Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/2005 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session January 11, 2005 - 4:08 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Item 6 (Data Sharing Solution), Council Member Heffernan asked if staff believed that the vendor whose bid is less than half of the next bid can do the job. City Manager Bludau indicated that staff feels good about the vendor. Regarding Item 10 (Mayor Appointments), Council Member Heffernan asked how the recommendation for five members on the Newport Coast Advisory Committee (NCAC) coincides with the pre- annexation agreement. Assistant City Manager Kiff indicated that Patrick Fuscoe is no longer an appointee on NCAC, which leaves the City with three appointees. He assured Council Member Heffernan that this is true to the pre- annexation agreement. Council Member Heffernan believed that the Newport Coast committee was charged with appointing a majority of the members. Mr. Kiff explained that the NCAC is a seven member committee and that the City appoints three of the members. He confirmed that the report only reflects the City's appointments. In response to Council Member Heffernan's question, Mayor Pro Tern Webb indicated that the Mariners Branch Library will be about 15,000 square feet. Mayor Pro Tern Webb stated that he has some questions regarding Item 14 (Orange County Sanitation District Draft EIR). Assistant City Manager Wood indicated that she will be providing Council with a revised letter. Mayor Bromberg suggested that Mayor Pro Tern Webb talk to Ms. Wood before the Council meeting. 2. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - LAND USE ALTERNATIVES. Mayor Bromberg reported that this is a continuation from the December 14 study session and noted that Council already reviewed two of the twelve areas. Without objection, Council Member Ridgeway requested that all the areas be reviewed today. Assistant City Manager Wood noted that Council will be hearing the land use alternatives that the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) developed for the purpose of further study. She indicated that they are suggesting that these alternatives be run through the traffic model, fiscal impact model, and preliminary environmental review. She emphasized that this is not being recommended as the future land use plan. She stated that they hope that, after Volume 57 - Page 1 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 11, 2005 INDEX they get the results of the model runs, they'll know where they have good results or problematic results that need adjustments, and then develop the preferred land use plan. Ms. Wood indicated that they are requesting that Council review the alternatives, let them know whether something should not be studied further, and whether there's another alternative that they would like to see studied. Woodie Tescher, EIP Associates, utilized a PowerPoint presentation to review the land use alternatives. He reiterated that the intent of this process to is identify whether there are big items missing. He noted that there will be flexibility in this process and that this is meant to give a starting benchmark for testing. Mr. Tescher reported that there are two alternatives for the Airport Business area. He stated that GPAC believes that the Airport area is a major center for economic activity and reported that one of the options replicates and then adds additional capacity to compare the uses. He indicated that, in some cases, the existing site is reused. He stated that the second option looks at introducing housing. He explained that, in every area, one of the alternatives is to follow the existing General Plan (GP). Regarding the slides, he explained that the first number reflects the percentage that deviates from the existing GP and the second number reflects the change from the existing land use. Council Member Ridgeway received confirmation from Mr. Tescher that 15 %GP means there is a 15% increase over the existing General Plan. Council Member Ridgeway believed that the reference to Industrial should actually be R &D (Research and Development) because the City does not really have industrial. Mr. Tescher stated that they will make the amendment. Regarding the Airport Business Area, Council Member Ridgeway stated that the area has three planned communities and the Campus /Birch tract, and the City generated a letter regarding the Central Park Project on the Parker Hampton site in Irvine in which they were going to build 1,470 units. He expressed the opinion that the proposed 2,400 housing units is short- sighted and recommended that this number be larger. Council Member Ridgeway noted that the City has one manufacturing site in the Koll Center and that, even though this is a highly improved building, they will not be able to continue to afford the electricity and /or worker's compensation. He added that they will export these jobs offshore as all high tech businesses have done. He stated that the City needs to anticipate the change in employment base. Ms. Wood asked if he was suggesting a third alternative which would increase housing and decrease the amount of industrial from what is in the existing GP. Council Member Ridgeway believed that, if there could be more study about what's happening on the Jamboree corridor in Irvine, a better feel