Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2002_06_10111111111 lill 111111111111111111111111 lill III lill. *NEW FILE* G PAC 2002 06 10 NEWP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS General Plan Advisory Committee MEETING #4 June 10, 2002 Police Department Auditorium 7:00-9:00 p.m. 870 Santa Barbara Drive AGENDA 7:00 I. Welcome and Introductions A. Agenda Overview B. Committee Communications 7:15 • II. Approval of Minutes --May 13, 2002 7:20 III. Discuss Next Steps for Vision Statement 7.30 IV. Discuss Preliminary Strategic Directions and Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire Results 8:20 V. Discuss Key Questions 8:45 VI. Next Steps 8:50 VII. Public Comments • NEWP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS AIA CH General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, May 13, 2002 at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Dorothy Beek Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Karlene Bradley John Corrough Hoby Darling Julie Delaney Laura Dietz . Florence Felton Nancy Gardner Members Absent: Joseph Gleason Louise Greeley Evelyn Hart Ernest Hatchell Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa David Janes George Jeffries Mike Johnson Todd Knipp Heather Johnston -Reynolds Catherine O'Hara Carl Ossipoff Larry Root Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager PattyTemple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator Members of the Public Present: Everette Phillips Wendy Brooks • Michael Gelfand Pat Allen Donald Krotee Phillip Lugar John Saunders Robert Shelton Ed Siebel Alan Silcock Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Brett Shaves Jackie Sukiasian Ron Yeo 3 . 1. Welcome and Introductions Bob Shelton called the meeting to order and announced that Don Krotee has been appointed to replace Marian Bergeson. Louise Greeley invited everyone to the Annual Picnic in the Park at Talbert Nature Preserve on June 1st. The minutes of the April 8th meeting were approved as submitted. II. Report Back from Vision Sub -Committee and Discussion Carolyn Verheyen reviewed the terms in one of the handouts provided in the agenda packet. The Sub -Committee used these definitions while creating the vision statement. "Vision" is defined as a broad abstract statement, which ideally reflects the unique concerns, values and aspirations of a community. "Strategic Direction" is defined as a statement of direction on a critical challenge, issue or problem; a method targeted to achieve a successful outcome. "Policy" is defined as a statement of intent to guide decision -making. "Actions" are the implementation plan; the how to's. David Janes introduced the members of the Sub -Committee —Jackie Sukiasian, Roger Alford, Florence Felton, Nancy Gardner, Tom Hyans and Phil Bettencourt and announced that the Sub -Committee met three times to create the draft Vision . Statement provided which was distributed with the agenda materials. Mr. Janes reviewed the document and gave a little background on how the Sub -Committee came up with the statement. The full Committee was asked to identify topic(s) which may have been missed and determine if anything should be added into the next draft. Evelyn Hart suggested including historic preservation. John Saunders suggested including under "Responsive Government" language regarding cooperation with neighboring cities. John Corrough suggested adding Commissions and Committees as part of "Responsive Government." Jan Vandersloot suggested adding language to suggest traffic congestion is reduced. Roger Alford suggested maybe we are getting too specific when we identify traffic. Joe Gleason suggested that the statement is too general and could be interpreted in different ways. Phil Lugar explained that the Sub -Committee was striving to find a balance. Carol Boice was concerned that balance should not mean equal weight is given to visitors, business and residents —priority should be given to residents. Mike Johnson suggested the need to plan for some type of transportation to accommodate the increasing number of visitors anticipated in the future. Bob Henderson suggested that the statement regarding the airport may not be applicable in the year 2025.' Mr. Janes suggested that when coming up with the vision statement, we need to keep in mind that although this city is primarily residential, the major revenue source for city services comes from sales tax. Mr. Gleason asked if we were talking about expanding • services or maintaining the level provided at this time. Ed Siebel agreed with Mr. Gleason in that we need to determine whether growth means keeping up with inflation and providing the same services as we have today or growth as in expanding the services in the future. John Corrough suggested adding an additional item covering 2 DRAFT is importance sustainability. Jan Vandersloot suggested adding language indicating the importance of keeping this a residential town and increasing property values which will increase property taxes. Ms. Verheyen summarized the discussion: the value of historic preservation, under responsive government include regional cooperation and coordination and perhaps address committees and commissions in addition to elected people; stay away from negative comments; mention traffic flow in some type of positive; airport statement should be reworked to be both positive and more vision oriented; add something about financial sustainability phrasing it in the positive; more discussion is needed on two topics, whether we want to maintain services as they are currently or expand significantly and are we balancing the needs of all people in Newport Beach or giving priority to residents. III. Discuss Neighborhood Workshop Results Ms Verheyen reviewed the preliminary results from the workshops and the Vision Festival. The full report from the workshops was provided with the agenda packets, a couple problems were pointed out at the GPUC meeting by Barry Eaton and the document will be corrected. Ms. Verheyen will provide a detailed presentation on all • the results at the June 10t' meeting. Major issues emerging so far are maintaining the beach town and residential identity of Newport Beach; maintaining the high quality of life; addressing traffic; preserving water quality; preserving harbors and beaches as significant resources; addressing the size and scale of new housing. Districts 3,5,6 & 7 are concerned about mansionization. Adopting design guidelines were favored in Districts 2, 51 & 6. Some people approved of allowing mixed -use development approved by some people in Balboa Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Mariners Mile, portions of the Peninsula and West Newport (PCH frontage). At the Festival people favored developers paying in -lieu fees or providing a minimum percentage of affordable units for workforce housing. Districts 2, 31 5 & 6 liked the idea of reducing the size or narrowing the permitted usage of some commercial areas. There is a split opinion on whether we want more retail development at Fashion Island. Another split opinion on expanding Newport Center and Airport office areas. On tourism people are of the opinion that they want to continue to accommodate and promote for all users —in particular hotel users and business travelers, however they do not want any more hotel development. Regarding tidelands, parks and open space there is strong sentiment that people want to preserve these areas. On the subject of transportation many feel we need to increase public transit options, there is support for some type of community shuttle for tourists. On the topic of parking ideas such as increasing off -site parking, regulating business operations came up, there was no clear direction regarding reducing commercial zoning. Under economic development there was another split opinion on accommodating job growth, there was a feeling that Newport Beach is job rich. Funding priorities were shown to be maintaining infrastructure, acquire and improve open space and parks, revitalize older commercial areas, and improve water quality. Sharon Wood reminded everyone that comments 3 S collected so far are from those who chose to participate, so there is no statistical validity in these results. The telephone survey will provide a statistically valid sample. Discussion about the findings will be discussed at the June 10th meeting after the Committee has a chance to review the results which will be provided with the agenda materials. The Committee had questions regarding mansionization. Ms. Wood defined mansionization as construction of a building to the maximum allowable limits according to zoning code. Some neighborhoods feel that by doing this, it changes the character of the neighborhood. This issue is important to many people and could be addressed by indicating in the General Plan that zoning codes in certain neighborhoods would be amended. It was recommended that a list of terms and definitions be provided to assist the Committee through this process. IV. Discuss Key Questions No time for this discussion. Next question scheduled for discussion is #34 and then • tourism question. 