Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - GP-12-06-05Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 r_1 Page 1 of 1" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2005 Adjourned Meeting - 3:00 p.m. ile: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120605gp.htm 02/10 /200( INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all resent. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Elwood Tescher, City consultant from EIP Mr. Carlton Waters, City consultant from Urban Crossroads PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS one OSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on December 2, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 OBJECT: MINUTES of the special meeting of November 17, 2005. Minutes Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item to the next available Continued to meeting. next available meeting Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS BJECT: General Plan Update - Review of Draft Land Use Element ITEM NO. 2 General Plan Reconsideration of mixed -use in Mariner's Mile. Update ile: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120605gp.htm 02/10 /200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 2 of 1" Wood noted that when the City Council considered the second half of the Land Continue to next Element, the question arose again on whether residential use should be available mtng Tnitted on the bayside of Coast Highway in Mariner's Mile. Following a briell :ussion, they asked that the question be returned to the General Plan Advisory nmittee with information on which lots in the area would satisfy the 200 feet of tage requirement that had been written into the policy. She then referenced exhibit noting the yellow parcels with the 200 linear foot standard that would J about 69 units. Many of the properties are developed and are not like) didates for redevelopment. Another question posed to GPAC was if smaller were combined to meet the requirement, would they want to include those, or feet parcels as the date of the adoption of the General Plan, or stick to their inal recommendation. GPAC was concerned about view impacts, preservation marinas, land use and compatibility with visitor serving uses such a aurants. They then continued the item and asked staff and the consultant t ie back with specific policies that could address design to deal with thos ies. The Planning Commission could make different recommendations Tescher noted that the calculation for the policy was written for a maximum ut 50% of the land area available for housing, at about 20 units per ac sity yielding about 140 units; the higher density would yield a greater number s; however, the expectation is that in this area there is a two -story height lir the units would be fairly large. The other issue GPAC wanted the traf sultant input on was the question of the trade off of the loss of a commerc and what the implications were on traffic for the conversion to housing. Bas, n the types of uses, the expected total generation of trips would be less ill to be developed strictly as commercial or marine related uses. mmissioner Hawkins asked what would prohibit a super developer from of the parcels together? Tescher answered that was the reason for the questions to GPAC ving parcel adjustments, or, keep what is the current parcelization now. Wood noted that GPAC is looking for better language to tighten up -person Toerge suggested that the Commission wait until GPAC has recommendations. Eaton asked staff for a review of the calculations. Wood noted that the language in the draft land use element does not Iii ing to any geographical area, it just refers to inland of the coast side ners Mile. rissioner Tucker agreed with the Chairman's view to wait for GPAC to with their input. rperson Toerge made motion to continue this item until after the heard from GPAC. mmissioner Cole asked about view corridors, noting the current zoning < two story structures along Mariners Mile. The proposed mixed use would it e : //H:1Plancomm120051120605gp.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 3 of 1_. �he same height limit. What additional view corridors would we be mandating than re not there now? r. Tescher answered the policy that the Commission approved was, "..to requin at buildings be located and sites designed to provide significant visual corridor. the bay from Coast Highway." The issue would pertain to any use on a site. 3AC felt the policy as written was insufficient to guarantee a viable view, so then a question of what a significant view corridor would be. As we come back to th( )mmittee we will present information on realistic options and the impacts of them Chairperson Toerge noted that when this comes back we will have an exac calculation of land area. Clearly this number of units is far less than anticipated in he general discussion without specific data. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None OBJECT: General Plan Update - Review of Draft Circulation Element and ITEM NO, 3 Executive Summary of General Plan Traffic Study General Plan Update Discuss and recommend potential changes to the draft Circulation Element. Continued to Mr. Carlton Waters of Urban Crossroads, consultant representing the City, 01/31/2006 discussed the table summaries noting the difference between 'without project' an With project,' emphasizing that the existing base line is 2002 statistics. Extensive view of development has resulted in very minimal changes to future conditions. then presented and discussed the following tables. . General Plan Build -out with project average daily traffic (ADT). . List of all the roads within the City that are expected to have a growth excess of 10,000 trips per day throughout the City both without project a with project numbers. . The 2002 data baseline represents (and has been verified) an exc worst case scenario for evaluating decisions about the future of the City. . Tables of data presume no improvements whatsoever to the roadway with traffic growth in the region around the City, in addition to the within the City, the total number of deficiencies increases with condition and without project condition. . Failure rates, locations that might experience deficiencies if nothing done and what types of improvements are required to achieve an accer level of service at all intersections within the City. . Intersection level of service summaries . Study Area LOS (level of service) Comparison . Improvement Needs Summary ile : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \120605gp.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 4 of 1' . Intersection Improvement Summary and Comparison Table I . Total of 18 intersections in the current adopted General Plan that w projected to experience LOS E or F operations with proposed improveme compared to a limited number (4) of intersections that the feasib constraints warrant a discussion of whether accepting a LOS D reasonable. rissioner Henn asked about the county-wide increase of 18% expectatior the next 20 years and how it relates to the presented tables and summaries. about this increase and is it something that would be layered on to these counts in these analyses as time goes by? Waters answered that increase has been included in the analysis of ;ground condition against which the City's decision making process sured. It is a static 18% increase and is consistent with regional growth. mmissioner Henn asked about the factors used such as mixed use and the the low range numbers in order to present a worst case scenario of h ws. How did we decide to present the worst case scenario and on what b we think a 10% factor or mixed use is better than an average of the range? Waters noted the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act is t( ure that the decisions are made upon conservative and worst case scenarios. ig the lower numbers minimizes the challenges to the adequacy of thf ironmental process and documentation that has been produced. Wood noted these adjustments had been discussed with the General ate Committee (GPUC) and we have been using this approach following i w and acceptance. issioner Tucker noted this is the Executive Summary of the traffic stu This summary is a plan to plan analysis but I think CEQA requires a plan I analysis. Tescher answered it requires both for General Plans under State Law, yc two no project alternatives which is a comparison to existing use as well as parison with existing plan. Waters noted the summary tables have existing conditions with current the proposed plan as well. Wood noted that GPAC did not go through the Executive Summary in Waters noted that all the tables and graphics from the summaries are in ferPoint presentation. Tucker, referring to the Executive Summary, noted: . Page 1 - an explanation is needed for paragraph 2 ('..with only improvements.....'). ile: //H: \Plancomm \2005\ 120605gp.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 5 of 1" IMr. Waters noted that the preliminary alternatives report that has been reviewed bye I�GPAC, City Council and Planning Commission, has that explicit list and will ensurer it is reproduced in this current study. Wood asked if these additional details would be in the Executive Summary e full traffic study. She was answered in the full traffic study. Commissioner Tucker asked about: The 10% savings as referred to on page 5; this needs to be documented agrees that the more conservative number is the best approach. Asked for and received clarification of charts on page 12 with numbers and definition of grading system of LOS's. Page 17 - problematic intersections and the possible ramifications of makinc the interchange at Newport Coast and the 73 Freeway and make it toll free. GPAC has asked for more information on this possibility. ssioner Henn, referring to pages 7 and 8, noted the daily trip traffic. Peninsula seemed to be dropped and asked that they be reinstated. uing, Commissioner Tucker referring to pages 6 & 7 asked for and rea ation of increase of trips versus without project build out north of n Hills Road and south of Ford Road. ssioner Eaton, referring to Table ES1 asked if another run was reserved at the reduced numbers resulting from the final decision of the Land t Wood answered that there will be two reduced intensity alternatives studied EIR, one being the GPAC recommendations and another being the old st i only minimum. rissioner Eaton asked about Irvine Company entitlement reductions and are reflective in these summaries. Temple answered that they are reflective; however, the numbers are still rperson Toerge asked about the airport area mixed use and the increase with project as opposed to without project. Waters noted the increase was greater in this analysis than seen in previous lyses and is a result on the discussion related to the Conexant site. The Jential uses in the airport area were replacing either office or commercial use: are currently entitled. The Conexant site is an industrial site and industria generate few trips per day on a per acre basis. Replacing that with housinc s that would be an area where you would see a higher trip generated total as < ilt of that industrial /residential change. The total is based on 4,300 units. :ussion continued. (Chairperson Toerge asked for information to be presented that indicates what thel ile : //H:1Plancomm120051120605gp.