Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/2004 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session December 14, 2004 - 4:08 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan (arrived at 4:20 p.m.), Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Daigle, Nichols (arrived at 4:15 p.m.), Mayor Ridgeway Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. 2. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. City Manager Bludau noted that there are three items on today's agenda and reported that Item 3 was meant to be a courtesy to Council and that he is not sure if it needs to be discussed. Regarding Item 4, he stated that Council has told him that this is complicated, but explained that the staff report provides a status report on the alternatives being looked at and to see if there is direction for staff. COAST HIGHWAY CHANNELIZATION (LANDSCAPE MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS IN CORONA DEL MAR) — (C- 3558). City Manager Bludau reported that Vision 2004 has been around for about four years and they are getting clear cost estimates on what it would take to do the project. He added that the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (BID) has requested modifications to the project. Principal Civil Engineer Sinacori acknowledged Project Engineer Crumby and the consultants, Derek McGregor and Harry Kobzeff, who were in the audience. He pointed out that the Vision Plan was displayed on the wall. He stated that he will be presenting three design alternatives, but there can be numerous alternatives. Utilizing a PowerPoint Presentation, he noted that the entire Vision Plan is a $12 million project, but the project being discussed today is just for the existing striped medians. Mr. Sinacori reported that the BID installed bus shelters, trash cans, and benches in 2002; the current project is to landscape the medians; and potential future phases include signalization, lighting, etc. He stated that Council approved the landscaping design in September 2003 when Coast Highway was still under Caltrans authority. He reported that, since the time the medians were built, Caltrans tightened its median standards. He stated that Caltrans relinquished Coast Highway in March 2004. Mr. Sinacori reported that, in the BID's presentation in August 2003, they requested a dual track approach. He stated that Track 1 involved hiring consultants to design the project to Caltrans requirements. He indicated that Track 2 involved more improvements if the relinquishment took place. He stated that the BID requested funding and only received $180,000 in the 2003 -2004 budget. He noted that the BID hoped, in Track 2, to get $12 million from Caltrans for Coast Highway's relinquishment. He added that portions of those funds would be used for improvements and the balance needed for the project would come from State programs and grants. He stated that the BID had always envisioned this to Volume 56 - Page 1362 INDEX C -3558 Coast Highway Channelization (38/100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 14, 2004 INDEX be a phased project if needed. Mr. Sinacori reported that the CdM Residents Association and the Chamber of Commerce worked with the BID to develop the plan; it was presented to over 3,000 residents in 2001; 7,000 mailers were mailed to the community; modifications were made to the plan; it was discussed on Speak Up Newport; and they received letters of endorsement from various Corona del Mar groups, businesses, and residents. He indicated that the City has generated $500,000, which includes a $120,000 BID contribution. Mr. Sinacori reported that, when the original budget was set, there were only concept plans. He stated that, now that they are designing the project, they've discovered things like the old concrete road is just inches below the asphalt. He noted that the theme from MacArthur Boulevard to Poppy is to use Date Palms, King Palms, and African Tulips. He added that they will be trying to landscape as much as possible from curb to curb. He reported that the cost estimate has changed from $650,000 to $990,000 (Alternative 3). Mr. Sinacori indicated that they could spend the $500,000 and get as much as possible (Alternative 1), replace all the striped areas with raised medians and landscape for $755,000 (Alternative 2), or do the expanded scope (Alternative 3). He reported that only 7 of the 14 striped areas will be done in Alternative 1; and Alternative 2 will only cover Dahlia to Poppy but won't do anything to the existing landscape or hardscape. He displayed and compared what the different alternatives mean to the project. Mr. Sinacori reported that Council can authorize staff to move Forward with $500,000 and do as much as possible (Alternative 1) or authorize additional funds to do Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Public Works Director Badum reported that current funding comes from traffic impact fees from the Circulation and Transportation Funds. He stated that the intent of the project is to build channelized medians which are safer and handles traffic more efficiently. He stated that there is about $1 million that hasn't