0 V. Next Steps Traffic and Fiscal/Economic Studies are on schedule. In July we will discuss Fiscal/Economic Study and in August the report on Traffic Study -Existing Conditions will be discussed. Next meeting Monday, June 10th. VI. Public Comments Everette Phillips wrote to each member of the Committee, the letters were distributed at the meeting. His additional comments are attached to these minutes. Wendy Brooks introduced herself. She has quite a bit of background in historic preservation and offers to be a resource to the Committee. 2 wPc pr�» emri 0�1 �w, ( Ccwv" e,&A ci id- �Z fCA C4 IVWaO� RC d, e"V Cc-j d rL+, S W)40 4°l°JiwrJ �r II e �/ 1 �r , -�Pn,J�nJ Sc�Cd� 4,tir.4 c�r1Vi4�_ .� ue+�e� Y'�Wo�� � /1.%ce.J�acu�(�Q+eco� iSr +hJ d rivnuls G J, v2 o%Ca �tfY.� a • PUBLIC COMMENT FOR GPAC MEETING G a Lu a C i' #rises c MAY 13, 2002 I realize that the General Plan Update is a complicated process and that it involves a review of many areas. It is important that we get a true pulse on public opinion that exists today, and it is important that we extrapolate opinion trends to anticipate both opinion and needs for 20 years from now. Public opinion is greatly impacted by how information in the Vision 2025 process is presented and how questions are asked. I have three suggestions for improving how the Vision process is presented to the public regarding Banning Ranch, regarding Tidelands and regarding Bicycle Paths. Regarding Banning Ranch, the current publications refer to the 45 buildable acres zoned for 406 multiple family dwellings within the city limits. I would like to encourage the city to collect opinion regarding the 120 acres of tidelands and 250 acres of Mesa of Banning Ranch within the city's "sphere of influence". I would suggest that the publications and surveys keep separate the zoning issues of buildable Banning Ranch areas from sensitive areas where building is not possible. For traffic models, please develop models for complete development of the entire • Banning Ranch (including sphere of influence), 50% reducing zoning and 100% reduced zoning (i.e. making all of Banning Ranch into parks and open space) Regarding Tidelands — the city suggests in its literature that income is $6 million from recreation and commercial use and $11 million in expenses. I would like the city to consider revising this number to include 25% of property taxes, since a great deal of valuation — maybe half — is dependent on the proximity to and access to the bays, canals and beaches of Newport Beach. 25% of taxes would be an addition $15 million. This would make income $21 million and expenses $11 million. Regarding bicycle paths — bicycle paths are under -represented in traffic and circulation questionnaires and presentations. Their representation could be greatly improved. Thank you for the opportunity to make a public comment. Everette Phillips 300 Canal St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 0 NEWP(M GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CH • VISIONING PROCESS GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVISED Meeting Schedule Police Department — Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, March 11tn Monday, April 81h Aff"Oth Monday, May 13th • Monday, June 10tn 51#W Monday, July 22nd Monday, August 2e Monday, September 9th Monday, September 23`d Monday, October 7th Monday, November 4tn Rev. 6/5/02 q �J V. GLOSSARY OF TERMS Affordable Housing Housing capable of being purchased or rented by a household with very low, low, or moderate income, based on a household's ability to make monthly payments necessary to obtain housing. Housing is considered affordable when a household pays less than 30 percent of its gross monthly income for housing, including utilities. In Orange County, affordable housing is housing for families earning no more than $60,360, costing no more than $1500 in monthly rent or $181,000 in purchase price. Buffer An area designed to provide a separation between two, sometimes incompatible, land uses. Clustered Development • Development in which a number of dwelling units are placed in closer proximity than usual, or are attached, with the purpose of retaining open space area. Density The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Density can be controlled through zoning in the following ways: use restrictions, minimum lot size requirements, floor area ratios, land use intensity ratios, setback and yard requirements, minimum house size requirements, limits on units per acre, and other means. Floor Area Ratio Floor Area Ratio: The gross floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided by the lot area of the site area. Goals Goals are broad statements of direction leading toward a desired end state or vision. • • Historic; Historical A historic building or site is one that is noteworthy for its significance in local, state, or national history or culture, its architecture or design, or its works of art, memorabilia, or artifacts. Jobs/Housing Ratio and Jobs/Housing Balance The ratio of jobs per dwelling unit is often used as a measure to gauge how well communities are balancing available jobs with the levels and prices of housing. A unit of 1 means that there is one job per dwelling unit. Lower rates mean that there are fewer jobs per dwelling unit while higher rates mean that there are more jobs per dwelling unit. Jobs/housing balance is the reasonable opportunity for people to live and work within a defined area that generally encompasses the City's sphere of influence. Lot Merger The combination of two or more adjacent lots. • Mansioniiation The term used to describe the increase in scale of houses in neighborhoods when existing homes are remodeled into much larger structures. Mixed Use Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. Open Space Land A parcel or area of land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open space use for the purposes of (1) the preservation of natural resources, (2) the managed production of resources, (3) outdoor recreation, or (4) public health and safety. Policies Policies establish a recognized community position on a particular issue and, with programs, serve to implement planned goals, usually specified in a community's • • General Plan. Policies can be set forth both as written text and as policy maps, such as a land use plan. Rezoning An amendment to the map and/or text of a zoning ordinance to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district or designated parcel of land. Strategic Direction Action -oriented statements of direction which address critical issues and help to achieve goals and vision. (Example: Limit the extent of private development in public view corridors). Strategy Focused efforts to achieve desired outcomes (goals, vision). Infrastructure • Utilities (such as water, gas, electricity, sewer, roads and parks) provided to an urbanized or urbanizing