Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/2000 - Study Session• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session March 14, 2000 - 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, Thomson, Mayor Noyes Absent: O'Neil CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. In reference to Item #8, Construction Site Fencing and Screening Requirements, Council Member Debay asked if there would be exceptions to the fencing. She stated that fencing on smaller lots could eliminate access to a project or cause a hardship. City Manager Bludau stated that an answer would be provided at the evening meeting. Council Member Debay stated that she wanted to make sure that getting an exception wouldn't be too difficult. Council Member Debay also made a comment regarding Item #12, Ocean • Front Street End Improvements, 60th, 62 °d, Cedar, Walnut, and Lugonia Streets. She stated that there were seven streets remaining to be done and she confirmed with Public Works Director Webb that they would be completed over the next two years. Council Member Debay asked for assurance that the Ocean Front and Seashore encroachment fees would aid the undergrounding and sidewalk reconstruction in the area. Public Works Director Webb recalled that the City is obligated to spend the money in the West Newport area. Mayor Pro Tern Adams referred to Item #13, Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and pointed to the difference in figures for the base bid amount of $5,973,000 and the available funding amount of $5,957,000. He asked where the extra money would come from and if the base bid included a contingency. Public Works Director Webb confirmed that the base bid did include some contingencies and is only an estimate. He said that staff will know more after the formal bids are received, including what alternatives can be funded. 2. COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN REVISION PLANNING PROCESSES AND POSSIBLE ROLE OF COMMUNITY SURVEY IN THE PROCESS. City Manager Bludau stated that at the City Council meeting of February 8, 2000, the processes for revising the general plan and conducting a • community survey were discussed. He stated that, at the time, he suggested that a presentation be made on various surveys and the methods involved. Volume 53 - Page 229 INDEX General Plan Revision Planning (68) • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 14, 2000 INDEX City Manager Bludau introduced Carolyn Verheyen of Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) and stated that her presentation would include the types of survey vehicles available, how surveys can work, how other communities have used surveys and what role surveys might play in general plan revisions. Ms. Verheyen began by providing a brief background on MIG. She stated that she heads up a service area in the firm called Management and Policy Planning Services, with a staff of about twelve people. Ms. Verheyen stated that they have been involved with a number of general plan update processes over the years. She cited an example in Pasadena where the general plan was actually a condition of the court settlement in a growth management initiative. She listed other cities and counties that MIG has worked with. Ms. Verheyen stated that they have also done quite a bit of visioning for a number of cities and counties, including a strategic visioning process that was just begun with Laguna Beach. Ms. Verheyen stated that she would provide an overview of community surveys and the role they can play in a general plan update. She stated that she also had a slide presentation to illustrate many optional techniques that the City could put together to engage the public in helping to develop a general plan. She encouraged the City Council to ask questions throughout her presentation, to discuss any of the ideas among themselves and to interact as much as desired. • Council Member Ridgeway asked Ms. Verheyen to provide some background on herself and what visioning actually means to a City. She stated that MIG has people from a variety of backgrounds, but that her education background is in environmental psychology. She said this area combines psychology and the social sciences with planning and design, and the interaction between people and their environments. She said that MIG provides a complete background in the technical planning side as well as the community participation side. In response to the second part of Council Member Ridgeway's question, Ms. Verheyen stated that different communities define visioning in different ways, but MIG feels that it is a process for imagining the future. She stated that it can be as simple as a one -line vision statement to a full-page statement that really paints a picture. Council Member Ridgeway asked what type of answer Ms. Verheyen would give if asked the same thing about quality of life. She stated that quality of life is also difficult to define and many communities are trying to give it substance and definition. She stated that it is interesting to engage people in the discussion, and to not assume that everyone knows or shares the same answer. She stated that finding out how the community envisions quality of life currently and into the future can be done through a disciplined process, such as presenting and debating statements that are contradictory or mutually exclusive. Council Member Debay stated that the City has some pressing issues, such • as updating the housing element, which has a time deadline for completion. She asked if the survey could help with these critical issues in time. Council Member Debay also asked about the timing of the survey in regards to the Volume 53 - Page 230 • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 14, 2000 INDEX initiative on the November ballot. Ms. Verheyen said that for the housing element, a survey should be designed that will take only ten to twenty minutes to complete and has very focused questions. She stated that for the initiative, a survey would probably be part of a larger process. She added that in her experience, if people are satisfied with the general plan as a document to guide future planning decisions, they don't need to plan by ballot box. Ms. Verheyen stated that the City has a very small window to gain the type of confidence and ownership in the general plan that is needed by the public. Council Member Glover stated that she feels it is important