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 impacts would be without mixed use development in Lido Village, and McFadden Square. Waters noted that the concept of vertical mixed use is based on three stc citation in order to be a viable mixed use concept. The uses being mixed clea suit in a higher level of trip generation. Yet, looking at the daily traffic volum hibits, you see the mixing of uses has had the desired affect of creating vitalization potential for those areas without resulting in any substantial increa traffic volumes that are shown on the arterial roadway systems. Tescher added that in these areas of mixed use such as Cannery Villa! e is a reduction because you are replacing ground level retail with housing. !r areas of suggested mixed use there is still a retail component on the grot and most of what is there today is one level retail as well. There is -ssarily a loss of square footage, you are adding in housing. Where there is al change of use, as in Cannery, there is a slight increase as well. Toerge asked if it was possible to get traffic figures for ision of mixed uses in those contentious areas? r. Waters answered the current General Plan scenario reflects that already. scussion followed on traffic uses, generations, impacts, increases an( >airperson Toerge offered that this needs to be well documented and n the summary as it is going for a vote. Temple noted that on Old Newport Boulevard a stronger mix of medical office :h is a high trip generator, and an increment of residential is planned. ssioner Tucker discussed the Airport Area, Mariner's Mile and noting the zoning does not match up with actual use. iscussion followed on the Airport Area with an increased residential use )mpared with Mariner's Mile retail; traffic distribution and trip generation concepts id the need to make clear the most important factors to rely on. Wood noted that the mixed use adjustment and trip generation rates were ;ervative nor did we apply that adjustment everywhere mixed use is allowed. explained that there already was a coastal adjustment in the coastal area, no the 10% applied in Mariner's Mile. We tried to apply it to only those areas we ght we would get a significant concentration of mixed use, so you would really ive those benefits. immissioner Tucker asked about the description of the improvements, 10 - mber, the number of trips versus the level of service. rperson Toerge noted that the legends could be clarified for the reader Temple noted the bulk of when traffic study analyses are done is shout( on peak hour, which is when we have the most congestion on a city -wi s and experience those commute related traffic issues. The peninsula tra lems are discussed at the end of the Executive Summary in general and Page 6 of 1' ile://H:\Plancomm\2005\120605gp.htm 02/10 /200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 7 of 1' urther detail in the full traffic study with regards to issues of visitor peaks and ummertime traffic, which is different and a more qualitative type of analysis. comment was opened. comment was closed. ulation Element: )rson Toerge noted discrepancy on page 1 under Setting; relevance of Catalina Ferry as a transportation solution; page 10 under pedest ,s and the use of the words 'mixed use'. Tucker noted the use of water transportation services on page 2. ier McDaniel noted the discussion of water taxi service from boaters with water access. Eaton asked why reference bus route 178 on page 8. iissioner Hawkins noted the ferry serves the goal of serving people out of For 'trails' on page 8, a more general term should be used, e.g. 'alterna Waters noted the Catalina Ferry is a part of the regional transportation system. iissioner McDaniel asked about a cap on the number of trips that can out of the harbor and is a transportation source that is limited. ussion followed on regional traffic coming to the City to use the ferry , .her it is considered as a traffic solution or a traffic magnet. A straw vote taken to not reference the Catalina ferry as a traffic solution. comment was opened. comment was closed. CE 1.0 Mobility Elwood Tescher presented an overview of the goals and policies on mobility. noted there were no changes by GPAC on this section. Hawkins asked how the word oversized is being used in Goal 1.1. Waters answered oversize concept works with the relevancy of the level ice goals of the community. mmissioner Hawkins discussed the need for an operational component becau ng seems to be a physical characteristic, i.e., adding lanes; level of service operational characteristic of how we are going to operate the roadways or in t el of service, the intersections. ile: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \120605gp.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 8 of 1' Waters noted the concept of the Circulation Element of the General Plan star the system and work down to facilities then from there down to operations. 