area. IMM Ii31TJ Wetlands, as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Vision An idea or statement describing the ideal future for a community or organization. • 13 NEWP GENERAL PLAN VPUARE UCH_ VISIONING PROCESS Preliminary Strategic Directions • E INTRODUCTION As the City of Newport Beach prepares to update its General Plan, hundreds of residents, business owners, and community leaders have come together to chart the future of the City for the next 20-25 years. This collaborative effort to shape a long-term vision for Newport Beach will enhance and preserve the City's environmental, residential, and commercial assets while improving the quality of life for those who live and work here. This summary document presents the City's collective vision and preliminary strategic directions at the Citywide and neighborhood levels, which will help make the vision a reality. (The vision statement for Newport Beach is currently being finalized. Please refer to the vision statement in the Neighborhood Summary Appendix). In the coming months, community members will continue to discuss and refine these shared ideas and priorities. When finalized, the statements of future direction will help shape policies to be included in the General Plan to define the way Newport Beach wants to work together to preserve its current assets and create an • even better future. The City of Newport Beach began its visioning process in January 2002. Widespread participation at the Visioning Festival and neighborhood workshops, and responses to the newsletter mailback questionnaire, website questions and information display have produced these preliminary results. [Please see appendices for Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire Summary (Appendix A), Visioning Festival Summary (Appendix B) and Neighborhood Workshop Summary (Appendix C)). The information below details results after a six-month period of collaborative dialogue between residents, property owners, business owners and youth. Participation counts for each activity are summarized on the following page so that the reader may consider these numbers when interpreting results. • C&ofNewg rtBeach Preliminaty Strategic Directions General Plan Update Visioning Process 1 n U Activity Number of Participants Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire 754 Neighborhood Workshops Over450 Visioning Festival Over 400 *Workshop Kit 22 *Website #1 Key Questions 17 *Website #2 Key Questions 15 *Information Display 10 *Website #3 Key Questions 6 *Please note that the above starred activities involved fewer than 25 participants. When cited, these activities should be given less weight than the Mailback Questionnaire, Neighborhood Workshops and Festival results. The findings are presented in a format similar to that of the "Current Conditions, Future Choices" document. The three major sections of this executive summary — Our Community, Our Land, Our City —begin to define the values, aspirations, and ideas of the Newport Beach community. While not every key question is addressed, the following pages do summarize major topics from the resident's handbook. Where numbers and percentages are cited, please note that these are not statistically valid findings. The initial preferences and policy directions indicated here will be tested further in the fall with a community survey. The survey results and information from the City's traffic/circulation and economic/fiscal analyses will be shared in November at the Community Congress. ENVISIONING OUR COMMUNITY Identity: The vast majority of residents indicated that they would characterize • Newport Beach's identity as a beach town, a residential town, and a tourist destination, in that order. In examining the preferences of Visioning Festival and C&ofNewport Seach Preliminaty Strategic Directions General Plan Update Visioning Process 2 . neighborhood workshop attendees and responses from the newsletter mailback cards and website, respondents favored the identity of "beach town" slightly more than "residential town," with "tourist destination" as a significantly less popular option. These characterizations remain consistent for Newport Beach's future identity, with a slight variation on the third preference noted from questionnaire respondents. "Urban -suburban city" ranked one tally higher as a future identity than "tourist destination." Services for Seniors and Youth: Community members expressed satisfaction with the services provided for seniors and youth. Respondents from the website and at the Youth Council meeting were more vocal about improving recreational opportunities and acquiring parks and playfields for younger residents than about additional services for seniors. These participants expressed interest in seeing a greater number of after school recreational activities similar to the City organized flag football games. Job Growth: There was a split opinion among those who responded to the mailback questionnaire and those who responded via the website regarding accommodating additional job growth in the City. One hundred ninety eight of the 353 responses to the questionnaire were negative, indicating that 56% of respondents did not think that accommodating more jobs in Newport Beach was a good idea. Many of those who answered positively stated that the City should "accommodate" but not "promote" additional employment opportunities. Website • respondents, however, viewed job growth in Newport Beach as a positive goal. Eleven out of 18 felt that the City should encourage additional growth in this area. ENVISIONING OUR LAND Harbors and Beaches: Community members felt overwhelmingly that the harbors and beaches should be better utilized. When probed as to how these areas could be improved, the majority of people at the Festival and on the questionnaire indicated that they wished to protect the harbors and beaches as visual resources. Others wanted to improve on the recreational aspect of these areas. In all cases, particularly at the neighborhood workshops for Districts 1, 2 and the Youth Council Meeting, participants expressed a concern about water quality. Likewise, questionnaire respondents hoped to make pollution clean up and the revitalization of beach areas priorities on the City agenda. Public View Corridors: Residents were clear about their desire to preserve the City's remaining public view corridors. Festival attendees and website respondents supported limiting public and private development in these areas. Many who accessed the website suggested that the City purchase these areas as • public land. Participants in the District 7 neighborhood workshop felt that view City ofAtewport Beach Preliminary Strateoic Directions General Plan Update Visioning Process 3 • preservation was an especially pressing issue and would like to implement a "view equals value" view preservation law. • Historic Commercial and Residential Villages: Many of those who participated in neighborhood workshops were asked what the City should do to protect historic villages. Districts 2 and 6 felt strongly that the City should (in ranked order): narrow the permitted uses in some commercial areas, adopt design and development guidelines, and establish a design review process. While Districts 3 and 5 were not asked to prioritize policy directions, they favored all of the above - mentioned suggestions and proposed that the City adopt more Specific Plans and reduce the permitted size of buildings in residential neighborhoods. Areas Suitable for Additional Development: The community was asked to respond in greater detail to the possibility of further development in Fashion Island, Newport Center, and the Airport Office Area. In every one of the three cases, there was a split opinion. Approximately 63% of questionnaire respondents indicated that the City should refrain from expansion at Newport Center and Fashion Island, (256 and 264 respondents, respectively) while slightly less than 40% (142 and 156, respectively) said that they would like to see more development. In