HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - General Plan UpdateEWOOq,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Hearing Date:
January 11, 1999
4
o m
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Agenda Item No.:
20
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
Staff Person:
Patricia L. Temple
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: General Plan Update
ACTION: Receive and file report, and direct staff to prepare a grant application for
LCP Certification for consideration by the City Council on January 25,
1999.
This report has been prepared to provide preliminary background and discussion on a potential
comprehensive General Plan update.
Background
There have been some initial discussions by City committees expressing interest in an update of the
City's General Plan. Similarly, the Planning Commission has discussed looking at the General Plan
as they have considered specific development requests.
Environmental Quality Advisory Committee
At their meeting on June 15, 1998, the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC), made a
recommendation to the City Council that it consider commencing a comprehensive update of the
General Plan. The reason for this recommendation was a concern that individual projects would be
better evaluated when there is a better long -range plan for an area. Additionally, the Committee felt
that it may be time to consider an update, since the last one occurred 10 years ago.
Upon receiving the recommendation on July 13, 1998, the City Council directed staff to return with
an outline of what a general plan update would entail. This report has been prepared to respond to
that direction, as well as to respond to various requests of City Council related to this project.
EQAC has subsequently received a presentation from staff on the general plan program as provided
for in State planning law and the State General Plan Guidelines, as a preliminary to further efforts
to support a comprehensive general plan update. A copy of the staff presentation to EQAC is
attached to this report.
Economic Development Committee
The Economic Development Committee has a sub - committee working on strategic planning for
economic development. This sub - committee's concept is that the process would involve developing
a vision for the future of Newport Beach, with the subsequent development of General Plan policies
to guide City decisions (a generai plan update). Issues identified for further discussion are:
➢ what proposals from Newport Tomorrow carry over to today's issues
➢ regional changes and development
➢ revitalization of deteriorating areas
➢ preservation of older areas subject to change
➢ commercial and tourism development
➢ replacement of older infrastructure
➢ filling "holes" in the existing General Plan, such as aesthetics, commercial activity in the Bay,
and the protection of water views
Harbor Ouality Citizens Advisory Committee
A sub - committee of the Harbor Quality Citizens Advisory Committee has been discussing ways to
better manage the resources in the harbor (lower bay). One of the ideas which has come forward is
to develop a Harbor Element of the General Plan. It is felt that such an element could provide a
more coordinated policy framework for Bay management. This would differ from the City's current
approach, a variety of regulations in Council Policy and the Municipal Code which are the
responsibility of various City Departments to administer.
TPO Working, Committee
This committee has been working with staff on amendments to the City's Traffic Phasing
Ordinance. The amendments currently being suggested are those necessary to address some legal
and operational problems of the current ordinance. While it may be desirable to consider additional
changes to the TPO (such as a different target Level of Service in the Airport Area), the Committee
generally believes that these more significant potential changes would not reach a consensus in the
committee absent a more comprehensive planning program.
Plannine Commission
Recent development projects considered by the Planning Commission have also raised questions
related to a General Plan update. Specifically, some recent projects which required General Plan
Amendments, which are fairly small in the overall context of Newport Beach, still raised questions
as to whether their approval could restrict other property owners from exercising their already
existing entitlements. Of particular concern is additional new General Plan entitlement in areas
where the predicted capacity of the streets is already over the City's goal of Level of Service "D."
Additionally, in analyzing and discussing these projects in relation to existing General Plan Policies
in the Land Use Element, both staff and the Commission believe that there is little guidance beyond
certain policies related to circulation system capacity to guide the land use decision making process.
Since there are no goals set forth for the unique areas of the City, there is very little basis other than
traffic impacts for whether a land use or entitlement change should be approved or denied.
Further, this particular lack of area goals affects the simpler land use approvals such as Use Permits.
With no policies or goals in the General Plan indicating how an area should function or look in the
future, both staff and the Planning Commission can only analyze these projects in relation to the
standard health and welfare finding. This makes it more difficult to develop supportable findings
General Plan Update
Page 2
for denial of a specific project that may not be consistent with the community's presumed vision for
an area.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Existing General Plan
As part of the discussion of the issues by EQAC, staff prepared a summary of our view of the
strengths and weaknesses of the existing General Plan. This part of the presentation generated a
lively discussion between committee members and the staff. We have, therefore, included those
observations below, for the Council's consideration.
Strengths of the existing plan:
• Level of specificity prevents questions related to actual entitlement and limits of land use
designations.
• Is strong in the area of the Housing Element, with a comprehensive set of policies and
programs which have enabled the City to maintain certified compliance with State Guidelines
since 1989.
• Has a good Recreation and Open Space Element, which focuses on and acknowledges the
fact the City is largely built out.
Weaknesses of the existing plan:
• Does not provide a "vision" for the future of the community.
• Provides no goals or desired development patterns for the individual and unique commercial
districts.
• Is more regulatory than policy in nature.
• Level of specificity requires frequent amendments. This tends to diminish the policy stature
of the plan.
• Has minimal policy guidance related to the use of the Bay, either in the Land Use Element or
the Recreation and Open Space Element.