'it now, we are dealing with the global system. Operational standards become e of a facility specific characteristic that is discussed under the roadwa,. ;em goals and policies. nmissioner Hawkins suggested to include, "or operated ", in addition to �rsized" in Goal 1.1. :ussion followed on consistency of the goals and policies under mobility. d 1.2. Tescher noted these policies address the issue of summertime traffic. d 1.3. Tescher noted these policies address truck routes and that GPAC had minimize noise and vibrations. missioner Hawkins noted that construction truck trips are not noted in this section. noted the goal encompasses all trucks. is comment was opened. is comment was closed. I CE 2.0 Roadway System . Tescher reported this section addresses the nature of the roadway networl it is depicted on graphic C3.1 which is the road classification for the City. ditionally, there has been earlier discussion in terms of the issues associate( h 2.1.1 addressing the standards of Level of Service (LOS) capacity. LOS B, C and E are deviations from the existing General Plan. The current General Plat )ulates a LOS D. LOS B, C and E are the street intersections that are o icern after the mitigation measures and is a reflection of reality and what wouk :ur at those intersections as well. He went on to explain the depictions of thi iphic Master Plan of Streets and Highways. ssioner Eaton noted there are requirements in the Measure M to LOS classifications, does this section meet those requirements? Edmonston answered that after review with the Orange County Transport iority, they do periodic counts at key intersections in the County to deter rall compliance. There are three intersections counted in New iboree /MacArthur, MacArthudCoast Highway, and Newport Boulevard at C sway. The conclusion was that this would not pose inconsistencies with and does not fall within the parameters that they would monitor and then an issue with. Commissioner Eaton asked about the manual referred to in the Growthl ile: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \1206059p.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 9 of 1' Management Element as part of the Measure M and his concern of whether th manual prohibits or discourages the City from declaring LOS F as acceptable. Edmonston answered that they were unable to find a version of the manual element that was current within ten years. The version that he has is a dr shows potential changes in the wording, but I don't know which way it end missioner Eaton noted his concern declaring any intersection at an LOS F ptable. He asked about potential changes to bring the LOS to an E. Edmonton answered they were not available as the primary constraint is ume on Coast Highway. ommissioner Eaton noted intersections not on the list, could Goldenrod ropped from the list? Edmonston answered it is part of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) re are some 105 intersections that the City operates. We only monitor ort on selected ones. Goldenrod is specified on the list of primary intersec the TPO. missioner Eaton discussed the possibility of LOS E in the airport area as it anced by the regional traffic, Irvine traffic, and airport growth. He thi issed if the Riverside intersection would end up as LOS E. rmissioner Hawkins discussed the ultimate impact to traffic from Irvine and the change the LOS in connection with the 73 Freeway at CE2.1.1C, and Avor set improvements and effect on Riverside Avenue. Edmonston noted the impact of that has not been analyzed in terms of of or detriment to the Coast Highway road intersection. It is a physically difi inection because of the grade of the street and the grade needed to ramp f to use. rmissioner Tucker noted the traffic study and the Circulation Element i prepared as if Coast Highway is going to be widened through Mariner's the 19th Street Bridge is installed. Is that correct? Waters noted that the preliminary alternatives were analyzed without tt provements. The special issues discussion in the Executive Summary after highlight what would occur if those improvements are not constructed to the ?as. That analysis is relative and will be included in the special issue discus the whole traffic study report and carried forward into the Environmental Imp sport. If you don't widen Mariners Mile, you are looking at LOS F. He expar the additional intersections that would be impacted. Tucker asked staff to confirm if Irvine has LOS E. Mr. yes. c'IFontinuing, Commissioner Tucker suggested re- wording LOS E so that it i' nsistent with what Irvine has. He noted he is fine with the concept and they letion of Goldenrod at Coast Highway from the Policy and the TPO. Or, we ile: //H:1Plancomm120051120605gp.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 d leave it in and limit the LOS to refer to the ICU values. He imissioner Eaton's solution is probably the best. There are few places st Highway where people have the ability to outlet from side streets of C Mar and make that left turn, and that happens to be one of them. You traffic signal to act as a block. irman Toerge noted that if we were to change the LOS in the :r the TPO, what would trigger the intersection to go beyond %lopers are obligated to pay additional funds to be used to e point in time? airport area n LOS D then t improve that Edmonston answered yes, the TPO provides that developers pay a share based on the amount of the added capacity that their project uses up. airman Toerge noted his concern of changing all the intersections of LOS E di the setbacks in the areas, the ability to accommodate expanded traffic aisle d intersections. It seems a gift to the development