the Airport Office Area, 60% (252) of the questionnaire respondents who addressed this issue chose to refrain from further expansion, while 40% thought the area should have more office development. At the Festival, community members were again divided over the development issue. Fifty two percent voted for expansion in Newport Center (85) and 46% (88) wanted to see increased development in Fashion Island. Sixty three percent indicated that the City should expand in the Airport Office Area (150). These sites also received a significant number of tally marks for development from those who responded to the website. Other areas singled out for development include Banning Ranch (29 from the Festival, 5 from the website) and the Hoag Commercial Area (13 from the Festival, 7 from the website). Areas in Which Zoning Should Be Reduced: Festival participants felt that Banning Ranch (30), the Corona del Mar Residential Area (22), Balboa Village (16), and Newport Heights (16) should change zoning to reduce development. Website responses indicated that Fashion Island (3), Newport Center (3), and De Anza MHP (3) should be down- zoned. Areas Which Should Be Revitalized: Participants at the Festival and on the website agreed in their assessment of areas that are in need of revitalization. These areas include: Old Newport Boulevard (27 from the Festival, 9 from the website), Balboa Village (48 from the Festival, 8 from the website), Central Balboa Peninsula (23 from the Festival, 3 from the website), Cannery Village (27 from the Festival, 8 from the website), McFadden Square (18 from the Festival, 9 from the website), and Mariner's Mile (32 from the Festival, 2 from the website). City of New,pott Beach Preliminaty Strategic Directions General Plan Update Visioning Process 4 • Areas Where Mixed Use Development Would Be Acceptable: Attendees from the Festival and those who responded via the website indicated that housing integrated with commercial or office buildings would work well in Balboa Village (20 from the Festival, 4 from the website), Cannery Village (39 from the Festival, 4 from the website), McFadden Square (15 from the Festival, 1 from the website), and Lido Marina Village (15 from the Festival, 2 from the website). Does Newport Beach Have Too Much of Anything: Those who answered this question from the mailback card indicated that Newport Beach has too many rental properties. Many of the 22% (137 respondents) who felt this way commented that renters are often noisy and do little to maintain their residential properties. Mailback card residents also stated that the City has too many office buildings (109) and housing (108), especially big housing (75). Larger Home Construction and the Diminishing Character of Neighborhoods: Mansionization and its effects is a distressing trend for many Newport Beach residents. Sixty six percent (346) of responses to the questionnaire showed a desire for the City to implement restrictions on the construction of larger homes. Residents, when prompted on the mailback card to share their viewpoints, expressed concerned about the lack of privacy, natural sunlight and views. Those who filled out information display cards (2) also felt a similar need for City restrictions. Participants who attended the Visioning Festival and members of the Youth Council suggested limiting the size of new infill housing as a solution to mansionization (161 from the Festival, no tally from the Youth Council). Others would like to restrict the size of remodeled housing (140 from the Festival, no tally from the Youth Council). Those who responded to the website preferred the above -mentioned options in addition to a lot merger requirement. Residents and business owners in Districts 5, 6, and 7 cited this trend of mansionization during their workshop as a major concern in their neighborhoods. Hotels: Seventy percent of those at the Festival did not think that additional hotel development was a good idea for Newport Beach. Eighty percent (65) of those who attended District 1's neighborhood workshop supported this sentiment when the discussion focused on a proposed hotel for the Marinapark site on the Peninsula. Those at the Youth Council meeting also wanted to see fewer hotels in the City. Nine out of 11 website respondents, however, felt that this industry should expand. Tourism: Approximately 70% of those who participated at the Festival and 76% of responses to this question on the questionnaire were in favor of tourism in Newport Beach. The website responses likewise indicated that tourism was a positive aspect. Some expressed that while they are in favor of "accommodating" tourism, they would refrain from "promoting" it due to issues such as traffic and noise pollution. Responses gathered at the Festival and from the questionnaire • indicate that the City should further promote Newport Beach to hotel visitors and business travelers. Q& of Newport Beach Preliminary Strateolc Directions General Plan Update Visioning Process 5 • Tidelands and Other Public Lands: An overwhelming 78% of those who addressed this issue in the questionnaire (502) felt strongly about preserving tidelands and the other public lands in the City as open space. This was supported by a 65% tally (139) from Festival participants. Less popular was the option of developing these areas into public/park facilities. Least popular of all, generating less than 10% of the Festival votes and 12% of the questionnaire votes, was developing the public lands for tax producing purposes. Open Space or Parks: Community members highly value the open space and parks in Newport Beach. Close to 80% of Festival attendees wanted the City to be more proactive in acquiring these areas, even if doing so means bond financing. District 2 workshop participants and website respondents shared similar opinions. Transportation Improvements: The community would very much like to see more public transit options in Newport Beach, and those who addressed this issue in their questionnaires offered community shuttles (particularly in the heavily congested tourist areas), electric cars, taxis and a light rail as alternatives to driving private automobiles. PCH widening through Mariner's Mile also received support from Festival participants, District 7 workshop attendees, and those who turned in the questionnaire. Specific transportation improvements offered at the neighborhood workshops included: better traffic engineering of roads and signals, tunnel/gmde separations and street widening in District 6; signal timing and grade separated intersections in District 7 and 4; and the installment/improvement of right and U turn lanes in District 4. A great number of community members stated that the City should encourage residents to walk and bike to their destinations as possible. Responses from the website particularly emphasized the need for more and improved bike lanes. Residential Neighborhoods and Traffic: Districts 6 and 3 chose to talk about how the City might alleviate traffic impacts in their neighborhoods during the workshops. Participants from District 6 supported the enforcement of speed limits and discouraged "through" traffic as ways to ease the problem. District 3 participants wanted the City to disallow street widening, improve transit options and school transportation, reduce growth and to regionalize traffic solutions. Residential Neighborhoods and Impacts From Commercial Customers and Beach Users: In District 5, workshop attendees discussed the lack of parking as a big concern. Possible solutions generated during the neighborhood workshop include: issuing residential parking permits, reducing commercial areas and regulating business operations, installing meters and increasing off -site parking areas. Forty five percent (140) of the Festival attendees who responded to this dilemma also suggested that the City should increase off -site parking areas. Other solutions, which received approximately 18% of the tallies, were to regulate businesses (56) and to reduce commercial zoning (54). Airport Issues: District 4 neighborhood workshop participants and those who • attended the Commercial/Airport Office Area meeting addressed issues surrounding the airport and land use strategies. Those in District 4 voted General Plan is unanimously to focus the City on working with the Federal Government to devise a solution. Other community members offered additional ideas --creating an international airport at Camp Pendleton, supporting extension of the JWA Settlement Agreement and providing education. Seventeen out of 21 workshop attendees believed the City should have a land use strategy to prevent the expansion of John Wayne Airport. The tallies from District 4 reflect how attendees at the Commercial/Airport Office Area meeting responded. They also thought that reaching an agreement regarding JWA expansion should be a high priority, and that City leaders should devise and keep community members aware of their "end game" —where the City is headed in regards to the future of the Airport Area and JWA/E1 Toro. ENVISIONING OUR CITY City's Funding Priorities: Residents and business owners who responded to the funding priorities questions in the questionnaire and attended the Festival highlighted the need for improved infrastructure maintenance. Citywide improvements to roads, storm drains and sewers received the most number of tallies, followed closely by the need to revitalize infrastructure in older commercial areas such as Balboa Peninsula, Corona del Mar and Mariner's Mile. (This received the second highest tally ranking at the Festival and the fourth on the questionnaire). Community members were likewise concerned about the acquisition and improvement of open space and parks in the City. This need for additional open space and well maintained parks and beaches received close to 17% of all responses on this topic on the questionnaire, and was the primary concern for those who responded to the website. The improvement of water quality was the fourth highest-ranking issue for those at the Festival and fifth for those who returned the questionnaire. It was the second priority for those who submitted website responses. Other high-ranking City priorities from the questionnaire included public safety, City beautification and landscaping, as well as improving schools and the welfare of Newport Beach's current citizens. Local Economic Growth: Sixty seven percent (221) of those who responded to this issue on the questionnaire felt that the City should encourage local economic growth to fund municipal services and facilities. Respondents, however, were divided as to how the City should go about generating economic growth. Most thought that encouraging small business development was the best option, while a lesser number of community members indicated that levying taxes, fees, and licenses and promoting tourism and travel would increase City coffers. General • • For more detail, please see the appendices —separate documents entitled: A. The Vision Festival Summary B. The Neighborhood Workshops Summary C. The Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire Summary Website responses and information display comment cards were relatively few in number (38 and 10, respectively) and do not have a corresponding summary document; those results have been summarized in this Preliminary Strategic Directions document. Q& of Newport Beach Preliminary Strategic Directions General Plan Update Visioning Process 8 E NEWP GENERA PIAN UPDATE VISIONING PAO ESS NemledwMailbackQuestionnaire Summary • 0 INTRODUCTION In January 2001, the City of Newport Beach and Moore Iacofano Goltsman (IvIIG), Inc., a consulting firm assisting the City, produced the first installment of a -four part newsletter series to inform community members about the General Plan Visioning Process. Approximately 45,000 newsletters were mailed in the first week of January to each household in Newport Beach. Hundreds more were distributed to participants who attended the Visioning Festival on January 12th. While the newsletter was designed to stimulate interest among area residents and to educate them on the General Plan Visioning Process, it was also the means to solicit feedback from the community. A detachable mailback questionnaire with thirteen questions asked residents to respond to topics such as transportation improvements, City funding priorities, and development issues. Residents were asked to answer three of the thirteen questions and to mail the questionnaire back to City of Newport Beach Senior Planner, Tamara Campbell. OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY The City received 754 mailback questionnaires over a four -month period from January to April 2002. The questionnaires were then sent to MIG, where each one was individually numbered and analyzed. Responses were tracked on answer sheets, then numerically coded and entered on an ACCESS database. These entries were transferred to and processed by SPSS, a statistical software program used to generate frequency tables and percentages. The results of the SPSS runs are provided below. It should be noted that the response tallies to the mailback questionnaires are not statistically valid, as there was no controlled sample. The questionnaire was designed to gauge the initial preferences and priorities of those residents in Newport Beach, who took the time to answer and return the questionnaire, and to provide additional qualitative opinions to guide the policy formation stage of the General Plan Update (Phase II). It is one qualitative method among many used in the Visioning Program, all of which are complemented by a statistically valid survey to be conducted in October 2002. As stated above, the numbers and percentages in the following tables should not be construed as legitimate survey data, due to the uncontrolled sample and the following limitations: • City of Newport Beach Newsletter Mailback Questionnalre Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 1 n U ■ Intent and Format- The questionnaire was written to solicit open-ended opinions. Respondents were not prompted to select predetermined responses. While the questionnaire captured a richness of comments, this format does not allow for the easy tabulation of results. "Other" Responses- The open-ended format of the questionnaire resulted in numerous answers mentioned by under 10 people, coded as 'other." The majority of these responses were single mention answers. When possible, patterns were noted and these are described accordingly. Varied total number of responses- A majority of respondents answered more than, if not all, of the thirteen questions, though prompted to select just three. In many cases, respondents also provided more than one answer to each question. All of this information was duly coded. While this does not affect the total number of respondents, which remains 754, it does alter the total number of positive responses to each question. RESULTS OF THE NEWSLETTER #1 MAILBACK QUESTIONNAIRE OUR NEWPORT BEACH 1. How would you characterize Newport Beach's identity today? Response Number of Responses Percentage Beach town 312 34% Residential town 276 30% Tourist destination 138 15% Urban -suburban city 85 9% Corporate center 73 8% Cluster of villages 35 4% TOTAL 919 100% Visioning Process 1B. What would your preference be for Newport Beach's future identity? Response Number of Responses Percentage Beach town 26 38% Residential town 18 27% Tourist destination 8 12% Corporate center 7 10% Urban -suburban city 9 13% Cluster of villages 0 0% TOTAL 68* 100% * Please note that the total number of responses recorded for Question 1B is only 68. While a large percentage of people responded about their present identity preference, only 68 respondents indicated their preference for a future identity. • 2. Should the City continue to accommodate job growth when we are already job rich? • Response Number of Responses, Percentage Yes 155 44% No 198 56% TOTAL 353 100% City of Newport Beach Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 3 • • 3. What should the City's funding priorities be? Response ., Number.of , Responses ; Percentage Infrastructure Maintenance 164 17% Parks and Beaches 157 17% Public Safety 123 13% Revitalize Infrastructure 75 8% Water Quality 72 8% School Improvement 32 3% City Beautification and Cleanup 30 3% Parking 24 2% Library 23 2% Arts and Culture 22 2% Recreation 22 2% Senior Services 20 2% Business 19 2% *Other 160 17% TOTAL 943 100% * "Other" responses include the improvement of services for current residents, planning for future development, a new Civic Center and housing. 