for how much housing should occur there can be determined. He added that consideration should be made to the reduction of R &D and possibly transfer uses in that area with residential, offices, or mixed uses. Council Member Daigle agreed because, in the future, the City may see some of the office towers disappear and be replaced with residential units. She requested a greater modeling for residential units. Mr. Tescher indicated that he has enough information to create a third alternative. Council Member Ridgeway stated that, if "smart growth" is to occur in the City, the airport area is where the varying traffic models and peak a.m. and p.m. counts are totally different. He believed that this section misses that. Volume 57 - Page 2 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 11, 2005 INDEX Mr. Tescher stated that the basic principal for the Balboa Peninsula was to have a pedestrian- oriented area. He stated that GPAC provided input regarding the more efficient utilization of land in the area, recognizing that this is a unique place. He indicated that there was concern about the fragmentation of commercial uses that exist today. He reported that options include changing individual pieces of property from commercial to residential, reusing portions of commercial for mixed uses, reusing portions of commercial for mixed uses with lodging, and converting all commercial to residential. He noted that the last alternative has already been rejected. Council Member Ridgeway believed that having a maximum of two units per lot does not work in Balboa Village because it misses the opportunity for smart growth by limiting residential to two units per lot. He stated that the Emerald Forest has been empty for years and there has been attempts to convert it to residential. He indicated that, due to the high land prices, he believed that all roads lead to residential use. He believed that this should be a mixed use with probably 45 units. He added that it could be bigger if the parking structure were removed and consolidated with other commercial properties in the area. Council Member Ridgeway noted that, in this discussion, there is no room and a discouragement of this. He reported that there is virtually no demand for office use in the Balboa Village area. He stated that the theater district and restaurants are also missing from the vision. Council Member Ridgeway reported that the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum looked at moving to the Balboa Village, but there is no discussion or vision for this opportunity to happen. He believed that the whole concept of the GP Update was a visioning process, but these little vignettes are missing. Mr. Tescher clarified that the two units per lot were only implied for mixed use parcels with an FAR of 1.5 to 2.0. Mr. Tescher stated that the options for Banning Ranch include retaining the site as open space; creating a residential neighborhood similar to what Taylor Woodrow recommended; cutting Taylor Woodrow's number in half in terms of land area and scale of use; and turning the area into a resort hotel. He confirmed that all the uses would retain at least 50% of the site as open space which would incorporate parklands and green spaces. Mr. Tescher stated that Cannery Village is divided into Cannery Village East (properties around Lafayette and Villa Way) and Cannery Village West (the commercial property where Albertsons is located). He reported that, in Cannery Village East, the options include using the commercial and industrial properties for mixed use and having a pedestrian- oriented village; and reutilizing the area strictly for housing without retail. Regarding housing, there is a mixed use option with housing above ground level retail and the other option is to only use ground level housing. He believed that the recommendation for housing without retail in the area was for two units per lot which is a lower density compared to mixed uses. Ms. Wood confirmed that this is inclusive of the South Coast Shipyard. Mr. Tescher stated that, in Cannery Village West, the options are to change the land use from strictly commercial to mixed use; or to retain the area as strictly commercial. Mr. Tescher stated that, in Corona del Mar, the ideas were focused on keeping the area unique and pedestrian- oriented. He indicated that, for the first option, GPAC wanted to look at creating a series of nodes at the major intersections that Volume 57 - Page 3 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 11, 2005 INDEX could be reutilized and intensified for vertical mixed uses. He stated that the second option would retain the mixed use at the intersections and major nodes and explore the opportunity of removing the first and /or second residential lots behind the commercial frontages to provide additional parking at the rear. Council Member Nichols noted that Corona del Mar has a busy highway. He stated that there are apartments along the highway that have been a total failure and there has been no evidence that mixed uses succeed. He asked why they think this is something that will work. Mr. Tescher indicated that a mixed use structure has ground level retail so it maintains the continuity of the retail uses and the pedestrian activity of the ground floor, with housing on the second or third floor of the unit. He stated that, when you