been appropriated, but pointed out that there are several large projects that will be coming up, including the widening of the Jamboree Road bridge off SR -73. He reported that the Circulation and Transportation Funds are supposed to be used for master planning roadways and the efficient handling of traffic. He noted that there are several master plan roads that are not done, something needs to be done with Mariners Mile, and there are potential bottlenecks in the future. He added that these funds are also used to leverage Measure M funds or other competitive programs that the State or Federal government have. He confirmed that the funds come from traffic impact fees and pointed out that the City does not have as many big developments as it previously had. Administrative Services Director Danner indicated that the Circulation and Transportation Funds will have about $1.2 million in it by the end of the fiscal year and about $300,000 goes into this fund a year. Mayor Ridgeway noted that this money is used during the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process to leverage Measure M funds and is not focused on one project. Mr. Badum noted that Alternative 1 uses the existing budget, Alternative 2 can use portions of Circulation and Transportation Funds to complete all the medians, and Alternative 3 is asking to re- landscape existing medians, remove existing hardscape, and plant the proposed landscape palette. He reported that Alternative 3 cannot use Circulation and Transportation Funds because there really is no relationship between re- landscaping and improving traffic /completing a master planned highway. He stated that the City would need to look at using Volume 56 - Page 1363 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 14, 2004 INDEX the General Fund or some other funds. He noted that the Jamboree Road Bridge project is a $5 million project, but they only have half the funds right now. Council Member Webb noted that the City gets about $1.5 million in gas tax money a year, but almost all of that goes towards maintaining the streets. Council Member Rosansky asked if the proposed improvements have other benefits besides being cosmetic. Mr. Badum stated that the raised median basically channelizes traffic which prevents potential conflicts and reduces congestion. Council Member Nichols questioned whether raised medians improve safety since it prevents some people from being able to turn. He added that the medians are not in accordance with the safety and design provisions of the Highway Commission. He stated that, when there is an emergency, vehicles move over and the emergency vehicles drive down the center lane. He noted that fire trucks take wide turns and that he saw a fire truck drive at least 50 feet down the red stripes. Mr. Badum agreed that there are trade offs. He reported that the turn pockets were designed with traffic in mind and that the new turn pockets will be designed so people can get access into the turn pockets at the appropriate time and have enough storage. He confirmed that the City does not meet the State standards for State highways; however, this is the case all over the City. He emphasized that, just because they don't meet the State standards, it does not mean the City is in some sort of liability limbo. He indicated that most of the State's design policies are slanted towards a rural design and that, in an urban situation, what the City has is appropriate and safe. He stated that not making the striped areas available for emergency vehicles is one of the trade offs. He noted that there are raised medians all over the City and the response times for the Fire and Police Departments are very good. He noted that emergency vehicles crossing over the median occurs less often than people making illegal turns over double yellow lines. Mr. Badum reported that the raised medians keep motorists where they're supposed to be, and prevents illegal maneuvers. Council Member Nichols reported that the median down Coast Highway in front of Fashion Island has reflectors. Mr. Badum confirmed that this would not be the case in Corona del Mar, adding that the area in front of Fashion Island has a lot higher speed. He reiterated that they are just proposing to put raised medians where there once were striped medians. He pointed out that they are not changing the width of the lane. Council Member Nichols believed that people don't drive as close to a raised curb as they do a yellow line. He pointed out that there was a picture that showed that people couldn't get into the Marguerite left turn lane because it was backed up. Mr. Badum stated that improving the storage is why they are looking at modifying the left turn lane. He added that they are working closely with the traffic engineers to make sure the turn pockets are appropriately signed. Mr. Sinacori reported that General Services potholed about ten locations and found varying thicknesses of asphalt, an aggregate base, and then the concrete. He stated that the concrete was no more than 12 inches below the asphalt. He reported that the concrete at the Marguerite intersection was only S inches down and they would not be