Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/1998 - Study Session0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session December 14, 1998 - 5:00 p.m Present: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Debay, Ridgeway, Noyes, Mayor O'Neil Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. REVISIONS TO TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE. Mayor O'Neil reported that Council appointed a committee 5 to 6 months ago to look at possible revisions to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). He noted the diversity of the committee members and emphasized the City's effort to get varying parties to provide input. He stated that, although the proposed TPO may not be the best work product, it does comply with some of the legal concerns. Mayor O'Neil stated that, if Council approved the schedule, the group hopes to forward this to EQAC and EDC, then to the Planning Commission, and back to Council for formal adoption in March. He indicated that there will be opportunity for further modifications during the • public outreach meetings. Planning Director Temple presented a slide show of her presentation. She stated that the TPO is not the only tool to manage growth in the City and simplified the use and purpose of the TPO. She explained that "critical intersections" are those intersections subject to TPO analysis and are arterial highways which have traffic signals and intersect with other arterial highways /public streets. Ms. Temple also clarified the amount of traffic increase that would require a traffic study; how fair share fees are distributed; the importance of the ICU count and how rounding the number can affect the count; and how a project could be approved with a 4 /5th override vote. Ms. Temple stated that, as a result of the TPO, intersections have been improved by developers; projects have been scaled back in order to be approved or to avoid making improvements; the City now has specific rules to guide the environmental review process; and the community supports the process. Ms. Temple explained that amendments to the 'FPO are being proposed because the City Attorney is of the opinion that the TPO is vulnerable to a legal challenge based on recent court decisions. Further, the City can protect its traffic standards while maintaining its ability to accommodate desirable new growth. She reviewed the significant changes, explaining that the revisions will acknowledge that a limited number of intersections will be congested during peak hours. Further, it will allow some development to precede certain intersection improvements; allow the city to approve • development without requiring undesired intersection improvements; provide greater legal defensibility; and formalize traffic study procedures in the municipal code. Ms. Temple stated that development projects will still be analyzed for circulation system impacts and will pay circulation system mitigation costs only in proportion to their impact. Volume 52 - Page 234 INDEX Traffic Phasing Ordinance (26) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes December 14, 1998 • In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Ms. Temple stated that standards will be the same throughout the City unless Council directs staff to prepare alternative language. She noted that alternatives may be reviewed as the issue is moved through the public review process and may also come about as a result of the public review process. Council Member Glover expressed the opinion that Council may want to look at the airport area differently because it is strictly a business area. Ms. Temple stated that the committee discussed that possibility; however, they initially wanted an ordinance that does not require an environmental impact report. In response to Council Member Glover's question regarding Section 15.40.010.C, Ms. Temple stated that this accommodates if Council wishes to not require certain intersection improvements. Ms. Glover took issue that Council was not provided with any listing of intersections. Regarding Section 15.40.030.A.1.a, Ms. Temple clarified that "unsatisfactory level of service" is the .90 threshold. Transportation and Development Service Manager Edmonston clarified that a traffic distribution map is included in the TPO that shows the consultant's best estimate of where traffic is coming from. He stated that the traffic model, which is different than the TPO, uses the numbers found from the research conducted on the average length of trips. Council Member Glover expressed concern with the affect not having the 19th Street bridge will have on Mariner's Mile. Regarding Section 15.40.30.A.2.d, Ms. Temple stated that a project's impact will be analyzed but exempt from mitigation requirements. Further, that the improvement • may be avoided until Council decided to conduct the improvement. Regarding Sections 15.40.040.A and F, Council Member Glover took issue that she was not provided with Table IV and Appendix A. Council Member Debay expressed concern that no improvements will be allowed in West Newport if the 19th Street bridge is not constructed and hoped that Council will look at artificial constraints. She also expressed concern relative to the impacts of neighboring cities on Newport Beach. Council Member Debay requested and received clarification from City Attorney Burnham relative to the 4 /501 override vote. Following a clarification by Ms. Temple of "undesirable intersection improvements," Council Member Ridgeway took issue with the concept. He stated that this means that its intent is to not address the undesirable intersection improvements. Mr. Burnham clarified that the concept is not to exclude all the intersections that may have congestion, but is limited to the intersections where it would function at or below the LOSD standard if the improvement were made and one that Council determined that the general planned improvement should not be