look at the capacity based on zoning for commercial compared to a mixed use structure, the p.m. peak trips are actually reduced. He indicated that, with mixed uses, success has occurred when it is a part of a continuous commercial strip. Council Member Nichols indicated that Corona del Mar has this mix now. Further, all those apartments are disaster areas, the noise is too high, and the commercial people have said this. He believed that this will not offer any benefits, adding that the lots behind the commercial building are going for more money as residential than they are as parking lots. He noted that there is no model of how they can be commercially feasible. Council Member Ridgeway believed that the process is encouraging ground floor retail with residential upstairs. He stated that older buildings are not commercially viable or investment -grade viable. He indicated that, ten years ago, the City had problematic mixed uses but they are no longer seeing that. He noted that there is nothing new being built on the highway and there is no demolition, rehabilitation, or revitalization occurring. He encouraged staff to stay with the mixed use on Coast Highway because this is a time sensitive issue. Council Member Rosansky noted that Alternative 1 states that there is no increase in housing but the explanation in the report talks about an additional 180,000 units. Mr. Trescher indicated that there is an error in the slide. Ms. Wood asked if an alternative is being added. Council Member Nichols indicated that he would like to see an alternative of what is currently taking place where some of the commercial parking lots and buildings are turning into residential units. He believed that Corona del Mar has more than its share of new commercial uses. Mr. Tescher received confirmation from Council Member Nichols that the alternative is to convert a portion of the corridor to residential. Mr. Tescher stated that GPAC was concerned about fragmentation of use and the lack of connection in the Fashion Island /Newport Center area. He indicated that a greater level of pedestrian character through connection streetscapes and other improvements was considered in this area but is not reflected in the numbers. He reported that the third option that was recommended by the Planning Commission was to expand the existing office and retail, and add a greater amount of housing, as well as overnight accommodations. He clarified that the first option provided capacities that were greater than the GP. Regarding the third option, the Planning Commission wanted to see what would happen if housing were added, but kept the existing GP capacities in terms of retail, office, and hotel uses. Mr. Tescher indicated that the second option was an effort by the City and The Irvine Company from a number of years ago to look at additional capacities. He noted that it was never approved and there were studies on this Volume 57 - Page 4 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 11, 2005 proposal. 11013*0 Council Member Daigle asked what type of flexibility there was to make adjustments. Mr. Tescher stated that there will be a number of model runs so when they conclude the analyses, they will understand the implications and impacts of each of the options. He indicated that they then ask what happens if they vary the numbers. He reported that the two types of testing are the Citywide traffic model and the localized trip generation model. Regarding the third alternative, Council Member Ridgeway asked if this was a concept of transfer or if the office and commercial numbers stay the same with the addition of housing. Mr. Tescher explained that this was not a transfer, but was a recommendation to keep the levels that are currently defined in the existing GP but provide additional opportunities beyond the GP for housing. Council Member Ridgeway believed that the concept of transferring makes sense, noting that he was on Council when the City arbitrarily increased the square footage for commercial at Fashion Island by 400,000 square feet to accommodate a new, but unnamed department store that didn't materialize. He stated that he has no problem leaving that square footage on the books and encouraged more residential. He added that people want to work and recreate where they live, and this is an opportunity to create that type of environment. He believed that, what is missing, is the ability to integrate pedestrian movement or centers with commercial because of the wide streets. He stated that Newport Center is an ideal location to reduce traffic impacts by adding residential. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the passage of time has changed all disciplines in real estate. He believed that a number should be picked for the amount of residential units there should be and then use a formula of transferability. Ms. Wood believed this can be addressed when they get to policy development. She added that a reasonable number of units can be determined after going through the modeling exercise. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Webb's question, Mr. Tescher clarified that one of the options does not have a change in the number of hotels from the existing number. He noted that the GP allows for an additional 100 units. Mayor Pro Tem Webb believed that the percentages in the slide do not add up. Mr. Tescher indicated that he would review the numbers again. Referencing the Corona del Mar area, Council Member Nichols noted that the Port Theater is now allowed in Corona del Mar. He asked about putting in the theater instead of residential units. He noted that there are 900 seats in the auditorium and only 300 parking spots in town. Ms. Wood indicated that this can be looked at as they develop the third alternative. Mr. Tescher stated that the Lido Village area was divided into three sub - areas. Regarding the Northeast /Bayfront area, he indicated that the ideas for this area incorporated the village character and enhanced the activity. He reported that the options include looking at mixed uses and using a portion for overnight accommodations; not having mixed uses, but strictly retail and lodging; and having strictly mixed uses and eliminating lodging. Council Member Ridgeway stated that this is a perfect area for smart growth and pedestrian mix. He encouraged having something like 30 residential units per acre. He noted that there has been discussion that the shopping center across from City Hall will be demolished. He stated that ULI used one of his shopping centers and created a Volume 57 - Page 5 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 11, 2005 INDEX Target -type design and put residential units on top of it. He indicated that this is not inconceivable on that site. He believed that they should anticipate those kinds of things where there'd be a demolition, a clean slate, commercial below, possibly a parking structure, and increased residential. Mr. Teacher noted that the slide shows the quantities for residential and a flat - lining of retail. Mr. Tescher stated that, for the Lido Village area south of Via Lido, the options include retail with additional housing on the ground floor; and building residential over retail or commercial. Regarding the Civic Center area, the options were to have a pedestrian- oriented, mixed use residential emphasis; and turning the area into an office or retail center. He added that this is assuming that City Hall moves its location. Mr. Tescher stated that there is an issue with traffic and the parcels in the Mariners Mile area. He indicated that the idea was to create a series of distinct sub - areas. He reported that the option was to have a horizontal intermixing of uses in a portion of the area and vertical uses in other areas; possibly realigning Coast Highway to the base of the bluffs; and target the harbor frontage properties for marine - related uses. He stated that the first option removes marine - related uses as a requirement and the third option would keep the same mix of uses but retain the requirement that, of the non - residential uses, 40% of those uses would be targeted for marine - related uses. He reported that the Planning Commission recommended deleting the second option because it was not realistic. Mayor Pro Tem Webb stated that the second option was studied in detail about 25 years ago and the conclusion was the same. Council Member Ridgeway stated that marine - related uses are having difficulty and that the City needs to be careful about allocating a certain percentage. He believed that a pedestrian bridge will add to the overall ambiance and people movement. He added that parking is missing along the entire Mariners Mile area. He stated that Coast Community College will probably expand inland and will have a pedestrian bridge, but this is not in the vision plan. He believed that the land prices will probably drive that a large component of this area will be residential. Mr. Tescher stated that the residential numbers are fairly substantial. Mayor Pro Tom Webb asked if the Scout Base and Orange Coast College should be recognized as institutional uses instead of not showing them at all. Mr. Tescher stated that this has been recognized in the full documentation. Mr. Tescher reported that the idea behind the McFadden Square pier area was its unique, recreational asset and the opportunity for pedestrian orientation. He stated that GPAC was comfortable with the existing GP in terms of its mixed uses and recommended providing incentives for overnight accommodations. Council Member Ridgeway noted that the discussions focus on more residential uses than retail and office, and believed that this is the direction the area is already headed. Council Member Daigle stated that, in the Airport Business area, there is an airport land use plan and wanted to make sure this was also looked at. Mr. Tescher confirmed that the Airport Land Use Commission will also be reviewing this. Council Member Ridgeway believed that a discussion needs to be centered around inadequate parking in the pier area. He reported that the Balboa Pier has almost 600 parking spaces, but the Newport Pier only has about 300 spaces. Volume 57 - Page 6 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 11, 2005 INDEX Mr. Tescher stated that the theme for the McFadden Square harbor area was also to have a more pedestrian orientation with a village character and additional opportunities for housing. He indicated that the option was to have additional mixed uses and lodging. He reported that a GPAC subcommittee generated drawings of the urban design character for the entire Peninsula. Council Member Ridgeway noted that everything commercial from