Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/2001 - Study Session1. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session February 13, 2001- 4:00 p.m ROLL CALL Present: Ridgeway, Proctor, Glover, Bromberg, Mayor Adams Absent: Heffernan (excused), O'Neil (excused) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None. 2. CENTERLINE PRESENTATION. City Manager Bludau stated that the purpose of having this item on the agenda was to educate the City Council and staff on the Centerline project. He added that the City did not comment on the first draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), but that comments were due on the Supplemental draft EIR by February 14, 2001. He stated that at the current meeting, Bill Hodge with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) would be providing a presentation. Mayor Adams confirmed that comments from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) had also been provided to the City Council. Mr. Hodge, Director of External Affairs, OCTA, provided the City Council with a copy of OCTA's Long -Range Transportation Plan, entitled FastForward 2001. Mr. Hodge stated that it is predicted that Orange County will face steady growth, which will cause traffic conditions to worsen. In response to population, housing and employment projections, he stated that OCTA has looked at potential impacts on the regional transportation system in Orange County. He stated that this resulted in the FastForward Plan, which extends OCTA's vision to 2030 and is expected to be approved in 2002. Mr. Hodge outlined the goals for the FastForward Plan and they included maintaining mobility levels, providing more transportation choices, expanding non - automotive travel, optimizing the present system, meeting inter- County travel needs, linking land use and transit planning and addressing expanded tourist opportunities. He also listed the accomplishments made by OCTA to date, which included a restructuring of the bus system, increasing the capacity on Metrolink, studying the Centerline rail system and spending money on local streets and freeways. He also highlighted some of the short -term goals of the OCTA. Mr. Hodge explained that the Centerline proposal is a 29 -mile long corridor that runs from the Fullerton Transportation Center to the Irvine Volume 54 - Page 87 INDEX Centerline Presentation OCTA (54) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 13, 2001 1 1017 D1:� Transportation Center. He stated that the system would have 33 stations and would connect with the Metrolink commuter rail system and John Wayne Airport. Mr. Hodge stated that there are four Minimum Operable Segments (MOS), with MOS North proposed to run from Fullerton to The Block shopping center in Orange, MOS Central from the Disney Resort to Park Place in the Irvine Business Complex and two options for MOS South, both of which would run from Irvine to the South Coast Metro area. He stated that the four MOSs will be considered by the OCTA Board on February 26, 2001. Mr. Hodge stated that the corridor chosen is the most heavily populated and contains the largest series of activity centers in the County. He additionally listed some of the major employment centers in the area. Mr. Hodge stated that Orange County's population density is deceptive, with Santa Ana being the second densest city in the State, behind only San Francisco. He added that one in every one hundred Americans lives in Orange County. Mr. Hodge stated that the employment density in the corridor is approaching the level of Boston and added that other cities with such denseness have active and successful rail systems. Mr. Hodge concluded his presentation by stating that the public hearing for the Centerline project was held on January 22, 2001, the decision to select an MOS will take place on February 26, 2001 and preliminary engineering should begin in the Fall of 2002. Mr. Hodge stated that outreach is ongoing for the FastForward plan, with plans to adopt it in the Spring of 2002. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the employment figures for the Irvine Spectrum are currently 55,000, with 70,500 expected by 2003. He pointed out that the handout listed this number as approximately 33,500 and questioned the accuracy of the other information provided in the presentation. Additionally, Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway agreed that the alignment of the MOSs were well located, but that he sees a problem with Orange County developing more jobs than housing and the corridors into the County becoming the congestion problem. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if the OCTA bus system makes money. Mr. Hodge responded by saying that the fares do not cover the entire cost of the system, but that the relative value of maintaining the public transit system versus the costs of maintaining other transportation options makes it a good bargain. Mr. Hodge added that fares are expected to pay for approximately 30% of the Centerline system by 2020, with other funds being used to help cover operating costs. Council Member Glover stated her support for the Centerline system. She asked if the highway funds were protected from supporting the Centerline system. Mr. Hodge confirmed that the highway funds would continue to be spent on highways. Council Member Glover asked if staff had reviewed the EIR. Mayor Adams noted that EQfAC had reviewed the EIR. Volume 54 - Page 88 City of Newport Beach ! Study Session Minutes February 13, 2001 INDEX Council Member Glover stated that she was specifically interested in knowing if Planning had reviewed the EIR to consider the relationship of the Centerline project with John Wayne Airport and plans for the future of Newport Beach. Mayor Adams noted that EQAC did not feel that the EIR adequately identified the impacts on John Wayne Airport. He added that he shares the same concern. Senior Planner Alford confirmed that staff reviewed the supplemental EIR and the major concern is the segment that would begin near the Disney Resort and end near the John Wayne Airport. Council Member Bromberg stated that the EIR was reviewed in depth by EQAC at their meeting of February 12, 2001. He encouraged the council members to look closely at their report. He stated that it's a good report, and nearly all- inclusive. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway confirmed with Senior Planner Alford that staff would communicate the message from EQAC to the Regional Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Chief Executive Officer of OCTA. Robert Hawkins, EQAC Chairman, stated that EQAC's duties include commenting on EIR documents. He added that the comments by EQAC were already forwarded to the FTA and OCTA, and that they included the concern about the EIR failing to recognize the significant impacts on the John Wayne Airport. Mr. Hawkins complimented Senior Planner Alford for his input on this issue and added that EQAC's detailed comments can be found in the section of the report discussing the project description, alternatives and the need for specificity. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway complimented EQAC's report for covering the issues related to the John Wayne Airport. He additionally confirmed with Mr. Hawkins that EQAC looked at the economic and negative impacts of the Centerline project, but that it was not included in the report. Mayor Adams confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that the report from EQAC would be adequate for the City to preserve its rights in the event that the City Council wanted to pursue issues in the future. Mayor Adams suggested that a cover letter be included that indicates the City's support for the comments in the report. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway agreed and complimented EQAC for going ahead with the review. Mr. Hawkins acknowledged Jennifer Wynn, Tom Hyans, Elaine Linhoff and Marge Pantzar. Mayor Adams thanked Mr. Hodge for his presentation and EQAC for their prompt action. Assistant City Manager Wood confirmed that EQAC does have the authority to comment directly on EIR documents from outside agencies. Volume 54 - Page 89 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 13, 2001 Mayor Adams stated that he's only concerned about protecting the City's rights in the future. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that in situations where time allows, EIR documents should come to the City Council first. Mayor Adams agreed and noted that EQAC is an advisory committee only. 3. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED MEASURE S GUIDELINES AND REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY (contd. from 1/9/01 AND 1/23/01). Mayor Adams stated that the City Council is planning to take twelve straw votes at the current meeting. He stated that these votes will provide input to staff so that a policy can be developed and then voted on at an upcoming City Council meeting. Additionally, Mayor Adams noted the correspondence received from Allan Beek and suggested that staff take his comments into consideration when preparing the draft policy. Mayor Adams introduced the first topic, the trip generation rate, and explained that staffs recommendation is to use the average peak hour rate of the land use because it is consistent with the intent of Measure S. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he had suggested at a prior meeting that the average of the land use and the adjacent street be used, but that he has since learned that it is too complicated and too technical. Mayor Adams reminded everyone that the policy that will be developed will only be used to determine if a general plan amendment should go to the voters, and that it will not be used for traffic impact studies or EIR documentation. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's question, Mayor Adams stated that using the average peak hour rate of the land use would trigger votes more easily than the average peak hour rate of the adjacent street. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated his support for using the land use. Mike Erickson, RBF Consulting, technical advisor to the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber of Commerce is recommending that the average peak hour rate of the adjacent street be used because it is more closely indicative of the impacts on the roadway system. Mayor Adams stated that the language of the measure really needs to be the guiding light for the City Council. Council Member Proctor agreed with Mayor Adams' earlier comments that the policy is only setting a trigger point for an election. He added that it's the obligation of the City Council to create a policy that is consistent with what the voters intended when passing Measure S. Mayor Adams received general consensus from the City Council for their support of the staff recommendation on the trip generation rate topic. Volume 54 - Page 90 INDEX Measure S Guidelines (68) , City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 13, 2001 INDEX Mayor Adams stated that in regards to the second topic, trip rates and tables, Measure S indicates that the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual should be used, but it doesn't give direction on how. He added that at a prior meeting, he recommended that staff determine the peak hour generator rates for all of the land uses in the ITE Manual. He stated that this table would become a part of the policy, and would be updated as the ITE Manual is modified. Mayor Adams suggested that the table include information on what decisions staff made in developing the various rates, and why. City Attorney Burnham suggested that a legend could be used. Mayor Adams received general consensus from the City Council for their support of the staff recommendation on the trip rates and tables topic. Mayor Adams introduced the third topic, land use for trip rate calculation. City Attorney Burnham stated that if the City can enforce restrictions on a property, the trip rates generated should be used. He added, however, that if the City can't enforce the restrictions, then the highest trip rate for a permitted use should be used. In response to Council Member Glover, City Attorney Burnham added that there may have to be some consideration given to the current use and the proposed use. Council Member Glover additionally confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that the guidelines being developed for Measure S would be independent of any provision of the State Zoning and Planning Act, or other state laws. City Attorney Burnham stated that he hoped to clarify the topic of land use trip rate calculation further with staff. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that the staff recommendation is to calculate the peak hours based on the highest rate of any land use to the maximum extent that is allowed in that entitlement, even if the property is being used for less. Mayor Adams agreed that it was an obvious conclusion and would disallow a property owner from avoiding a vote, and then later increasing the use intensity of the property. Mayor Adams received general consensus from the City Council for their support of the staff recommendation on the land use for trip rate calculation topic. Mayor Adams introduced the fourth item, morning or evening rates. He confirmed with Transportation/Development Services Manager Edmonston that staff is recommending that the highest weekday rate be used. Mayor Adams added that the City Council should be aware that by supporting the staff recommendation, they are really exempting churches on their weekend use. Council Member Proctor stated that Measure S does not give guidance on Volume 54 - Page 91 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 13, 2001 INDEX the topic. City Attorney Burnham agreed. Council Member Glover stated that some churches are located in the heart of residential areas, and exempting them could cause a problem. She additionally suggested that how general plan amendments are presented to the City Council needs to be changed, but stated that this would be a separate discussion. Mayor Adams received general consensus from the City Council for their support of the staff recommendation on the morning and evening rates topic. Mayor Adams stated that he was not in support of the staff recommendation for the fifth topic, definition of floor area, because the definition of floor area pertains to the intensity clause in the measure. He added that the only need to define floor area in the measure is for the 40,000 square foot intensity threshold. City Attorney Burnham stated that he had received similar comments and agreed with the change. Per the request of Council Member Proctor, Mayor Adams explained that the ITE Manual should not be used to define floor area because floor area has to do with intensity and not with traffic. Further, he stated that the gross floor area should be used. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway agreed that using gross floor area rather than net floor area would be the simplest. Mayor Adams noted that it is the conservative approach. He received general consensus from the City Council to use the code definition of gross floor area. Mayor Adams introduced the sixth topic, residential uses. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he agreed with the staff recommendation to not include floor area when considering residential uses. He stated that the number of dwelling units should be looked at only and not the floor area of those dwelling units. Mayor Adams explained that the three thresholds of Measure S are peak hour trips, dwelling units and square feet. He stated that the policy should specify if residential uses should have one threshold or two thresholds. Mayor Adams received general consensus from the City Council for their support of the staff recommendation on the residential uses topic. Mayor Adams introduced the seventh topic, parking structures. He stated that staff is recommending that parking structures not be included in the floor area calculation. He noted a letter from Susan Skinner - Caustin, which supported including the parking structures in the floor area calculation. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway further noted a letter from Allan Beek, also supporting the inclusion of parking structures. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that Measure S is only related to traffic and, therefore, only gross floor area workspace should create the trigger mechanism. City Attorney Volume 54 - Page 92 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 13, 2001 IIeIII W11 Burnham added that supporting the staff recommendation is consistent with not using floor area when calculating the threshold of residential uses, because neither parking structures nor residential floor area generate traffic. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the supporters of Measure S should consider the repercussions of supporting the use of parking structures and its lack of consistency with the intent of the measure. Council Member Bromberg stated his support for counting parking structures as floor area. He explained that the stated purpose of Measure S is traffic, but that the measure references both intensity and density. He stated that he doesn't feel it violates the single subject rule. Council Member Proctor agreed that there isn't a single subject rule problem, but he said he has a hard time understanding how a parking structure could increase traffic. Mayor Adams stated that he didn't think the voters meant to include parking structures in the calculation of floor area. He said that parking structures are generally not included when calculating floor area. Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive, explained that the reason her daughter, Susan Skinner - Caustin, wrote in support of including parking structures in the floor area calculation is because it minimizes the amount of allowable floor area for office or other uses which, in essence, reduces traffic. Mayor Adams received general consensus from the City Council for their support of the staff recommendation on the parking structures topic. He noted, however, that not everyone was in agreement and two council members were absent, so requested that staff include alternate language in their final report so that the item could be discussed further. Mayor Adams introduced the eighth topic, the look back provision. City Attorney Burnham stated that the City Council has three options to consider and that staff is recommending using the effective date of the measure, which was December 15, 2000. He explained that this option is most consistent with the intent of the measure, which is to prevent piecemealing. He stated that another date that could also be used would be the date the Notice of Intent was published, which was July 30, 1999, and noted that the only general plan amendment approved after that date was the Extended Stay America project. From information received