to hear from new voices about their visions for the future of the City. She cited examples of some of the long -time residents in her district who are now raising their children in the same neighborhoods they grew up in. Council Member Glover stated that these types of people have a lot of time vested in the community and she'd like to hear what their visions for the future are. Council Member Glover asked how these new voices can be heard since they are the future, more so than the older residents who might have more time to participate in the visioning process. Council Member Ridgeway asked about the confidence of the public in the general plan and their need to plan by the ballot box, in comparison to their confidence in the elected officials. Ms. Verheyen agreed that confidence in their elected officials is important and a more difficult issue to address. She • stated that if the public understands that the general plan is a blueprint document which guides decision - making, they understand that the elected officials are held to its direction. She added that designing a general plan that everyone agrees upon gives the City the opportunity to create a compromise on a community -wide level. Council Member Ridgeway suggested that the City's general plan may not need revising. City Manager Bludau asked Ms. Verheyen to discuss Council Member Glover's earlier comments about engaging people who haven't been engaged in the past and getting their participation in the community visioning process. Ms. Verheyen agreed that it is a time commitment to attend a public workshop, but other techniques can be used such as web sites, newsletters with quick comment sheets or actually going to locations frequented by these people. Council Member Glover disagreed with setting up sites at outside locations. She stated that consensus among the entire community will be difficult to reach, but that each council member might determine the best methodology for their district and really work within their particular districts and villages. She said that once each council member gets a feel for their district, they could come together and try to make the appropriate decisions. Ms. Verheyen agreed that a tailored program within each district is a good idea, with the council members acting as the funnel to bring that information back to the group. • Ms. Verheyen commented on a door -to -door survey done for Laguna Niguel and some other studies MIG assisted on for Newport Beach. She began her presentation by stating that surveys can be statistically valid and provide a Volume 53 - Page 231 J City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 14, 2000 INDEX read on what members of the community think on a variety of issues, if a sound methodology is used with a sampling plan and controls. She stated that surveys can also provide clear direction to decision makers, but shouldn't be used as the only source. She stated that the true value of surveys is that they can provide a representative cross section of opinions and preferences, rather than just hearing from a self- selected group at Council meetings or community workshops. Ms. Verheyen stated that one of the disadvantages of surveys is that people will often question the results, especially if a defensible methodology is not used. She said that the interpretation of the results should always consider the confidence interval and margin of error. She said that some surveys skimp on sample size, which creates a large margin of error. Other disadvantages of surveys are that they can be expensive, are limited if the topics are complex and can be subject to various types of bias. Ms. Verheyen stated that there is a lot more to sound survey research than careful sampling, but that careful sampling can make or break a survey. She said that the confidence level or interval should be considered, with 95% being the industry standard. This means that there is a 95% chance that the survey sample and the population from which it is drawn will look alike. Ms. Verheyen said margin of error is another important factor to consider, with plus or minus 3% to 5% being the industry standard. She stated that • the error depends on the sample size not the population size, which is contrary to what many people believe. A sample size of 500 to 1,000 can be used to attain a small margin of error. She explained that a plus or minus 5% margin of error would mean that a 50/50 yes /no response to a question could represent an actual response of 45/55 if the population were polled. The key is to remember that a survey is never conclusive because the margin of error must be taken into consideration. Ms. Verheyen stated that samples can be obtained in a variety of ways. She stated that a major concern of sample size is choosing one that is large enough to be representative, that no important characteristic has been left unrepresented and that no subgroup differences are left out. She stated that sample size is not a function of population size, but that more respondents will reduce the margin of error and increase the confidence level. Council Member Ridgeway stated that Newport Beach has two cultures and asked how the sample would be chosen in this case. Ms. Verheyen stated that the population Citywide should be looked at and then the appropriate clusters should be considered, with samples drawn accordingly. She stated that Newport Beach will want a large enough sample size so that the margin of error is low at the sub - sample level, enabling comparison of the different areas in Newport Beach. Ms. Verheyen suggested a sample size of approximately 700, or 1,000 if it could be funded. Ms. Verheyen continued her presentation by stating that there are various • methods that can be used to conduct surveys. She stated that the door -to- door intercept method is best when trying to obtain in -depth and complex information, produces high response rates and reduces self - selection bias. Volume 53 - Page 232 • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 14, 2000 INDEX She said the disadvantages are people might be hesitant to participate and it can be an expensive method. Ms. Verheyen stated that telephone surveys are the most popular method, have the fastest turnaround time, provide good quality data for the money, are easy to administer and that quality control is good. She stated, however, that coverage might be lacking, and that interview