community to do that and nalty to the public driving the roads. He noted he is not supportive of changii )se LOS E throughout the airport area if that is the end result. As for the LOS Goldenrod, he noted possible solutions. He stated the traffic study ai mmary should expand and include this along with the 19th Street bridge and tl iening of Coast Highway in Mariners Mile as a not so certain improvement , s could have a dramatic affect on the intersection. He noted he is okay wi IS F at Goldenrod; and not change the airport area beyond the couple discussed. ier Tucker noted that LOS E is okay in that the mitigation measures that are listed on the TPO and subject of fair share fees. the airport area with will be done. He asked Edmonston stated that prior to 1999 the wording in the ordinance provided tha developer had to physically implement the improvement at his cost. However 1999 to make the ordinance compliant to state law, it was changed to where the velopers have to pay a pro -rata share. ssioner Tucker noted that we need to have a policy that says we any lengthening of the bond indenture to cover the toll period. The be on record. )mmissioner Hawkins noted his opposition to the change in the LOS i port area as that policy change is driven by a LOS in another jurisdiction. not consistent with Goal 1.1, as we revised. We should not determine oui a surrounding jurisdiction, rather, we should require the surro(, 'isdictions to mitigate, to the extent Dossible. those traffic impacts on ou by a lower level of service. mmissioner Henn noted we seem to be stuck with what other surround isdictions do so the real issue is what can we, or should we, do about that? airport area there are alternatives to deal with the intersections level of sere it would be acceptable to the population even though it might place an additio rden on the developer. I would not accept a LOS E in the airport area wh ire are viable alternatives. I don't consider changing the toll booth a via arnative for Goldenrod, that is just not going to happen. I would sugg Page 10 of 1' ile: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \120605gp.htm 02/10 /200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 11 of 1" ropping Goldenrod from the list of intersections as I don't see another alternatives f o deal with that. Tucker then proposed: . Policy B leave the language that is in there and add, ...'and any shared with Irvine.' This would make it consistent. . Policy E - Goldenrod Avenue, remove from the list and change the TPO. this is not done by Council then add language at the end to...' not exceed an ICU of 1.10.' imissioner Hawkins asked if a development remote from Goldenrod could ICU number? Edmonston answered, yes; however, these projections are for 20 years Hawkins noted his concern of providing an ICU number without iirperson Toerge asked for a straw vote for language on B: which was to add end, .... "and any intersection shared with the City of Irvine." The result wE (w vote: Policy E - leave in and add language opposing any extension of booth, put in the General Plan our desire to end that toll booth there. Leal i place and accepting LOS F at Goldenrod. Straw vote - remove E from ) and do not set standard for it in the General Plan and if this is not accept, i put a cap of ICU 1.1. The result was yes. comment was opened. comment was closed. 2.2 Tescher noted that these policies address the safety and efficiency of Way system. He noted that GPAC had no comments on this section. imissioner Hawkins noted exhibit CE2 is actually referred to in Policy 2.1.5. asked about the deletion of the right turn lane at MacArthur Blvd and Sal auin Hills Rd. with the inclusion of a directed lane would end up creatint )lems on the other side of the intersection with merging. Deleting this woul( :;erbate the problem in my opinion. Toerge agreed to not delete it. Eaton asked if this would mean a widening. Edmonston answered it would either be a widening or a re- configuring of th( right turn lane that comes from westbound San Joaquin and makes that turn. ile://H:\Plancomm\2005\120605gp.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 are simplistic diagrams for ease of the reader. We have looked at ection; we are attempting to maximize the existing right of way without to acquire additional right of way. Waters added that the median could be narrowed to preserve the parkways extent possible. He explained potential reconstruction. nissioner Hawkins then noted Newport Blvd. and Hospital Rd with adding left turn lane for the n/b traffic. He asked if this would cause problems ital Road and asked why it is needed. Edmonston answered that the lanes are fairly wide. The second left turn is current General Plan as a needed improvement and has been identified. It intially not as productive as it looks depending on where people are going steep hill and a large percentage turn left into the hospital or right or issioner Hawkins noted this seems problematic as there is not left at Hospital Road. missioner Tucker suggested that we allow staff to figure out the mechanics these intersections will function. hairman Toerge noted there is a strong desire of the residents in Corona del M �ea to encourage through traffic from MacArthur to Laguna to not drive throul e village and to use Newport Coast. While it might be a further distance, it is ster drive particularly as Goldenrod gets more and more traffic. Additior gnage to promote traffic on San Joaquin Hills and on MacArthur to avoid tl laage is recommended. Wood confirmed the language on CE 2.1.5 as suggested by GPAC ed by staff. blic comment was opened and closed. 