able to plant any large trees. He stated that, if the concrete remained, only low -lying ground cover could be planted. Further, there would be an issue with drainage. Mayor Ridgeway asked why go through a full demolition for $250,000 when wells can be created for the trees. Mr. Sinacori stated that this is already happening at Iris and reported that some of the water seeps from underneath the existing landscape, bubbles up in the road, and drifts out into the travelway. Further, wet asphalt starts crumbling much sooner than it normally does. Mayor Ridgeway indicated that his point is that there may be savings that Volume 56 - Page 1364 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 14, 2004 INDEX were not looked at. Council Member Webb believed that the demolition cost also includes the removal of the existing bomanite pavement. John Blom, Chair of the Corona del Mar BID, stated that they believe that Newport Beach is a world class city and that, if this project is funded and implemented, it will benefit all the residents. He indicated that he is not sure how the original cost estimate of $300,000 was arrived at, but believed it was an unjustified figure based on no real plans. He reported that, without knowing the total cost of what the BID wanted, they pledged $120,000. He believed that Council also knew something had to be done and this is why they voted for the relinquishment earlier this year. He stated that Mr. Sinacori and Mr. Crumby have attended all of their planning meetings to work with them and come up with some hard figures. He indicated that there has been a lot of give and take between the BID and the City. He stated that Alternative 3 is obviously the best but most expensive proposal. He believed that Alternative 1 is hardly worth Council's consideration and doesn't live up to what the BID wants. He stated that this would require further work in the future and would disrupt traffic and business in years to come. Mr. Blom stated that Alternative 2 leaves the project unfinished, mixes old and new median landscape, leaves medians cemented and unplanted, and requires work to be done in the future to bring the project up to the scale they want. He believed that Alternatives 1 and 2 would cost the City more money in the long run. Mr. Blom stated that the board members of the BID feel so strongly about Alternative 3 that they are willing to give another $50,000. He also suggested that the City use the interest that accrues from the $3.5 million from the State for Coast Highway. He stated that this is the only plan that truly fits the Vision Plan, it has the support of the Planning Commission, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, the Economic Development Committee, the Newport Beach and Corona del Mar Chambers of Commerce, and the Corona del Mar Residents Association, and is a plan put together by businesses and residents during many outreach meetings and weekend design charettes which were cosponsored by the City. Mr. Blom believed that developing a plan for Corona del Mar's future was the reason the BID was formed. He stated that this is not just about Corona del Mar, noting that about 40,000 cars a day use the streets. He believed that this is about making the streets safer and more beautiful. He noted that, so far, the ficus trees were removed, palm trees were planted, and businesses built new facades, remodeled, and repainted. He believed that, with Alternative 3, this trend will probably be stepped up. Mr. Blom reported that, excluding car dealerships, Corona del Mar already generates the second highest amount of retail sales tax revenue for the City, believing that this amount will increase along with property values. He stated that this is an investment in the future, pointing out that the BID will contribute 20% of the funds if Council votes to do it right. Mayor Ridgeway asked Mr. Blom if he is suggesting that Council deny the entire project if it does not approve Alternative 3. Mr. Blom indicated that, if Council accepts one of the other alternatives, they will be back before Council asking for budgetary items. Mayor Ridgeway noted that the project has been allocated over $500,000. Council Member Nichols noted that half of the $120,000 from the BID is matching funds from the City. Mr. Blom concurred, but noted that the City does not tell the BID how to spend their funds. Volume 56 - Page 1365 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 14, 2004 INDEX BJ Johnson, Chair of the Residents Association, stated that she is also sending Luvena Hayton's "Merry Christmas" wishes. She indicated that a lot of people feel that Corona del Mar is one of the entrances to the City and, if you want to maintain the property values and have the City look like it should, they need to have this vision in every entrance to the City. She stated that they want to be the example of a community pulling together and helping the City keep more dollars in the coffer by keeping the residents shopping in the City. She believed that the City doesn't look like a world class city when you drive into it, but it has some of the highest property values in California. She confirmed that