length and complexity are limited. Ms. Verheyen stated that mail surveys are good for complex questions because maps and visuals can be used, and they are usually inexpensive and easy to administer. She stated that the disadvantages are that the response rate is low, self- selection bias is high because many people throw away the surveys and do not respond and data quality is hard to control due to incompleteness in filling out the survey on their own. Ms. Verheyen stated that there are some factors that can be built into surveys to insure that they will be successful. She listed these to include the use of rigorous scientifically valid methods, keeping it limited to ten to fifteen minutes, focusing on issues where there are distinct choices, providing adequate information to the respondent, including a few open - ended questions, and always citing the margin of error for the full sample as well as any sub - samples. • Ms. Verheyen suggested that if Newport Beach uses a survey in developing its general plan update, the timing of the survey should be considered. She stated that if it is used early in the process, the City could receive information about satisfaction with quality of life, satisfaction with City services, major issues and concerns, and preferred policy direction. Council Member Glover asked if Ms. Verheyen was saying that the City might want to do a survey but not a visioning process when developing the general plan update. Ms. Verheyen agreed that it is an option, and that not all general plan processes involve a visioning element. She added that if the general plan is in fairly good shape, an extensive process does not need to be carried out. Ms. Verheyen stated that if the survey is used later in the general plan process, the City would have the option to look at more specific tradeoffs, policies, sites and issues. Ms. Verheyen continued her presentation by discussing other ways to obtain information. She stated that focus groups can be used for in -depth discussions, can be used prior to a survey, are good for complex issues and can be less expensive if just a few are done. She added that focus groups do not have strong statistical reliability and wouldn't take the place of open public forums. Ms. Verheyen stated that working groups or advisory committees are • another option to use when going through the general plan update process. She explained that these groups explore planning issues and options over several meetings, usually with an application and appointment required to Volume 53 - Page 233 u City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 14, 2000 INDEX be a part of the group. She stated that this method can be labor - intensive staff, but it can result in a lot of agreement and buy -in. Ms. Verheyen also listed community workshops and stated that they can be the mainstay of a community participation program. She said there are many creative ways to make community workshops productive and engaging and satisfying for the participants. It also provides the opportunity for the community to give input while listening to others. She said the workshops are usually comprised of a self - selected group, however. Ms. Verheyen said that graphic recording is a technique that can be used to provide a visual record and flow at a meeting. Ms. Verheyen listed community fairs, booths in public areas, vision festivals, community planning charettes, open houses, information displays, story buses, workshop kits and tours as other ways to provide large scale community events and opportunities for input. She stated that there are also various methods that can be used during meetings such as tradeoff games and electronic voting. Council Member Glover commented on the tradeoff games and her support of the concept. She specifically mentioned that it would be beneficial to look at options and have, for example, an economist available who would calculate the cost of the various decisions. • City Manager Bludau asked about the number of people who could participate in the tradeoff games. Ms. Verheyen stated that MIG has conducted the games in a number of cities and in each case, they were very different games because the issues were different. She stated that Pasadena had small group breakouts at a public workshop with ten groups of eight playing the game. She said that it was also built into the workshop kit so that others could conduct similar games on their own. She said that the information from all the groups can then be submitted and analyzed together. She said it is a good way to look at impacts and benefits of a project, such as the new Dunes hotel proposal. Ms. Verheyen continued listing ideas that Newport Beach might want to consider in addition to surveys, which included youth outreach involvement, engaging the press with conferences and briefings, hotlines, web pages, visual presentations, videos, fact sheets or newsletters, and the actual documents that come out of the planning process. Mayor Noyes stated that he and City Manager Bludau attended a library visioning process the week prior. He said it was an interesting experience and he was surprised by the similar answers received from such a diverse group of people. He also commented about the different districts in the City, as mentioned earlier, and suggested that were really eleven different parts of the City. Mayor Noyes asked about the order in which things should be done referring • to surveys, the visioning process, general plan update process, and staff and professional involvement. Ms. Verheyen said the questions should be identified and then the process can be built around it. She said that once the Volume 53 - Page 234 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 14, 2000 INDEX questions are identified, the best mechanism to engage the community in providing the answers and their opinions can be determined. Mayor Noyes asked for a general overview of what various mechanisms cost. Ms. Verheyen stated that a couple of workshops could cost $10,000 to $12,000. Mail -out surveys cost between $12,000 and $15,000 for a sample size of approximately 500 to 600. She said that using a larger sample size so that sub - samples could be broken out would increase the survey cost to $16,000 to $20,000. Ms. Verheyen stated that a phone survey would probably cost between $25,000 and $35,000, and a door -to -door survey would cost approximately $30,000 to $40,000 or $45,000. She said the estimates are rough and other factors would affect the actual cost. Mayor Noyes asked how the questions are developed. Ms. Verheyen stated that she usually starts with an issues identification meeting, often with the City Council, where the topics are discussed. She said she then drafts the questions, comes back to the City Council and revisions or deletions are made based on priorities. She said that a couple of drafts are usually required before a pilot test is done with actual community members, followed by full -scale administration. Mayor Noyes asked how the issue of bias is dealt with. Ms. Verheyen stated that, for example, when dealing with bias in question wording, there are lots of guidelines for question wording to avoid a question that asks for more than one thing at a time or one that leads to a particular answer. She said that information should be provided regarding both advantages and disadvantages to keep the question objective. Ms. Verheyen added that the other types of bias can also be dealt with. Council Member Thomson asked how typical national surveys of 1,200 people or .002 of the population of voters, as mentioned earlier, can be translated to Newport Beach's sample size. Ms. Verheyen stated that the formula used to determine sample size is complex and population size is only one factor. She stated that 800 to 1,000 would probably be ideal for Newport Beach. City Manager Bludau asked about rules for when to use a survey, whether it's earlier or later in a process. Ms. Verheyen stated that when considering a general plan update process, later is usually more effective to test alternatives or policy direction. She said that if the City feels that it needs an earlier read on larger goals or policy direction, an earlier survey would be better. She added, however, that if the City feels there will be controversial choices later, the survey should be saved for later. She said that both surveys could also be used. City Manager Bludau asked if Ms. Verheyen had seen anyone use the two - survey method effectively. She stated that most entities do not have the budget for both in a general plan update process, and will usually use methods other than just surveys to obtain public input. • Assistant City Manager Wood asked about the cost for tradeoff games. Ms. Verheyen responded by stating that they're approximately $12,000 to Volume 53 - Page 235 • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 14, 2000 INDEX $15,000. She said this includes the development of the materials and production of the supplies. Council Member Glover mentioned the Greenlight initiative and asked what Ms. Verheyen would use to illustrate the traffic and tradeoffs of a new project. Ms. Verheyen showed some materials used in actual land use tradeoff games. She said that assumptions were made from a transportation planner's expert opinion on the number of peak hour trips generated by each land use type. Council Member Glover stated her lack of understanding about how peak hours are determined and some of the initial assumptions that are made. Ms. Verheyen agreed that the planning issue can be complex and tradeoff games can be very enlightening for the participants, while others find that they are too simple and not based on reality. Council Member Ridgeway pointed out that it is unknown, even by economists, if jobs or housing came first. He then asked if the tradeoff games provide the ability to analyze the results of activity in the areas surrounding a City, regardless of what level of growth the City has. Ms. Verheyen stated that the transportation planners, economists, traffic specialists and land use planners that provide information for the tradeoff games know to include what's happening in the region, whether the City under study has no growth, minimal growth or full build -out. She added that there really is no such thing as no growth because adjacent communities affect the entire region. • City Manager Bludau asked if MIG had the various experts on staff needed to conduct a tradeoff game on staff. Ms. Verheyen responded that MIG does not have all the experts on staff, but they do work with professionals to build in the other specialties. She added that MIG is primarily made up of land use planners, participation experts and community designers. At the invitation of Mayor Noyes, Barry Eaton stated that he has participated in approximately six general plan updates as a professional planner. He agreed that a community survey at the beginning is important. He said that even more important is what guiding group assists with the plan. Dan Purcell stated that he had been through a similar strategic planning process at a large community college during a strong economy in a growing community. He said the process trickled down from the top administration of the college and began with focus groups and then an appointed body of representatives. He said it then broke into a survey at the end, which he felt was beneficial and helped to clarify and reinforce the decisions made. Mr. Purcell asked about existing organizations in the community and what role they might play. Ms. Verheyen stated that existing organizations might be partly used in the focus group method where a representative cross section of the community is needed. She stated that an advisory committee can also be drawn from • established groups, but should also include people who are not involved in organized groups. Ms. Verheyen added that the workshop kit can be used by established groups. She said the participation process should be designed to Volume 53 - Page 236 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 14, 2000 INDEX isaccommodate the voices of everyone. Mayor Noyes expressed his concern that there still doesn't seem to be clear direction on how Newport Beach should proceed. He asked if a consultant should be used from the beginning to develop the list of questions and priorities, or if the consultant should be brought in later during the process. Ms. Verheyen suggested that once the questions have been developed, it then might be a good time to bring in a consultant who can help with the optional ways of building a participation process to answer the questions. Council Member Glover stated that she has always felt that if the City can communicate properly with the citizens, the citizens could make a choice on the options they want to choose and the City Council would follow that direction. She said that it is important that a community clearly understand the tradeoffs of various choices. She specifically referenced reducing services when revenues are decreased. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked who would be providing the leadership for the City's general plan update effort. He suggested that questions shouldn't be developed until the bigger issue of how the City is going to go about the process is decided. City Manager Bludau agreed that the City Council first needs to decide if it's committed to a general plan update, and then decide on a timeframe and a budget. • Council Member Thomson agreed that the City Council should be out in the community and find out what people are thinking and concerned about. He said the City Council needs to be responsive to the community. Council Member Ridgeway thought Mayor Pro Tem Adams was more asking who would be managing the program on staff. City Manager Bludau responded that he would think the City Manager's office would manage the process, but he said he would first need to see what the process is going to be and how complex it is going to be. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the last general plan update was done in 1988. He asked about the legal obligation to review the general plan, like is done for the housing element and the circulation element. Planning Director Temple stated that the housing element is the only one that has firmly established deadlines and requirements for routine updates, however, State planning law advises that the others be reviewed every five years. Council Member Ridgeway asked about the norm among cities for reviewing their land use and circulation elements. Planning Director Temple stated that most communities do not update their various elements on a periodic basis. She said that updates usually come about because of changing circumstances or pressures from the outside. She added that twelve years is probably too long to wait for an update, however. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that there are a lot of expectations as to what • will come out of the general plan update process. He suggested that possibly staff could present the general plan at some future study sessions, discuss each element specifically and what might need to be revised. He said that Volume 53 - Page 237 • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 14, 2000 INDEX once the City Council and the public understand what the general plan is and what it has done, decisions can then be made on what might need to be changed. He suggested this as a logical starting point. He stated his concern that many people's expectations of what a general plan update will do may be unrealistic. Mayor Pro Tem Adams added that he thinks someone on staff needs to provide the leadership to educate the City Council and the public about the general plan. He suggested that if staff time is not available, maybe a consultant should be used. Council Member Ridgeway agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Adams' suggestion. He stated that a lot of discussion has taken place over the year on the land use, circulation and housing elements, and that's where the focus will likely remain. He stated that the visioning process on these elements can begin with the general plan update process as is being discussed. Mayor Noyes stated that it may be found that there is nothing wrong with any of the elements of the general plan. He asked which element would be easiest to tackle. Planning Director Temple stated that the housing element is already being reviewed, as required. She added that the Planning Department did begin a review of the general plan the year prior, per City Council recommendation, and that this material could be presented as a starting point. Council Member Debay confirmed with Assistant City Manager Wood that • the housing element review is a priority. Assistant City Manager Wood added that the five -year plan for the block grant is being done first. Council Member Debay further confirmed that the deadline to update the housing element is the end of June with an extension expected for the end of December. She further confirmed that the housing element would be reviewed separate from the general plan update process. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the housing element doesn't need a visioning process and can be handled by staff and the City Council because it is driven by legal requirements and lack of compliance. Council Member Thomson asked if staff could develop a matrix that compares the size of buildings, road capacities, number of houses and developments, population and how they all work together. He said that a model would allow different theories to be tested. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that she didn't feel these resources were available in- house. She said that staff could address specific issues and questions, but doesn't have the capacity to pull it all together into tradeoff scenarios. Council Member Thomson suggested that models should already be available. City Manager Bludau stated that existing models may not work for specific projects and issues in Newport Beach. He said that the location of a project would change the tradeoffs and impacts. Council Member Thomson argued that planners and developers must know how much traffic is generated from various projects. • Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that traffic models are used. Mayor Noyes suggested that Mayor Pro Tem Adams' earlier suggestion to Volume 53 - Page 238 I • • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 14, 2000 have an overall presentation of the general plan be conducted at a future study session. City Manager Bludau asked if the City Council wanted to concentrate on the housing, circulation and land use elements. Assistant City Manager Wood suggested that all of the elements be reviewed, referring to some that haven't been updated in so long they may not comply with current State law. Council Member Ridgeway agreed with Assistant City Manager Wood's suggestion, but wants the focus to remain on the three elements named. PUBLIC COMMENTS —None. ADJOURNMENT — 6:05 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on March 8, 2000, at 3:30 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. _ Recording Secret City Clerk Volume 53 - Page 239 INDEX