by the City Attorney on court rulings, Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated his understanding that if an initiative is silent on retroactivity, then it's best to go prospectively. Council Member Bromberg stated that he used to support going back ten years prior to the date of approval, but is now in support of the staff recommendation. He stated that the way the initiative is written, it doesn't make it consistent or logical to use a retroactive look back provision. Council Member Proctor agreed with Council Member Bromberg and Volume 54 - Page 93 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 13, 2001 INDEX City Attorney Burnham for providing the case law. Mayor Adams received general consensus from the City Council for their support of the staff recommendation on the look back provision topic. Mayor Adams introduced the ninth topic, credit for trip reductions. City Attorney Burnham pointed out that with or without a credit for trip reductions, the square foot threshold would still apply. The staff recommendation was to not use a credit for trip reductions. Council Member Bromberg stated that it doesn't seem logical to penalize a developer who reduces traffic. Mayor Adams stated that another way to look at it is that it would allow a property owner or developer to take advantage of something done by a prior property owner or developer. He added that other thresholds also have the capability of triggering a vote. After general discussion, he noted that it could effect the statistical areas that are almost maxed out. Council Member Glover asked how the credit for trip reductions related to the land use for trip rate calculation topic. City Attorney Burnham stated that if credit is given for trip reductions, uses could be intensified in a statistical area. He stated that staff will take this into consideration when drafting the policy. Mike Erickson, RBF Consulting, technical advisor to the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, stated that traffic impact is the only thing that should be considered. He supported using a credit for trip reductions because it provided a benefit to someone who reduced trips. Mayor Adams explained that if a developer proposes a project with fewer trips than the entitlement, then a credit is given for the trip trigger because there are less trips. He added that the discussion on whether to use a credit for trip reductions is more about the look back provision and the intensification in a statistical area. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway further explained that the trip reductions are applied to the traffic analysis and the fees paid. City Attorney Burnham stated that the credit would be given when prior amendments are looked at. After further discussion, Mayor Adams received general consensus from the City Council for their support of the staff recommendation on the credit for trip reductions topic. He requested that staff include information in the staff report on the issues brought up. City Attorney Burnham confirmed that he would have alternate language that the City Council could choose to adopt. Nancy Skinner stated that credit for trip reductions should be used, since the goal of Measure S is to reduce traffic. Volume 54 - Page 94 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 13, 2001 INDEX Mayor Adams pointed out that including the credit would actually increase traffic because it would allow some very small projects in some specific instances to go through without a vote. Council Member Proctor added that the language in Measure S supports not using a credit for trip reductions. Mayor Adams introduced the tenth topic, general plan data. City Attorney Burnham stated that staff is recommending that a table be used to keep track of the thresholds in each of the 49 statistical areas, as a way of determining if an amendment would require voter approval. Mayor Adams confirmed that it should make it easier for an applicant to determine if their project might require voter approval and for staff to write the report. Planning Director Temple stated that it's a way to do the accounting on an ongoing basis, rather than creating it each time. Mayor Adams received general consensus from the City Council for their support of the staff recommendation on the general plan data topic. Mayor Adams introduced the eleventh topic, amendments pending a vote. He stated that the staff recommendation was to not count amendments pending voter approval for purposes of the look back provision. Council Member Proctor asked if amendments pending voter approval from the same entity should be counted. City Attorney Burnham stated that amendments pending voter approval should not be considered prior amendments, and this would not change regardless of the vote results. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway agreed that the intent of Measure S supports the staff recommendation. Per the inquiry of Council Member Proctor, City Attorney Burnham stated that not including amendments pending voter approval from the same entity doesn't allow for piecemealing because of the limited period of time from City Council approval to the vote. City Attorney Burnham confirmed that he didn't feel it was necessary to count amendments pending voter approval from the same entity. Mayor Adams stated his concern for different entities wanting to use up the allowed development in a statistical area first, and which entity would be considered before the other. Allan Beek suggested that prior amendments would be determined by the general plan amendment number. Mayor Adams received general consensus from the City Council for their support of the staff recommendation on the amendment pending a vote topic. Mayor Adams received general consensus from the City Council for their support of the staff recommendation on the twelfth topic, applicant information, which was to provide the applicant with guidelines and opinion. Volume 54 - Page 95 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 13, 2001 PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT - 6:00 p.m. trr, e: rt, a,r,r,r * * + + + +t�to-t +rrrxtt * *,r,r The agenda for the Study Session was posted on February 7, 2001, at 1:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. &�LA �v�l Recording Secreta y Mayor City Clerk Volume 54 - Page 96 INDEX i