2.3 Tescher reported that CE 2.3.4 language was added by staff to consi( ovements in areas with operations issues based on monitoring of tra litions. GPAC added the word 'additional' to clarify they are in addition e previously discussed in this Circulation Element. Cole asked what ultimate width means and how it relates to Mar. . Edmonston answered this is focused on Mariners Mile and the reason it is he the City's plan for future reconfiguration of the road requires dedication )perty and lease interest in various setbacks. These have been based on sign configuration that does not fully meet CalTrans current standard ai :refore, it would take more right of way to do that. Staff does not believe that cessary and this goal is to avoid that. If we take it over from CalTrans, then % n use our own standards. That is what essentially happened in Corona del M that we could do the landscaping without doing a widening. Page 12 of Y ile: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \120605gp.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 13 of Y IMs. Wood asked if the widening could be speck to Mariner's Mile. It was agreed. sioner Eaton asked if there was a way to get the rest of the third Mariner's Mile by re- striping. Edmonston answered staff has looked at it but to do that it requires removal cing and a shift of traffic to the south and in that area there is no parking on t thside adjacent to Bay Shores. Once you get beyond the Bay Club there cing on both sides and that could be impacted; however, you need more th the parking lane to provide that third lane, certainly as long as it is a CalTra away, and even if it weren't, it is not wide enough to prudently do it in It (ion. Discussion followed. comment was opened and closed. CE 3.0 Regional Transportation Tescher related that the policy and goals that relate to the regic nsportation system on CE 3.15 and CE 3.16 were modified by the GPAC ding exploration of feasible alternatives to the 19th Street bridge and iguage for the opportunity to remove the tolls from the 73 Freeway to relic ngestion on Coast Highway. He noted this is where the language for opposii the lengthening of the bond indenture could be inserted. Hawkins asked what alternatives GPAC had in mind. Waters answered that they specifically referenced the City of Costa Me tion that there could be spot improvements made at various points through em of the existing roadways that could eliminate the need for additi( sings of the Santa Ana River. Hawkins noted his opposition to deleting the Santa Ana Tucker agreed and noted we should defer to the original language. Henn agreed Toerge agreed. comment was opened and closed. CE 4.0 Public Transportation Tescher noted the policies address a provision of public transportation. ' iges by GPAC were on CE 4.1.1 the committee noted the opportunity tle services to be included. In CE 4.1.7, they discussed working with )ol district to look at and monitor the demand for all students transportation >cate for improvements as well. Eaton noted he agrees. ile: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \120605gp.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 14 of 1' (Commissioner Hawkins noted student should be qualified in some fashion such ash IDublic schools ". nissioner Cole asked for language clarification of CE 4.1.4 noting this is as to how we accommodate residential densities. Wood noted it is accommodated with our policies in the land use element. policy may not be necessary. It means we should support having densities are high enough that support transit. owing a brief discussion it was decided and agreed to change the wording to, commodate adequate residential densities sufficient to support ......" and add to 4.1.7 .... "and advocate for improvement needs of K thru 12 students." dic comment was opened and closed. Al CE 5.0 Trails Tescher noted this addresses bicycle trails, pedestrian and equestrian lities. The graphic is of the Master Plan for bicycle and equestrian trails in the P. GPAC on policy 5.1.1 suggested 'promote'. as it may be constructed by a fiber of different techniques. In Policy 5.1.3, GPAC added the word 'trails' to m it more inclusive; on Policy 5.1.13 remove the word 'high'; in Policy 5.1.14, AC changed the word to 'develop' rather than provide; and subheading a. msion instead of extend. Policy 5.1.16 addressing the safety of bicyclists srence to specific locations was deleted and the inclusion of 'where feasible' s the language change. This updates the map of trails. Wood noted Commission Hawkins suggested changing the title of trails native transportation modes. Toerge noted to delete'continue to' in CE5.1.5. Tucker noted in CE 5.1.3 to add language '...and, where ssioner Hawkins noted that CE 5.1.13 really refers to Mariner's Mile; state that. r. Waters noted this allows the Commission to consider these crossings and in very limited areas where the City will invest the money to do this. Tescher noted this was a suggestion between Newport Blvd and the medical .es at Hoag Hospital. irperson Toerge, add biking in CE 5.1.11. lic comment was opened and closed. sl CE 6.0 Transportation Systems Management (TSM) /Travel Demand iagement (TDM) ile: / /H: \Plancomm \2005 \120605gp.btm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 15 of 1' Tescher noted the policies address the transportation management and iel demand strategies to reduce the use of the automobile. CE 6.1.2 char the GPAC was a clarification of language; CE 6.2.2 the input was from sta uire development projects to provide facilities commensurate with developr e and intensity; and GPAC recommendations added water transportation do Wood suggested deleting, ....'and result in levels of service below' cina with ...'from that'...in CE 6.1.2 kt Commission inquiry, Mr. Waters noted that these policies would reduce CU. sioner Hawkins noted that people would be confused using the and agreed with using Ms. Wood's suggestion. Commission agreed blic comment was opened and closed. CE 7.0 Parking Tescher noted the policy changes by GPAC in 7.1.1 clarify that the in -lieu i uld not apply to existing development. 