• Addresses the City's role as a visitor destination only in the context of protecting and
preserving residential areas from the negative impacts from visitors. Provides no goals or
policies aimed at reasonably managing or improving the quality of the visitors who inevitably
will come here, and how they impact local resources.
• Does not include any specific construction technique requirements as a result of the hazards
identified in the Public Safety Element.
What Would a General Plan Update Program Look Like?
Typically, comprehensive General Plan updates involve all elements of a city's general plan. This is
not, however, a requirement. Our own 1988 General Plan review only involved the Land Use and
Circulation Elements, and was undertaken primarily to add intensity limits to commercial land use
classifications, satisfying the correlation requirement between those two elements. In determining
General Plan Update
Page 3
whether to commence a General Plan update, one consideration should be the scope of the program.
That is, should we look at some or all of the General Plan Elements; should elements be totally re-
written or just expanded, fine -tuned or updated; and should elements be added (such as the
previously mentioned Harbor Element)?
The City also would need to decide whether to use consultants, in -house staff, or a combination
thereof. The use of outside consultants to prepare the updated documents can provide an outside
view and a fresh perspective on a community's planning issues. However, the use of outside
consultants can result in a "canned" General Plan, that is, a slightly modified version of other
general plans the consultant has prepared for other communities.
Many communities decide to have the revisions prepared by in -house staff. While this approach
will take more time and impact staffs ability to complete other projects, in -house staff are familiar
with the unique aspects and needs of the community, can readily focus on the community's most
important issues, and can usually better anticipate where areas of controversy might arise.
The City should also develop a process and procedures under which a General Plan update would
be conducted. For example, would the City include a visioning program similar to the Newport
Tomorrow as a preliminary step in the process? What type of oversight or review of the
consultant's or staffs preliminary or draft work products would occur (steering committee, public
circulation of working drafts, etc.)? What type of overall community outreach is necessary?
One additional consideration is the relationship of the General Plan to the Local Coastal Plan. A
comprehensive or partial General Plan update will certainly trigger parallel changes to the LCP.
However, changes to the LCP which are part of a comprehensive update of the General Plan could
provide an opportunity to develop information and improved policies which could facilitate the
certification of the LCP, with its added benefit of returning full permit authority to the City in most
areas of the Coastal Zone.
Staff has also been made aware that there is grant funding available to assist in the certification
of our LCP. The application for this funding was received by staff on December 14, 1998, and
applications are due by January 29,1999. With the concurrence of the City Council, staff will
prepare the application for consideration by the Council on January 25, 1999.
Submitted by:
SHARON Z. WOOD
Assistant City Manager
Prepared by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
RA
Attachment: Pres tion to EQAC
General Plan Update
Page 4
The Role of the General Plan (quoted from the State General Plan
Guidelines)
A General Plan provides a basis for rational decision making regarding a
City's long -term physical development. A developing community is like an
incomplete and evolving puzzle. A General Plan serves a generalized and
dynamic picture of the puzzle.
California state law requires each city to adopt a general plan "for the
physical development of the city, and any land outside its boundaries
which... bears relation to its planning." The role of each community's
general plan is to act as a "constitution" for development, the foundation
upon which all land use decisions are to be based. It expresses community
development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of
future land use, both public and private.
At one time, the local general plan was looked on as a set of broad policies
that had little actual role in development decisions. Changes to the law
occurring since 1971 have vastly boosted the importance of the plan. A
general plan may no longer be merely a "wish list" or vague picture of the
community's future; it must now provide concrete direction for decision
making.
Preparing, adopting, implementing and maintaining a general plan serves
to:
• Identify the community's land use, circulation, environmental, economic
and social goals and policies as they relate to land use and
development.
• Provide a basis for local government decision making, including a nexus
to support development exactions.
• Provide citizens with opportunities to participate in the planning and
decision making process of local government.
• Inform citizens, developers, decision - makers, and other cities of the
ground rules that will guide development within the community.
The general plan bridges the gap between community values and actual
physical decisions.
5
The Newport Beach General Plan is comprised of the following elements:
Land Use
Circulation
Recreation and Open Space
Housing
Noise
Public Safety
Conservation of Natural Resources
Growth Management
• Most recently, the City has updated the Recreation and Open Space
Element (1998).
• The Noise Element was updated in 1994.
• The Growth Management Element (adopted as required by regional
congestion management mandates) was adopted in 1992.
• The Housing Element was last updated in 1992.
• The Land Use and Circulation Elements were updated in 1988.
• The Public Safety Element was adopted in 1975.
• The Conservation of Natural Resources Element was adopted in 1974.
While the state general plan guidelines recommend periodic updates, only
the Housing Element has a mandatory update schedule. The next
mandatory Housing Element update is scheduled for 2000.
Key features:
Land Use Element:
• Detailed and specific to a parcel level (not recommended by the State).
• Contains zoning level of specificity in terms of entitlement, such as
FAR's, number of hotel rooms, etc.