the South Coast Shipyard to Lido has been master planned by the City for a pedestrian walkway. Mr. Tescher stated that one of the pieces that's missing to tie everything together is time. Mr. Tescher reported that one of the options for Old Newport Boulevard was to follow the trend set by Hoag Hospital in which many of the retail structures have been reused for medical - related purposes, but still have some retail uses. He indicated that this would occur on the west side; however, on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard there would be mixed uses. He reported that the second and third options focused on using a greater percentage of the area for housing with mixed uses on the west side. He stated that the third option is to use a fairly significant amount of housing in the east side for affordable housing. Council Member Ridgeway believed that having only affordable housing and medical offices is unrealistic. He stated that it would be more realistic to have a percentage requirement per the Housing Element. Ms. Wood stated that the alternative won't impact the traffic or fiscal analyses. Mr. Tescher stated that the West Newport Highway area was divided into the western parcel and the corridor, and confirmed that the western parcel includes the mobilehome park. He indicated that the options include reutilizing the parcel for multi - family housing; earmarking the parcel for special needs housing (affordable housing); not providing housing, but utilize the parcel for park and open space; or making the parcel a parking lot. Planning Director Temple stated that the intention of the parking lot was to serve as a front door for the Banning Ranch open space. In response to Council questions, Mr. Tescher indicated that affordable housing is not significant for modeling purposes, that it is not needed as an alternative, and it can be removed. Ms. Wood clarified that affordable housing is just shown as a higher density of housing and, from that point of view, is worth looking at. Mr. Tescher stated that the options for the West Newport Highway corridor include taking the frontage and reutilizing it for vertical mixed use; targeting it for affordable housing with hotels and overnight accommodations; and designating the site for retail, contingent on lot consolidation. He explained that there are a lot of small lots in the area and the idea is that the lots would have to be consolidated to create the size and scale to provide the retail use and adequate parking. Council Member Rosansky stated that he is not sure about increasing retail. He believed that retail should be reduced in that area and is not sure if the third option will work. He indicated that he is also not sure if the second option to eliminate all retail for housing and lodging would work. He reported that he sees the area with reduced retail and more housing. Council Member Ridgeway agreed, stating that there is not sufficient demographics behind the second and third options. Ms. Wood clarified that part of the reason they left lodging in the second option was because those facilities are lower cost and are things they could show the Coastal Commission when they are reviewing the Local Coastal Plan. She suggested adjusting the second option to reduce or keep the lodging at its Volume 57 - Page 7 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 11, 2005 INDEX existing level. Council Member Rosansky suggested replacing the first option with one that keeps the lodging the same, reduces retail, and increases housing. Mr. Tescher stated that the West Newport Industrial area was targeted for different opportunities. He reported that the option was for infill opportunities with an emphasis on retail and medical - related offices. He noted that there are three or four areas that could probably convert from its existing use to medical - related offices over time. Council Member Ridgeway stated that there are a couple of mobilehome parks in that area and there has been tremendous pressure to change them to housing; however, there is no option for that. He indicated that this area is changing and agreed that medical offices will probably relocate to the technology center or Old Newport Boulevard, but after that, the area should have more high density residential. Council Member Rosansky received confirmation that mobilehome parks are not considered part of the City's affordable housing stock. Mr. Tescher stated that another option can be added to have additional high density housing. Regarding the Technology Park, he reported that the options include making it medical offices; or having a mix of R &D and housing. Council Member Ridgeway indicated that it could be medical and housing. Mr. Tescher reported that the next step is to quantify the alternatives and provide the numbers to the traffic, fiscal, and environmental consultants. He stated that this work is scheduled to be concluded in April. He reported that, in addition to Council, GPAC, etc. reviewing this, there will be a public workshop to give the community the opportunity to provide input. He stated that GPAC will also be making recommendations as the process moves forward. Philip Bettencourt, GPAC member and business properties delegate, stated that he hopes that, in the Banning Ranch analysis, there is the assumption for an adequate road network even if it