7.1.3 refers to the possibility of off aces of funding and a priority established to assign to those areas benefit n the parking improvement. 7.1.4 clarifies land use for residential a nmercial lots. 7.1.5 is a comparable policy about conversion of commercial k beach use and incentives were deleted. 7.1.11 clarifies policy by adding lists ics for water related uses. Toerge asked: 1.2 - does this serve the goal for on site parking for larger homes? iswered that was put in the Land Use Element and this is consistent as it new development. Hawkins: .1.1 - in -lieu parking fees are not going to apply to existing development and th efeats the goal. We have waived parking requirements and I think we have lost A of money. My goal would be to generate sufficient funds to provide off-stre arking. I would want to insert , '....including site acquisition, constructio peration and maintenance of the off - street City owned parking facilities.' in Toerge agreed that assessment should be done on projects granted waiver. Eaton asked to be excused at 6:39 p.m. nmissioner Tucker stated that to be in a position where we have to charge eu fee wherever there is a waiver is ill- advisable. My other concern is to will set an in -lieu parking fee that is commensurate with actual costs that cc up being a big number. We are not going to create any more on -str king so this will be for off - street parking which means that land will have to ile: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \120605gp.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 ised and with today's cost that comes out to about $45 a square foot It becomes impractical and is different than what we have done with of asses. This is a questionable policy to load on to businesses. Wood added that the City Council suspended the in -lieu parking fee y years ago. The Commission can waive the provision of parking. sirperson Toerge noted that there are occasions where a parking waiver mi justified and collecting a fee might not be justified for some projects. How craft this in such a way that accommodates both of those? mmissioner Hawkins noted that 7.1.1 goes that far. The Zoning Code or the In fee ordinance are where you get your exceptions. There are going to be time: ere we waive parking and not require payment of an in -lie fee. We want to se fee and have a policy discussion regarding the application of that requirement. s does not require the payment of those fees. This says we are setting an in i fee. Assioner Henn noted that in many circumstances it may be impossible for development to determine the cost of off - street parking. Wood suggested a substitute proposal. "Establish an in -lieu fee that the ( require to be paid when a development is not able to provide the requi .__ „ Cole asked why this ordinance was suspended. Temple explained that the Council suspended it because the Municipal C blished it at $150 per space per year, which was nothing and it was costing more to chase after payment. Wood added that at that time the City Council did not want to set the rtensurate with the actual cost to provide the parking. Staff is now working a fee at the direction of the City Council. McDaniel noted there should be a number but it is difficult for us one. a brief discussion it was agreed to accept the new wording. iissioner Hawkins, referring to 7.1.12 proposed to strike "public parking" "on- street parking spaces ". ission Cole asked about a policy area to encourage the City to a( feasible, residential parcels for parking, particularly in Corona del Mar. I. Tescher answered the policy indicating the City acquisition makes it I acquire the residential parcels for parking to support street fronting c es. It could also be a private citizen acquiring for that purpose as well. review it was determined to use the words "consider relocation ..... for 1.6. Page 16 of 1' ile: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \120605gp.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 12/06/2005 Page 17 of 1' lGoal 7.2 I 1 Tescher noted the policies related to parking system. There were vents from GPAC on this section. comment was opened and closed. CE 8.0 Transportation Funding Tescher noted this section refers to transportation infrastructure an ations funding. GPAC suggested an additional policy that stipulates the sure M sales tax revenues shall not be used to replace private develope ing that has been committed for any project or normal subdivision obligations. :r Tucker referring to CE 8.1.9 suggested adding, ..' or approvals.' It was agreed. comment was opened and closed. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION E • ile: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \120605gp.htm 02/10/200(