the Residents Association supported this at its last board meeting, adding that their newsletters have also mentioned the project. She stated that the only negatives they've ever heard were about the crosswalks. Debra Allen stated that she is a Corona del Mar resident and supports the BID's request. She indicated that this is an unusual unification of a community since there are normally conflicts between businesses and residents. However, she reported that, in Corona del Mar, the BID, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Residents Association are all united in their desire to see as much of the Vision Plan implemented as possible. She indicated that this may also slow down traffic. She noted that there are a lot of expensive houses in Newport Coast and they have to shop somewhere. She stated that the restaurants in Corona del Mar are busier than she has ever seen before and believed that the same thing will happen to the CdM commercial strip if it is beautified and made attractive. Council Member Webb noted that Ms. Allen is on the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission and the City is being asked to come up with an additional $494,000. He stated that the BID is offering $80,000 and asked Ms. Allen if there are any park projects that PB &R is willing to give up next year. Ms. Allen indicated that she is not the person who makes that decision. However, she reported that citizens will be coming to ask for the Council's blessing to do private fundraising for some of the improvements. She stated that, if Pacific Coast Highway is improved in Corona del Mar, it will be easier for them to raise money. Further, it will encourage them to raise money because many of those individuals are the same people asking Council for this project. Council Member Nichols stated that he was president of the community association in Corona del Mar and there is a group within Corona del Mar that doesn't share the same concerns as the people in the audience. He indicated that he is always asked by them about parking and how to cross the streets. He believed that the group present tonight does not really reflect the residents of old Corona del Mar. Val Skoro stated that the Irvine Terrace Association supports this project and Alternative 3. He indicated that he previously chaired the Corona del Mar Residents Association and is currently on the board, and for the past six or seven years he attended virtually every BID meeting as an advisor. He emphasized that these groups are virtually unanimous about moving this project forward with Alternative 3. He reported that he visited Spain and Portugal, and that the City needs to enhance its ambiance. He believed that, if this is backtracked, it will cost more money, the project might not get done, and it'll look half done. Sharon Dawson stated that she lives in old Corona del Mar, has an office building there, and is on the BID. She indicated that there will be disappointed residents Volume 56 - Page 1366 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 14, 2004 in Corona del Mar if Alternative 3 is not implemented. Bernie Svalstad reported that this is one of the highest traffic count areas in the City. He stated that he was in Coronado which has some of the most beautiful medians, but noted that the medians are very wide. He indicated that, if you subtract the $71,000 crosswalks, the difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is only $179,000. He stated that the reason they are coming before Council now is because this needs to go out to bid by the first of the year, otherwise it won't get done for another year. Council Member Webb asked how this was to be funded when the Vision Plan was being proposed. Mr. Bludau stated that there were grants that the City thought it'd be able to apply for. He added that there were expectations to receive about $8 million to $12 million for the Coast Highway relinquishment, but the City only received about $3.5 million which is to be used for maintenance over the next two years. Mayor Ridgeway stated that his constituents would be terribly disappointed if he spent CIP money on this project to the exclusion of the alleyways that still need work. Further, there are other projects that he has shortfalled for years. He believed that Corona del Mar is gorgeous as it is and that, at the presentation to Council about this, they were told that this project would be funded by the Caltrans money and grant money. He indicated that the cost estimates were good at the time, but construction costs went up. He stated that he supports the amount that they currently have and that the other alternatives are worthy of Council consideration today. He believed that the BID needs to come back to Council during the CIP process in June. He added that money should be spent on additional parking. He believed that this project is aesthetic since the community is already beautiful. Council Member Webb stated that he could support Alternative 2 if other projects in the budget could be transferred into this one, like the lighted crosswalk project. He indicated that he is troubled with removing the concrete median pavement and the concrete underneath at a great expense to create a low -level landscaped area. He stated that he could support Alternative 2 if the City can fund it without going to the General Fund to draw from unincorporated surpluses. Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg stated that this is a beautiful project, but it is now going to cost substantially more than initially expected. He believed that Council should still be committed to the project because there is a unified community. He believed that Council should listen to what the community wants, but not to the exclusion of other areas in the City. He stated that he is not convinced that, if Alternative 3 goes through, other projects will suffer. He pointed out that construction costs are increasing and will only cost more if the City waits. Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg agreed that Coast Highway from Mariners Mile through Corona del Mar is a statement of the City. He stated that he could support Alternative 3, but believed that the BID needs to come up with more money. Council Member Heffernan stated that he is strongly in favor of Alternative 3, adding that it is time to get on with this project. He noted that this is the entryway for the south end of the City, it is a high traveled area, and is a strong commercial area. He stated that this is where the money should be spent, even if it comes out of the General Fund. He indicated that maybe other CIP projects can Volume 56 - Page 1367 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 14, 2004 be deferred, those moneys could be allocated to this project, and the BID could come up with more money. He pointed out that, if Council waits, this project may be 20% higher in a year. He noted that he did not want to do anything initially, but now he is fully in favor of proceeding and getting it all done. Council Member Nichols stated that, in the past three ,years, the area has gone from having three hours of bottleneck traffic a day to four hours a day. He believed that, if the traffic capacity is reduced, the roads will bottleneck faster and longer. He stated that it takes him an additional five minutes to drive around to get into his garage because he cannot turn at the street he'd like to. He believed that the City will also incur additional liability risk since it is not improving traffic safety and its standards are down. He stated that he does not have a problem with the wider intersections having greenery; however, he does not believe there should be a line of trees that will visually impede seeing across the highway. He indicated that they have not looked at intersection improvements. He noted that there is a solid roadbed that may be useful at some time, believing that putting a road under there is feasible. Council Member Nichols stated that he would support Alternatives 1 or 2, but not Alternative 3. Council Member Daigle stated that she supports Alternative 2 and agreed that, in order to proceed with Alternative 3, the BID needs to work with the City to close the cost gap and the City needs to balance this with the overall needs of the City. Council Member Rosansky stated that he could support Alternatives 1 or 2, but he would need more information about what the City would be sacrificing if it went with Alternative 3. He noted that he represents the other entrance to the City and they would like to get to the level that Corona del Mar is at today. He stated that the City has a limited budget and will be expending a significant amount of money just to maintain Coast Highway. He expressed hope that the BID, the Chamber, and the Residents Association will work with the City in identifying the extra funds to do the entire project. He agreed that it's a worthwhile project that will beautify the area and hoped that the project will be stretched from Laguna to Huntington Beach. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the majority of Council supports Alternative 2. Council Member Webb agreed, but stated that the difference for Alternative 3 may be picked up in projects that have a lower priority or through contributions. 3. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN WEST SANTA ANA HEIGHTS. City Manager Bludau reported that the letter included in the staff report has already been sent. Council Member Nichols asked if there is code enforcement only on the residential portions of West Santa Ana Heights or if it includes the golf course. Mr. Bludau indicated that the City would be enforcing the County area. Assistant City Manager Kiff reported that the letter only covers the area bounded by Bristol Street, Irvine Avenue, Mesa Drive, and Santa Ana Avenue, and does not involve the country club or area south of Mesa. He added that this is the area replicated by the redevelopment project area and includes a few commercial buildings but are mostly homes and apartments, and is across from the Newport Golf Course. Mr. Bludau stated that this is why the City is contracting with the County, as opposed to contracting with Costa Mesa. Mr. Kiff confirmed that some properties that abut Bristol are excluded because they've been in Costa Mesa for several years. Volume 56- Page 1368 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 14, 2004 4. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - LAND USE ALTERNATIVES. Assistant City Manager Wood reminded Council that the land use alternatives are not recommendations or proposals, but are only alternatives that will be studied using the traffic model, fiscal impact model, and environmental analysis, along with build out of the existing General Plan. She added that, once they get those results, they can refine, make adjustments, and do further model runs. She reported that they just want Council to look at the alternatives that were developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and tell them if there is something that is completely in the wrong direction, if something is so infeasible that the City shouldn't waist time or money studying, or if there is something they missed all together. She noted that this has been reviewed by the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) and the Planning Commission, Woodie Tescher, EIP Associates, stated that they are the consultants for the General Plan Update process. He indicated that he will be utilizing a PowerPoint presentation to discuss alternatives that have been identified for 12 study areas in the City. He reported that this is meant to show a range of possibilities and each is intended to be tested. He stated that he would like Council to tell him if something is missing. He noted that the 12 study areas are also posted on the wall. Mr. Tescher reported that the Airport Business Area is one of three areas that GPAC suggested an evolution of change over periods of time. He reported that the fast option for this area increases retail, office, and industrial uses; and the second option adds housing to selected areas. He reported that they are comparing the options to the existing use and the existing General Plan which is always the base alternative in all the options. Mayor Ridgeway asked if GPAC is focusing on the parcels or the geographical area in general. Mr. Tescher indicated that, in this case, they were looking at specific subareas, i.e. the Campus tract immediately adjacent to the airport runways. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the document is really discussing intensities or densities, but felt that a vision was missing for all the areas. Mr. Tescher noted that this document was intended to be the quantification and reported that, in the more detailed papers, some of the areas had a vision. Council Member Daigle asked how. the residential units would be allocated. Mr. Tescher stated that, for the airport area, GPAC looked at specific areas or blocks and asked what areas had the possibility of change over a period of time. Further, they realized that certain uses were not going to change and asked whether there are areas that are suitable for housing in relation to the airport. In response to Council Member Rosansky's questions, Mr. Tescher indicated that the idea is to test each of the options. He stated that a discussion of each of the subareas in terms of what the vision is may not have been completely addressed, but there is a need to talk about this more as they proceed. In response to Council Member Webb's questions, Mr. Tescher explained that determining the implications of the am /pm peak hour trips and allocating to the traffic model is the next step. He confirmed that they need to pick the alternative, compare it to the existing traffic model, and look at other areas to reduce traffic if there is a substantial change. He reported that each of the areas is a subset and Volume 56 - Page 1369 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 14, 2004 INDEX isolation of the total of the City and suspected that, when they see the results of the project, it may cause them to go back and revisit them on a cumulative basis to determine whether all of this makes sense. Mr. Tescher reported that, in the visioning process, this was one of two areas in which the possibility for additional capacity was defined. Council Member Daigle asked if Mr. Tescher was familiar with the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and whether that sort of system was viable for the airport area. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that Irvine allows a transfer of office square footage from one site to another, as long as they remain within the trip budget that was established in the old environmental impact report (EIR). She stated that Irvine has recently been allowing office space conversion into residential development, as long as it maintains the trip budget. She noted that the City has had issues with this because it feels Irvine has not done enough environmental review and the EIR is from 1992. She stated that Irvine is doing a study of their business complex but believed that it is not a comprehensive effort. Mayor Ridgeway stated that, in 1992, the IBC was not developed out. He indicated that Irvine did a master EIR and tried to supplement it through the years. He stated that, if someone in Irvine decreased their usage on the road, that person had a marketable commodity in traffic