is just to serve the proposed Open Space Element. He believed that there should be some reasonable road network if there is to be a 30 acre public park site, safe and convenient access to Sunset Ridge, and safe and convenient access to the Newport -Mesa School District site. He stated that this is what the Master Plan of Arterial Highways is about. Regarding the Newport Place planned community, Mr. Bettencourt stated that, along with the Fletcher Jones family and Brookfield Homes, there is a general plan amendment filed. He expressed hope that this planning process doesn't preclude the opportunity to look at housing in that location. He believed that it would be land use compatible, reduce trips, meet all smart growth tests, and would be perfect for executive housing. He added that he believes that the intensity of land use for the 86 units is assumed in the larger, critical mass that the 2,000 units would've met. Council Member Daigle received confirmation from Ms. Wood that, within that sub -area, there is some flexibility since there will be a number of units modeled but they have not been assigned to a specific parcel at this stage. Mayor Pro Tem Webb noted that the Circulation Element is part of the GP and the City needs to make sure that it is compatible with the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways which has a number of roads going through the Banning Ranch property whether it's developed or not. Dolores Citing asked how many total dwelling units will there be in this whole project. She also asked if there needs to be an infrastructure plan to determine whether the City can accommodate all of this intensification and density. She Volume 57 - Page 8 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 11, 2005 INDEX stated that the reason they're building a desalinization plant in Huntington Beach is to provide water to the 14,000 homes in Rancho Santa Margarita. She asked if the City will be looking at doing this or will it piecemeal all these things to a system that's already overburdened. Mr. Tescher reported that they will also be conducting a more comprehensive, environmental analysis. He stated that, with all the alternatives, they will be looking at the adequacies of infrastructure and services. Ms. Wood confirmed that they will also look at water supply. Allan Beek complimented everyone speaking tonight for the good sense they've made and believed this has been a constructive discussion. He believed that the most desirable kind of housing is R -1 since it produces the greatest return to the land. He noted, however, that it takes zoning controls to keep it R -1. He stated that there is too much tendency in this process to talk as if the City is the landowner deciding on what to do with its property. He indicated that the City needs to give the property owner the maximum flexibility to do what makes sense on their property. He pointed out that it is the City's job to set limits so they don't do anything that is damaging to the community. Philip Arst, Greenlight Residents Group, stated that he is hearing about ways to change the character of the City into another Santa Monica with high density and massive amounts of traffic, but this is counter to the wishes of the residents polled during the Visioning Festival. He indicated that the poll and supporting the residents is what Greenlight is about. He took exception to all the recommendations for more residential units and believed that the Circulation Element and Land Use Element are not being balanced. Further, residential units lose money for the City because it costs more in services than they bring in property tax. He stated that Greenlight supports an update through the GP, but believed it should address the character of the City as desired by the residents and should bring the Circulation and Land Use Elements into conformance as required by State law. Regarding Mariners Mile, Mr. Arst believed that adding 689 dwelling units and almost 400,000 square feet of commercial development over and above the present mix of buildings would result in about 20,000 additional auto trips on Coast Highway. He stated that this is bad planning. He added that this one area is representative of the proposals for all twelve areas. He believed that the GP update process has been a waste of $2 million because the City is going in a direction that's opposite to what is desired by the residents. Mr. Arst referenced an article in the Daily Pilot in which Mayor Bromberg believed that it is unlikely that the GP Update will be subject to a vote of the people. He requested confirmation of this statement. He added that he believes that the entitlements must be withdrawn and replaced with a position of balance between the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element with selective beneficial developments added as needed. He believed that the starting point should be the present as- built land uses and balanced traffic, rather than these proposals. Joe O'Hora expressed concern that previous Councils have attempted to revitalize the Balboa Village area and spent a lot of money; however, there is a lot of vacancies and unhappiness among the retailers. Regarding Alternative 4, he stated that restaurant, retail, and mixed uses have not been successful in the area. Regarding Alternative 5, he stated that he is not sure