made. Council Member Ridgeway stated that this does not take into consideration the possibility that a circumstance may change. Further, that the City has built -in limitations and that this creates a situation where the City will have more traffic and congestion. Mr. Burnham clarified that the reason for introducing the concept was to avoid the litigation situation that occurred in the City of Laguna Beach. Council Member Ridgeway expressed the opinion that, as • written, Council is aggregating its responsibility to the citizens. Council Member Adams reminded Council that they are previewing something that will go out to the public for input. He stated that the objective is to make the TPO workable and that Council does not need to Volume 52 - Page 235 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes December 14, 1998 • deal with the bigger issues tonight. Council Member Adams reported that the technical committee made changes to the exempt intersection component of the TPO that makes it more understandable. Mr. Burnham stated that he would prefer to have one more meeting with the group before taking the proposed TPO to the public. Mayor O'Neil suggested bringing the draft back to Council prior to taking it to the public. Council Member Adams concurred that all the attachments should be included to make it a stand -alone document. Council Member Ridgeway suggested attaching the fair share fee ordinance to the document. Philip Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150, stated that the TPO has been in revision for more than 3 -years and the existing TPO was vulnerable to legal challenge. He stated that, although the draft is far less ambitious than the business people were sponsoring, important progress has been made. He emphasized that they (business community) have never bought into the 4 /5th override provision. Mr. Bettencourt indicated that they wondered if the 300 trip -end requirement is necessary as it seems low. Further, they remain disappointed that the current version puts off addressing the inconsistency between the TPO requirement that intersections operate at no worse than a .90 ICU, while the general plan concludes that a number of the intersections in the airport area are projected to operate at ICU levels over .90. He stated that they believe the process should be wrapped up and moved forward to the public hearing process. • Jean Watt stated that she appreciated being involved in the process and that she is glad it is going public. She also appreciated all the work Mr. Burnham has done to incorporate all the comments. She stated that they (SPON) want to stay at Level D (urban standard). She noted that what people see on the roads during summer and Christmas is worse than what is being discussed. Ms. Watt noted that the circulation system is really big at certain intersections and that there is no place for it to grow and expressed concern with land use and exempting intersections. She noted that the last general plan update was conducted in 1988 and suggested conducting one prior to exempting intersections. Barry Eaton, 727 Bellis, agreed with Ms. Watt's suggestion, stating that the larger problems should be incorporated in a general plan update. He believed that the thing that will attract the most public attention is the exempt intersection category. He suggested taking out the exemptions to the intersections adjacent to Eastbluff. Allan Beek believed that the 4 /5th override provision should be removed and suggested improving the general plan to include intersection improvements. He expressed concern over requiring a smaller developer to pay for the intersection improvement and suggested not improving the intersection until all funds are available. He expressed the opinion that this was a good start. Assistant City Manager Wood requested and received clarification from • Mayor O'Neil that Council wanted another round of technical revisions to come back to Council prior to public review. Mayor O'Neil suggested bringing this back January 11, 1999. Volume 52 - Page 236 0"U C J • • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes December 14, 1998 A INDEX REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING El Toro ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS BEING PREPARED BY THE Airport COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF IRVINE RELATING TO (54) EL TORO MCAS. City Attorney Burnham reviewed the impacts Alternatives B and C would have on the area. He stated that the alternatives that have received more interest and comment in the City are Alternatives F and G; however, believed that neither alternative can be selected by the County without further environmental documentation. He noted that Alternatives F and G also give Council and the community some indication of what is likely to happen if a commercial airport does not happen at the El Toro site. Mr. Burnham explained that the City's Comments on the NOP for EIR 573 request that the County analyze the traffic impacts of Alternative C using Newport Beach traffic model standards; and evaluate the traffic, noise, and air quality impact of Alternatives F and G. He reported that the comments are due on January 18. He stated that he welcomes Council input, and that he has also requested that the City's special airport counsel review the NOP and provide him with input. In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Mr. Burnham reported that the County is not legally required to automatically go to Alternatives F and G if Alternatives B and C are not adopted. Barry Eaton stated that he has reviewed the NOP and commended Mr. Burnham for incorporating his comments. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE EVENING CONSENT CALENDAR. Item not discussed — None ADJOURNMENT — 6:00 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on December 9, 1998, at 2:20 pan. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 52 - Page 237 No Report