirected below the bluff. Christopher Cuse suggested removing bike lanes and on-street parking from Coast Highway and requested the actual data for the traffic counts be made public. Jack Mau felt widening Coast Highway would increase traffic speeds and decrease safety. Jill Ayers remarked that no one seemed to consider the three schools, the lack of sidewalks, or the safety of pedestrians in the Heights. PAGE 4 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/20/2017 Lynn Lorenz stated the most recent Council discussion regarding the configuration of Pacific Coast Highway was a May 24, 2016 study session. No action was taken. The minutes reflected Council acquiescence to a six-lane configuration with no on-street parking as a planning option for future consideration. The topic had not been placed on an agenda for public input and a formal decision. Yet, City staff seemed to be claiming it was operating under irrevocable direction from the City Council. Jim Mosher concurred with Ms. Lorenz's comments. He was not aware of an approved widening project for West Coast Highway. The General Plan included a plan for acquiring rights-of-way for the possibility of a future widening of the highway. The widening project was many years in the future because the City had obtained 50 to 60 percent of the needed rights-of-way. He wondered whether the Master Plan should consider a use for the public benefit of the rights-of-way acquired. David Grants felt the traffic counts were not accurate. The City did not have to implement the concepts in the Master Plan. He encouraged the Commission to leave Coast Highway alone. Tom Szulga understood the City was attempting to make Pacific Coast Highway a freeway in an attempt to alleviate traffic on the freeways. He suggested traffic signals remain green fora longer time on Coast Highway. Leslie Kennedy expressed concern regarding the speed of traffic coming from Newport Boulevard and Huntington Beach. She suggested additional traffic signals be installed to increase safety for bicycles and pedestrians. Commissioner Weigand felt the item was not ready for action based on public comments. Further study and community engagement was needed. Perhaps the City should delay the item and consider it as part of the General Plan revision. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Commissioner Weigand felt both the Master Plan and the widening plan were not ready for action. These items should be considered in the revision of the General Plan. Deputy Director Wisneski clarified that the Master Plan was before the Commission. The configuration of Coast Highway was neither in the Planning Commission's purview nor part of the Master Plan. Public comments had focused on the highway configuration. The Master Plan was not affected by the upcoming General Plan update. Commissioner Weigand viewed the two as coinciding. Commissioner Lawler viewed the two as separate issues. The Master Plan was ready for discussion. He had many questions regarding synchronized signals, adaptive traffic measures, and analysis of each intersection for Coast Highway. He had no specific concerns about the Master Plan. Commissioner Dunlap noted existing planning projects might not be part of the revitalization effort. Coast Highway reconfiguration was a separate issue. Public input had been great. He wanted the Master Plan to continue forward, but the Coast Highway configuration should be a separate discussion with more public input. Vice Chair Koetting agreed that the two issues were separate. The Master Plan needed to be refined. Deputy Director Wisneski requested absent Commissioners review the video of the meeting prior to a discussion on May 18. Staff anticipated a General Plan update would occur later in the year and would include a review of circulation patterns through the City. VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None. ITEM NO. 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Director Wisneski reported the May 4 agenda contained a series of amendments. PAGE 5 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/20/2017 ITEM NO. 5 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION,ACTION, OR REPORT None. ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None. IX. ADJOURNMENT—9:03 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, April 14, 2017, at 12:45 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on Friday, April 14, 2017, at 12:20 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Zak, Secretary PAGE 6 of 6 Planning Commission - May 4, 2017 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of April 20, 2017 May 04, 2017, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(oo)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2017 Suggested changes to draft minutes passages are shown in Rtri4=,,keoottt underline format. Page 1, Item 4: "Patrick Gormley questioned the veracity of County plans to expand the airport and whether the City was doing anything about those plans. Assistant City Attorney Torres was not aware of any plans to expand the airport and, if there were plans, the City would oppose them." [I can't be sure, but I suspect Mr. Gormley may have been referring to the recently announced, but as yet poorly defined, "General Aviation Improvement Program" for which the airport is in the process of preparing an EIR, and for which scoping comments were due by May 1. The Plan anticipates a major reconfiguration of JWA's "general aviation" facilities. While within the existing footprint of the airport, it could result in changes in the number and mix of unscheduled flights over Newport Beach (for example, more private jets).] Page 3, last sentence: "Associate Planner Nova indicated the improvements shown on private property were concepts and with the uses shown are allowed under current zoning." Page 4, paragraph 2: "Deputy Director Wisneski reiterated that the Master Plan did not propose any changes to the General Plan or Zoning Code. Thus, projects currently in the planning process would be consistent with the Master Plan." [I suspect this an accurate representation of what was said, but if all projects possible now remains possible under the Plan, it makes one wonder what the purpose of the Master Plan is: evidently, the Plan is seen either as doing nothing (in which case, why bother with a new plan?) or allowing some things that are not now allowed. If it is the latter, that is, if staff regards the new Plan as being less restrictive than the Plan being repealed, I don't think the presentation explained what the new things made possible by the new Plan are.] Page 4, paragraph 5, sentence 5: "Because of the number of driveways, raised landscape medians were not feasible along most of Coast Highway Page 5, paragraph 2, sentence 4: "The widening project was many years in the future because the City had obtained only 50 to 60 percent of the needed rights-of-way." Page 5, paragraph 3: "David Grants Grant felt the traffic counts were not accurate." Page 5, Item 4: "Deputy Director Wisneski reported the May 4 agenda contained a series of amendments to the Local Coastal Program."