capacity. He indicated that maybe a traffic capacity analysis could be done for all the subareas, but noted that he is not exactly supporting this. Mr. Tescher noted that he is here because the quantification phase has been done, but Council is jumping ahead to the solutions. He reported that they are working with Burbank where they are creating subareas with trip caps. Council Member Heffernan stated that this has been going on for four years and may be going on longer while Irvine has exploded. He asked how you input all the additional traffic that will be generated when you look at the airport area. Mr. Tescher stated that they are adding the numbers into the trip generation for the increment of change within the City's traffic zones and all the areas outside the City. Council Member Heffernan noted that Irvine indicated that the traffic from their development is not their problem. Mr. Tescher stated that they are looking at the policy regarding land uses within the City and the data from all the adjacent lands. Council Member Heffernan stated that he is not sure what alternative he is looking at without the traffic data. Mr. Tescher indicated that their intent was to get confirmation on the range of options tonight and then they'll go to the traffic consultant tomorrow. He stated that the traffic consultant indicated that it's going to take eight to nine weeks to generate this information. He noted that, once they get this information, they will go back to the same type of process to determine the consequences. Ms. Wood reiterated that the question for this afternoon is whether these are the alternatives that Council wants traffic information on. Council Member Heffernan asked when this will get done. Mayor Ridgeway noted that the original IBC EIR in 1992 did an analysis on 33 million square feet and a regional plan on intersections in Newport Beach. He stated that they have not done anything like this lately. He suggested setting up another meeting with Irvine to establish different guidelines. Council Member Nichols noted that Newport Beach has different traffic standards than Irvine, and the City is being overrun by their traffic. He believed that the Volume 56 - Page 1370 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 14, 2004 INDEX City will have zero buildout because of the areas that are heavily impacted. Mr. Tescher indicated that this is one of the results that the traffic analysis can tell us. City Manager Bludau believed that running the traffic models is going to give the City a lot of information that can be discussed with Irvine in terms of what is available for the City and what Irvine is doing to the City. Mayor Ridgeway noted that this is in the 1992 report and Irvine has not done any mitigation since that period of time. Regarding Balboa Village, Mr. Tescher reported that the first option is to explore converting land outside the core village into housing; the second option is to emphasize water - related uses; the third option is to reuse the area for commercial and mixed use development; the fourth option is to set aside a component for overnight housing accommodations; and the fifth option is to have R -2 type uses. He indicated that the retail/office components are less than the General Plan and are replaced by either housing or overnight accommodations. Mr. Tescher confirmed that the fifth option removes all retail/office uses. Council Member Rosansky noted that, if today is to eliminate alternatives, he stated that the fifth option should be removed as he does not envision Balboa Village will completely eliminate retail /office uses. In response to Council Member Webb's questions regarding the percentages, Mr. Tescher explained that percentages like "7% GP /12% existing for housing" shows that the proposed percentage increase is 7% over what the existing General Plan would allow, and there would be 12% more units than what exists today. Council Member Rosansky noted that this means that this example eliminates retail/office. Mr. Tescher noted that he is leaving out a lot of the discussions about the vision and pedestrian character of this area. Regarding Banning Ranch, Mr. Tescher reported that the first option is the existing General Plan and the following four options are less than the existing General Plan. He reported that the second option would maintain the site as open space; the third option would consider a mixture of housing, local serving retail, lodging, etc.; the fourth option has a similar mix of uses as the third option, but on half the site; and the fifth option was to develop the site with a resort hotel. Council Member Webb stated that he could support the second option only if the City has substantial active parks. He indicated that, if this was an open space area, it would be an excellent spot for a park similar to Bonita Creek or can be a joint use facility with Costa Mesa. Mayor Ridgeway stated that this would be inconsistent with the Sierra Club. Regarding the last option for a resort hotel, he noted that any development would be overlooking the Santa Ana River Mouth, pumping oil wells, and the Sanitation District. Mr. Tescher indicated that limited