4. Should the City encourage growth in the local economy to help pay for municipal services and facilities? Response Number of Responses percentage Yes 221 67% No 108 33% TOTAL 329 100% Visioning Process • If so, how? U • Response Number of Responses ' Percentage Small Business Development 62 24% Taxes, Fees and Licenses 46 18% Travel and Tourism 40 16% Corporate Development 32 13% Tolls from Roads & Parking Fees 9 4% *Other 65 26% TOTAL 254 100% * A number of "other" responses cited the collection of tolls from roads and parking fees as a way for the City to encourage growth in the local economy.. 5. Should the City better use its harbors and beaches as a visual, recreational, and economic resource? Response Number of Responses Percentage Yes 357 81% No 85 19% TOTAL 442 100% If so, how? Response Number of Responses Percentage Visual Resource 108 28% Recreational Resource 98 26% Economic Resource 46 12% Revitalize Beach/Waterfront 47 12% Clean-up pollution 85 22% TOTAL 384 100% City of Newport Beach Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 5 0 6. Do we have too much of anything: housing, rentals, office buildings, etc.? Response Number of Responses percentage Rentals 137 22% Office Buildings 109 17% Housing 108 17% Big Housing 75 12% Retail 52 8% Restaurants 38 6% Hotels 37 6% Other 81 13% TOTAL 637 100% • 7. Should the City place restrictions on constructing larger homes that change the character of existing neighborhoods? • Response Number, of ]2'es onses percentage, Yes 347 66% No 176 34% TOTAL 523 100% 8. Should there be more development in Fashion Island? Newport Center? The airport area? A) Fashion Island Response Number of Responses percentage Yes 156 37% No 264 63% TOTAL 420 100% City of Newport Beach Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 6 0 B) Newport Center f� Response Number of Responses Percentage ! Yes 142 36% No 256 64% TOTAL 398 100% C) The Airport Area Response Number of Responses Percentage Yes 169 40% No 252 60% TOTAL 421 100% 9. Should we continue to promote and accommodate tourism? Response Number of 'Responses Percentage Yes 354 76% No 112 24% TOTAL 466 100% is City of Newport Beach Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 7 0 For what types of tourism? Response Number of Responses Percentage Business Travelers 143 23% Hotel Visitors 140 23% Summer Renters 112 18% Day -Time Use ill 18% Convention Attendees 99 16% Other 16 3% TOTAL 621 100% 10. What should be the future of the tidelands and other public lands (e.g., the Dunes, Newport Village, and Marina Park?) Response Number of Responses percentage Preserve as Open Space 502 78% Public/Park Facilities 91 14% Tax Producing 54 80X TOTAL 647 100% 11. Should additional transportation improvement be made to accommodate traffic growth (i.e. regional traffic, airport area development)? Response Number of Responses percentage Yes 265 71% No 108 29% TOTAL 373 100% City of Newport Beach Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 8 0 n • What types of transportation improvements? Response Number of Responses percentage 1 Public Transit 25 17% Street Signal Timing 12 8% PCH Widening 10 7% Electric Cars 10 7% Other 93 70% TOTAL 144 100% * "Other" responses include grade intersections and other street alignments as transportation alternatives. 12. Are there alternative modes of travel the City should encourage? Response Number of Responses Percentage Yes 308 82% No 66 18% TOTAL 374 100% Visioning Process u If so, please indicate below. Response' i Number oT Responses �i Percentage Community Shuttle / Local Trolls 124 25% Public Transit / Bus 108 22% Bicycle 64 13% Pedestrian 38 8% Light Rail 18 4% Car Pool / Ride -Share 16 3% Electric Cars 12 2% Other 113 23% TOTAL 493 100% • * A number of "other" responses cited the use of taxis to relieve congestion in city streets. Many other residents submitted comments that relate to the airport expansion issue. • NEXT STEPS The mailback questionnaires provide indications of initial preferences and policy directions which will be tested further in October with a community telephone survey. A survey questionnaire will be designed by City staff and MIG consultants, then approved by the General Plan Update Committee. A random sampling of approximately 1200 residents and business owners, controlled for geographic location, age, gender, and other demographic variables, will participate to ensure statistically valid responses. The responses to the 10-12 minute survey will be summarized in a document to be presented to the General Plan Update Committee, GPAC, Planning Commission and the City Council. Process Subj: GPAC te: 06/10/200210:45:57 AM PDT ,Tm: dkrotee@krotee.com (Don Krotee) OP (Bob Shelton (E-mail)) CC: mnishikawa@adelphia.net (Mike Ishikawa (E-mail)), memckinley@earthlink.net (Mardi McKinley (E-mail)), admin@krotee.com (Grace (E-mail)) Hi Bob: I have a cross conflict with a public hearing in another City tonight and I cannot attend. I'd like this read into the record if this is possible. One issue about which I have grave concern is "Mansionization". I believe that the same people who feel that the "Beach town" is eroding, feel that the old architectural look and feeling is being destroyed by the poor design of the new homes and a somewhat selfish and myopic approach that "bigger is better". In my own community of Newport Heights the old cottage appearance can be maintained, but only if there is architectural and planning control. The City has historically provided none. As an architect, I see control in virtually every custom home and mature neighborhood in which we do business, and this ensures the style and values of those neighborhoods. 'there is no such control in our City. As a planner, I have crafted design controls for communities in Rancho Mirage and Coto de Caza and know that they have improved the value of those areas. For Newport, this is a topical concern in that over 65% (346) of the respondents (per our Preliminary Strategic Direction document page 5) eve that the City should implement restrictions on the construction of er homes. It is my strong feeling that our group should have a 'TUmmittee, to draft the measures that would assist the General Plan in welcoming the type of responsible and well crafted control so that the future development in our City is in tune with the neighborhood, it's older architectural style(s) (and those styles may be multiple and different from one another). Respondents to our preliminary survey obviously feel strongly that the density and bulk that is the result of today's huge homes needs to be addressed. The type of free enterprise that the developers, the reaRors and even some home owners have twisted into permanent multi story blight can be fixed, but not without some hard work. I'm willing to lead a group to look at this issue and our community association has several members who are interested as well. <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-88594"5 <meta name=Progld content=Word.Document> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 9"> <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 9"> <link rel=File-List href-"cid:fllelist.xml@01C2106B.E4DE6380"> <Hifgte mso 91><xml> OtficeDocumentSettings> o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/> </o:OfBceDocumentSettings> Monday,June10,20Y2 Amodm Online:Shalwald Paget JUN-10-2002 08:52 3108540821 P.02 PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE JUKE 10, 2002 C:PAC MEETING Sierra Club Banning Ranch Park & Preserve Task Force • Dear GPAC Members. As you know many members of our community have concerns about open space, the environment and the issues of preserves, passive parks and active parks. It is exciting to sec that GPAC has considered the topic of open space a priority and that Banning Ranch is a topic of discussion. We wanted to share with you that efforts to create open space are not contrary to the view of the importance of the rights of property owners. There are ways to work with private property owners to make open space pr>j ects a win/win situation. For example, a willing property owner might want to continue with a current activity like oil or mineral removal and yet sell the future rights to develop to a land trust. This would allow the current activity to continue yet settle the issue of future development. It would minimize the issues of toxic hazards. as the land title does not change hands. As the economy has its ups and downs, there can be more or less money to purchase and preserve open space from government agencies. This is one reason that "lane trusts" have been created. "Land trusts" are non-profit organizations that use private and publie funds to purchase land for preservation, reclamation and open space. They are temporary stewards of the lands they purchase, until the conditions develop that make it possible to is transfer the land to some public agency. "Sometimes, willing sellers donate land to "land trusts", especially if the owners are corporate owners, because there are powerful tax incentives. Sometimes land owners " benefit faster and with more profit when coordinating with a "land trust" thFm development, because there is less risk and the land owner does not have to wait until the end of a lengthy process of approvals and construction before seeing their ntoney. Banning Ranch has a mixture of owners including private parties and public: agencies. There are private parties like Rancho Santiago Partners and public entities I ike Newport Mesa School District and the Army Corp of Engineers. The Banning Ranch Park and Preserve Task Force hopes to work with private land owners and public agencies to create parks and preserves on the Banning Ranch land. Before that is possible, it is important that the views of the residents of NevTort Beach he clearly and accurately investigated regarding their desire for open space, their concerns about development and traffic, their concerns about zoning density and their need for parks and recreational areas. Thank you for your time. Please listen to our residents and make the appropriate recommendations! • Terry We1 Chairperson, Banning Ranch Park and Preserve Task Force JUN-10-2002 09:13 S108540821 99% TOTAL P.02 P.02 • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, June 10, 2002 Roger Alford Dorothy Beek Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Karlene Bradley John Corrough Seth Darling Julie Delaney Laura Dietz Florence Felton Nancy Gardner Jr. Joseph Gleason Louise Greeley Evelyn Hart Ernie Hatchell Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa David Janes George Jeffries Mike Johnson Heather Johnston -Reynolds Todd Knipp Donald Krotee Philip Lugar • Catherine O'Hara KA 1 r' • Carl Ossipoff Larry Root John Saunders Brett Shaves Robert Shelton Ed Siebel Alan Silcock Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo 11 u (j • LL � Gp ,� tii d� � cej , �hFIZ\S Man1 2051 NlE&Dv�d View l.N _ COSTA ler, � Ana+I.CD►n NAME GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, June 10, 2002 ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS • • • �� GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, June 10, 2002 AUUKtJJ/YHVNC ;c PI Rl IMF., L9 ►4 itbic NOTES FROM GROUPS 6/10/02 Group 1 Tom Hyans John Corrough Ernest Hatchell Jackie Sukiasian Dorothy Beek Question 34 — What should be the future of the tidelands and other public lands? ✓ Concern — a diminishing amount of tidelands. Concern not ecology, rather keeping areas pristine (Newport Village). ✓ Group agrees with statement "Tidelands & other Public Lands" Page 6. ✓ Are tidelands revenue private facilities over public tidelands inadequate? ✓ Water dependent facilities? ✓ How to make public beach use pay its ✓ Are the tax monies being collected from tidelands used to enhance beaches and harbors? ✓ We support better revenue producing solutions from the harbor, by and tidelands. Long-term leases? Fees for tidelands? ✓ Preserved as open space —we do not want public facilities, we do not want tax producing uses • Group 2 Ron Yeo Don Webb David Janes Todd Knipp Nancy Gardner Question 15 — How should the City preserve its remaining public view corridors, for example, the Coastal Bluffs or views of or from other prominent natural features? ✓ Identify valuable views. 1) from auto 2) from pedestrian ✓ Define Public View Corridor ✓ Views: Man made or natural. Ocean, bay, hills, night lighting of City. ✓ Is there public right to a view — yes. ✓ Do we freeze things? Are there opportunities to create new view? ✓ We are a beach community and should maintain views of water. ✓ It is valuable to maintain views. ✓ Dunes — now low key, preserve existing character. Ardell site, Marina Park, Newport Village, San Joaquin Hills Road, Ocean Blvd.-CdM views, Marguerite, from Coast ✓ View bays — provide view area —when developing or redeveloping. Boardwalk—ped uses along Bay, Bayview Landing, View Park, from roadways, bluff top walkways. ✓ Ocean Views — ped views, boardwalks & walkways, from major roadways • ✓ Protect existing views ✓ Redevelopment should create more view corridors and pedestrian view opportunities ✓ Goal —further identify public view corridors and possibilities to creat new corridors. ✓ Preserve E ✓ Redevelopment incentives to encourage view corridors ✓ The City values the maint. enhancement of public view corridors and is willing to provide incentives to accomplish this vision Ouestion 13 — Should the City better utilize its harbors and beaches as a visual, recreational and economic resource? If so, how? ✓ Yes ✓ If you improve recreational resource and then visual resource then econ will follow ✓ Harbor resource —see vision statement ✓ Recreational resources —improve public boat launching, improvement of water quality to allow body contact sports ✓ Economic resources —harbor cruises, rental boats, upgrade beach facilities, Balboa Village upgrades, maintain no discharge, keep harbor and beaches accessible —enhance public access Group 3 Laura Dietz Jennifer Wesoloski Phil Bettencourt Julie Delaney Bob Hendrickson Carol Boice Mike Ishikawa Ouestions 37 - What types of transportation improvements should be made in the City? ✓ Not enough information to make strong recommendations ✓ Traffic studies essential ✓ Sentiment in opposition to widening of Jamboree; do not make 8 lanes, however more information via traffic study or a, separation of uses bicycle paths to bypass busy intersections) ✓ Mariners Mile —traffic study needed per Newport Heights problems with fears that widening will cause residents problems ✓ Coordinate Mariners Mile with Newport Heights —concern about emergency vehicles, etc. using Cliff Drive and safety ✓ Selective PCH widening with traffic study ✓ Pedestrian boardwalk centered over PCH, providing access to restaurants ✓ Public transit —Catalina Flyer parking shuttle? Any demand from co? Parking on peninsula —resident passes, shuttles for beachgoers? Too much stuff to accommodate 2 • ✓ Street widening potentials-15th & Newport, Jamboree at Ford (CdM HS to go to 7:55 a.m. start) with church issue of St. Marks and Our Lady Queen of Angels —will be difficult to improve) Question 43 - How should we protect our residential neighborhoods from parking impacts from commercial customers and beach users? ✓ Site specific ✓ If you choose to live on peninsula, parking problem goes with area ✓ With guests, tenants play "musical cars" ✓ Various techniques (parking meetings) work in various areas, again site specific