• Contains relatively generic policies, which are City -wide in perspective,
but breaks the City down into small segments for the purpose
discussion, which are not then not discussed as to how the plan
proposed supports the broader policies.
• Policies focus on preserving the residential quality of life, but provides
little by way of implementation programs to produce results, specifically
as it relates to the quality of commercial districts or the role of the visitor.
• Covers the entire City planning area, including the Newport Coast,
Santa Ana Heights, and West Newport spheres -of- influence.
• Is generally designed to support the Zoning Code.
Circulation Element:
• Includes the Master Plan of Streets and Highways (Map).
• Primarily analyzes intersections for the purpose of identifying Levels of
Service.
• Lists specific design improvements.
• Provides a policy basis for TPO, which is the desired intersection level of
service goal of "D."
• Provides the policy basis for the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee
Ordinance, which is the completion of the City's Master Plan of Streets
and Highways.
Recreation and Open Space Element:
• Precisely defines existing and desired park land and facilities.
• Focuses on recreation.
Housing Element:
• Is the most policy oriented element of the General Plan.
• Has detailed Guidelines adopted within the State Government Code,
and is the only element which must be certified by the State (HCD).
7
• Sets forth the goals and programs for the development of affordable
housing in the community, such as:
• Providing adequate sites for the accomplishment of the City's housing
goals.
• Use negotiated development to achieve housing goals through the
private development community.
• Assist housing for low and moderate income housing using
Community Development Block Grant funds.
• To approve mixed use, residential /commercial development.
• To rehabilitate the existing housing inventory.
• To promote a variety of housing choices for the elderly.
• To develop a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all income
levels of the community.
Growth Management Element:
• Its purpose and function is to meet regional congestion management'
mandates.
• Establishes LOS D at intersections, but allows exemptions under the
Deficient Intersection List of the CMP.
• Requires new development to pay its fair share of the costs
associated with that development, including regional traffic mitigation.
• Requires a development phasing plan in accordance with the City's
TPO.
• Commits the City to participate in inter - jurisdictional planning forums.
• Commits the City to the preparation of a capital improvement
program consistent with the criteria of Measure M and the Congestion
Management program.
• Includes a policy to foster balanced land use.
• Commits the City to promote traffic reduction strategies through TDM
measures.
Noise Element:
• Describes the noise environment of Newport Beach.
• Sets for the policies and programs for both stationary and non - stationary
sources of noise.
• Provides for reduction of noise impacts from transportation related
sources through:
• Imposition of mitigation measures
• The use of walls and berms
• Design of transportation improvements
• Encouraging the State to adopt vehicle noise standards for cars,
trucks, and motorcycles
• Consider noise issues in Charter Boat permit process
• Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning process by:
• Specifying acceptable limits of noise for various land uses
• Require acoustic design in new construction
• Adopt a Noise Ordinance
• Establish a comprehensive program and minimize the impact of noise
generated by aircraft departing John Wayne Airport:
• Oppose legislation which would impair the County's ability to
operate JWA consistent with the settlement agreement.
• Maintain membership in NOISE and other groups whose purpose
is to preserve the rights of airport operators to establish
reasonable restrictions.
• Assist the County in implementing a comprehensive noise :cohtrol
program at JWA.
• Work to extend the settlement agreement.
• This is the policy document which led to the adoption of the Community
Noise Ordinance.
Public Safety Element:
• Contains technical information on geologic hazards (including
seismicity), flood hazards, and fire hazards.
• Is in need of an update to meet the current requirements of State law in
the areas of wildland and urban fires, evacuation routes, and peakload
water supply requirements and minimum road widths and clearances
around structures, as those items relate to fire and geologic hazards.
Conservation of Natural Resources Element:
• Contains discussion and policies in the areas of bay and ocean water
quality, air quality, beach erosion, mineral resources, archeological and
paleontological resources, and energy conservation.
• Element is the oldest, but most of the program areas are now regulated
on a regional basis, through such agencies as the AQMD, the ARB, the
RWQCB, the County of Orange, and the Federal Government.
11
Strengths of the existing plan:
• Level of specificity prevents questions related to actual entitlement and
limits of land use designations.
• Is strong in the area of the Housing Element, with a comprehensive set
of policies and programs which have enabled the City to maintain
certified compliance with State Guidelines since 1989.
• Has a good Recreation and Open Space Element, which focuses on and
acknowledges the fact the City is largely built out.
Weaknesses of the existing plan:
• Does not provide a "vision" for the future of the community.
• Provides no goals or desired development patterns for the individual and
unique commercial districts.
• , Is more regulatory than policy in nature.
• Level of specificity requires frequent amendments. This tends to
diminish the policy stature of the plan.
• Has minimal policy guidance related to the use of the Bay, either in the
Land Use Element or the Recreation and Open Space Element.
• Addresses the City's role as a visitor destination only in the context of
protecting and preserving residential areas from the negative impacts
from visitors. Provides no goals or policies aimed at reasonably
managing or improving the quality of the visitors who inevitably will come
here, and how they impact local resources.
• Does not include any specific construction technique requirements as a
result of the hazards identified in the Public Safety Element.
16