parklands includes active parks. He believed that GPAC felt that, if it were preserved as open space, an undetermined portion should be set aside for an active park. Council Member Nichols noted that this is now County land with just a one foot strip around it and agreed that quite a bit can be built on it. Mayor Ridgeway reported that Costa Mesa can't get access and the one foot protected perimeter is intentional. He noted that 10% of Banning Ranch is physically in Newport Beach today. Ms. Wood clarified that State law requires the City to plan the entire Banning Ranch area because it's in the City's sphere of influence. Mr. Tescher noted that a fiscal analysis will also be conducted on each of the options. Volume 56 - Page 1371 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 14, 2004 INDEX Regarding Cannery Village, Mr. Teacher reported that GPAC is looking at two subareas (the area east of Newport Boulevard and the commercial site to the west). He stated that the first option for the area east of Newport Boulevard is to accommodate a mix of commercial, industrial, and vertical mixed uses and the second option is to not have vertical mixed uses but set aside a portion of the property internally for ground -based housing. He noted that these options tend to test the reduction of the overall commercial/office capacity and replace them with housing. Noting that he has an office in the Cannery Village, Mayor Ridgeway asked City Attorney Clausen if he has a conflict of interest. City Attorney Clausen indicated that, at this point in time, she does not believe there is a conflict, however, as this starts narrowing down to make bigger decisions, she would review it. Mayor Ridgeway suggested scheduling a future meeting to discuss this further. He believed that two geographical areas with quantifications should be discussed at each meeting. Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg stated that GPUC spent 2'% hours discussing this. Ms. Wood believed that this can be reviewed at one study session, noting that the Planning Commission reviewed this in one hour. Council Member Rosansky emphasized that they're really looking for guidance as to which alternatives to continue to study, and not looking to fine tune this. Mr. Bludau reported that the January 11 study session can be allocated to discuss this, but asked if Mr. Tescher can receive direction to start the analysis and pull back on any of the options that Council feels should be eliminated. Mr. Tescher noted that all the analysis has already been done for the General Plan and existing uses. He reported that GPAC reviewed these options, but noted that there were a number of split votes. He stated that their process was to go through with the analysis, report back to GPAC, Council, etc., and then go out to the public in a forum or workshop. He pointed out that this was only going to take place after all analyses occurred. Mayor Ridgeway noted that Marinapark was supposed to be scheduled for the January 11 study session. Without objection, he suggested placing Marinapark on the regular agenda and dedicating the study session to the General Plan Update alternative discussions. Mr. Tescher reported that, for the Fashion Island /Newport Center area, GPAC added an option to allow additional housing and maintain retail/office to the level that is currently permitted by the existing General Plan. Regarding Mariners Mile, he stated that there was an option to relocate Coast Highway to skirt the base of the bluffs inland, but GPAC believed that this was infeasible and shouldn't be evaluated. Council Member Nichols believed that the options seem to be expanding the General Plan which will exceed Greenlight and asked if this will come back for a Greenlight vote. Ms. Wood indicated that this cannot be answered until a preferred, recommended land use plan is determined. She emphasized that these are just alternatives for further study and are not proposals. Mr. Tescher asked Council to look at the bar charts carefully because the increases are really focused on three or four sites, and the majority of the options that add housing, scales back retail, industrial, and office capacity. He added that the am /pm trip count may be less since you're offsetting commercial with residential traffic. He stated that this will be part of the study-. Volume 56 - Page 1372 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 14, 2004 Mark Tabbert stated that he supports keeping Banning Ranch as open space and that it would pass by 2/3 if it went to a vote. He believed that the longer Banning Ranch stays open space, the more valuable it will become. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT - at 6:20 p.m to Closed Session to discuss terms and conditions of rental agreements for the Marinapark Mobilehome spaces on City property at 17th Street and Balboa Boulevard. He reported that the City negotiators are City Manager Bludau and Assistant City Manager Kiff. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on December 8, 2004, at 4:20 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. %%11.14 � �►.� �i Recording Secretary Volume 56 - Page 1373 INDEX