what vertical mixed Volume 57 - Page 9 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 11, 2005 ► fi�i7 N uses and bed and breakfasts are; however, the report mentions 330 additional rooms and a 20% increase in housing. He indicated that he finds it hard to believe that this area at the end of the Peninsula could accommodate Alternatives 4 and 5. He believed that Alternatives 1 and 2 make sense and keeps the area status quo with minor improvements. Elaine Linhoff indicated that she arrived late, but didn't see or hear any references to services that support the boating industry. She noted that Newport Beach is a harbor city and this is what makes the City unique. She believed that it is important to include boating industry uses. Regarding the walkway from the South Coast Shipyard property to the Cannery, she asked if people are supposed to walk through Blackie's Shipyard. She asked where people are supposed to haul their boats to get them repaired. Mayor Bromberg believed that this GP Update shouldn't go to a vote of the people, but it may be required. He stated that it is not appropriate for the City government to make a determination that this will or will not go to a vote because there is no GP in front of them. He indicated that, after there is a GP, then it will be determined whether it should go to a vote. He noted that the Visioning Festival in 2001 was the GP kickoff and, if the City was going to accept only what the 400 to 500 people in attendance wanted, the GP could've been written the next day. He emphasized that part of the GP process is to start with a Visioning Festival, get ideas from the public, and use that information to create a roadmap to the future for the next 20 years. Mayor Bromberg commended GPAC who is made up of 38 citizens and were charged with developing the land use alternatives. He noted that the process is about half way through and is a long and arduous process, but the process is important and affects the quality of life for everyone in the City. Council Member Ridgeway stated that they are looking at a population increase of over 34 million today and 50 million people in 20 years. He reported that the City is mandated by law to take a percentage of that housing. He stated that they agree with Mr. Beek and Mr. Arst that the City needs to balance the Land Use Element with traffic; however, there is going to be change. Correcting a statement made by Mr. Arst, he reported that the existing GP for Mariners Mile currently allows an additional 346,000 square feet. He noted that commercial use generates about 50 Average Daily Trips (ADT) per 1,000 square feet, and agreed that this is too much square footage. He reported that the ADT for residential use is between 12 and 14 cars per day. He pointed out that whatever is developed will have to satisfy the City's traffic phasing ordinance. He believed that the opportunity to perhaps de- intensify many of the uses in the twelve areas and provide residential is beneficial. He clarified that, once a residential unit gets above 400,000, there is a net /plus benefit to the City. He stated that all the options are talking about new units and, if the City has new units, Proposition 13 only comes into play on the properties that people have been occupying since 1976. He reported that, once there is a turnover to a non - family member, the property is reenrolled. He emphasized that the new units will be at a high value and the City services will be paid for by the dollars received from property taxes. He added that those people will shop and recreate in the City. He reported that Council does have to balance everything as mandated by City ordinances and State laws, and assured everyone that there is no wholesaling on Council. He added that R -1 is no longer a viable alternative because land values are too high. He indicated that Council will respect GPAC and all the consultants that the City hired, and Volume 57 - Page 10 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 11, 2005 believed that the money has been well -spent because it's giving the Urty an opportunity to really evaluate all the intricacies of a GP. He indicated that he looks forward to the process moving forward and to read the minutes from the GPUC and GPAC meetings. Council Member Daigle stated that she appreciates and agrees with Council Member Ridgeway's statement that the City's residents do shop and recreate in the City and contribute to the fiscal base, even though they are not assigned a portion of the sales tax. Council Member Heffernan indicated that he didn't speak because he feels that District 7 is in good shape since it is mostly R -1 with limited commercial and pretty good streets. He noted that people can exist in this format with very high property values, but pointed out that it is in the newer area of the City. He indicated that his involvement in the GP is more as a participant but believed that the hard work is really going to be done by the areas in the City that need re- tweeking. PUBLIC COMMENTS — None. ADJOURNMENT — at 5:55 p.m. to Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on January 5, 2005, at 3:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Volume 57 -Page 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 11, 2005 INDEX THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Volume 57 - Page 12