Group 4 Ed Siebel Jan Vandersloot Joseph Gleason Catherine O'Hara Larry Root George Jeffries Louise Greeley Karlene Bradley Questions 18 - What City area(s) are suitable for additional development? ✓ Should add water orientation • ✓ Banning Ranch —consensus seemed to lean toward open space ✓ W. Newport Beach Industrial Park —Senior facilities, convert back to residential ✓ Mixed uses —Mariners Mile is two separate parts, water vs. business 40 Question 46 - Should the City have a land use strategy to prevent expansion of JWA? Group 5 Florence Felton Roger Alford Mike Johnson Alan Silcock John Saunders Carl Ossipoff Question 48 - What should be the City's funding priorities? ✓ The Preliminary Strategic Directions report has several fallacies ✓ Hotels are good revenue generators, property tax is #1 revenue generator, sales tax is #2 ✓ Destination hotels that entertain would be a very good revenue generator ✓ Dunes would have been a very good resource 3 • ✓ Airport office building would enhance the caliber of local business and cause residential property values to maintain or increase, therefore Conexant or Koll would be a benefit to the City and increase revenue ✓ NB wants the bet public safety personnel and it must be paid for by local revenue ✓ Water quality —who will pay for urban run off? ✓ Funding priorities-41-Maintenance of infrastructure, #2 Revitalization/parking, #3 Discussions were Public Safety/Water quality ✓ #4-Non-cash enhancements for encouraging business ✓ Must maintain economic base ✓ Open space —on an opportunistic basis ✓ Banning Ranch/Sunset Ridge/1000 Acre Park —does the public understand the high cost of parks? Land, development & maintenance ✓ Consensus —We must have revenue -producing priorities to pay for the basic funding priorities. ✓ Educate citizens about the need to generate revenue or educate public about what they will loose Question 51- Should the City encourage growth of the local economy to help pay for municipal services and facilities? If so, how? • ✓ Yes M • Flip Charts from June 10et meeting Harbors & Beaches ✓ Agree with Preliminary Strategic Directions Report ✓ Recognize importance of water quality Public View Preservation ✓ Increase and expand views from specific points/areas ✓ Investigate incentives to allow greater views from any new development sites ✓ Need for firm policy re: views ✓ Does public right to view abrogate private property rights? ✓ Important to distinguish public vs. private view ✓ Quantifiable valuation is needed rather than relying on qualitative/subjective ✓ Need to be more specific —can't just say "protect" views ✓ Identify/inventory existing views City Funding Priorities ✓ Maintain in ✓ Revitalization & parking ✓ Public safety ✓ Non -cash enhancements ✓ Must have revenue producing uses and be aware of tradeoffs if we don't have revenue producing uses Tidelands ✓ Support directions in Preliminary Strategic Directions ✓ Don't develop open space ✓ Preserve ✓ Acknowledge existing conditions —developed & preserved ✓ Acknowledge that it's a "tradeoff game" —be aware that revenues may be needed thru other means or we may have other consequences (e.g. County police) ✓ Need equity in allocation many considerations re: costs ✓ Consider traffic impacts of varying options for tidelands ✓ City budget drives need for revenue ✓ Need more accountability Transportation Improvements ✓ Grade separation at PCH & Jamboree (correct SD report) ✓ Widening of Mariners Mile —need City to study traffic and access issues . ✓ Public transit--$ feasibility is the question • ✓ Jamboree at Ford Rd. ✓ CdM High school/Our Lady Queen of Angels time adjustment ✓ Separate traffic from bikes/pedestrians"bike/pedestrian highway" ✓ Elevated boardwalk along Mariners Mile ✓ Need to balance new urbanist principles and need for public safety and traffic flow Development ✓ Airport Area • Los "D" for traffic flow • Non -peak hour traffic uses & non -airport expanding uses • Auto mall? Cinema? ✓ Fashion Island & Newport Center • Los "D" as goal • Mitigation should be prompt (provide special financing to speed litigations • Consider creative but safe & realistic solutions • NEWP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS CH General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, June 10, 2002 at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Ernest Hatchell John Saunders Dorothy Beek Bob Hendrickson Brett Shaves Phillip Bettencourt Tom Hyans Robert Shelton Carol Boice Mike Ishikawa Ed Siebel Karlene Bradley David Janes Alan Silcock John Corrough George Jeffries Jackie Sukiasian Julie Delaney Mike Johnson Jan Vandersloot Laura Dietz Todd Knipp Don Webb Florence Felton Phillip Lugar Jennifer Wesoloski Nancy Gardner Catherine O'Hara Ron Yeo • Joseph Gleason Carl Ossipoff Louise Greeley Larry Root 40 Members Absent: Hoby Darling Evelyn Hart Heather Johnston -Reynolds Donald Krotee Staff Present: Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator Members of the Public Present: Phillip Arst Chris Manka I. Welcome and Introductions Bob Shelton called the meeting to order. Mr. Shelton reviewed the agenda and explained that the room setup had been changed to facilitate group discussions on key questions. Mr. Shelton then outlined a new procedure to help cope with the large amount of communication that comes in for the Committee. Any document intended for the Committee will be placed on the table at the front of the room with sufficient copies for the group. Members who are not at the meeting will have the documents provided to them in their agenda packets for the next meeting. Brief announcements by Committee members will be allowed at the beginning of the meetings, however keep them very brief. II. Approval of Minutes —May 13, 2002 The minutes of the May 13t' meeting were approved as submitted. III. Discuss Next Steps for Vision Statement David Janes reported that since his report at last month's meeting the Sub - Committee has not met. Mr. Janes recommended that the group be expanded for the next phase of the process. Mr. Shelton said he would like the group to meet again to take into account the comments made at the last committee meeting as well as comments from this evening. Carolyn Verheyen reported that the next Newsletter is scheduled for distribution after the next GPAC meeting on July 22"d and would like to include the next version of the Vision Statement. Mr. Janes will arrange a meeting time and will discuss additional members with Mr. Shelton. IV. Discuss Preliminary Strategic Directions and Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire Results The reports were distributed with the agenda packets. There was no discussion on these reports, Carolyn Verheyen asked the Committee to report to staff if they had any problems with the documents after the meeting. V. Discuss Key Questions Committee members were asked to break down into 5 groups, each table was assigned one or two questions to discuss. The groups worked 'independently, taking notes and were asked to report back to the full Committee after their discussions. Ms. Verheyen suggested each group use the Strategic Direction • report and Mailback Questionnaire Results to start the discussions. Mr. Shelton 2 also announced that Tamara Campbell and Patrick Alford are Senior Planners and • would be available to assist. After the independent discussions had concluded, Ms. Verheyen asked a spokesperson from each table to share their ideas. Tom Hyans represented the group assigned to discuss Question #34—What should be the future of the tidelands and other public lands? ' The group included: Tom Hyans, John Corrough, Ernest Hatchell, Jackie Sukiasian, and Dorothy Beek. Mr. Hyans reported that the group agreed with the findings in the Strategic Direction Report and the Newsletter Mailback Results. The areas discussed were: Newport Dunes, Newport Village, Marinapark and , Banning Track. Mr. Hyans pointed out that Marinapark includes 40% of the bay beach that remains on the Peninsula, as well as a trailer park, tennis courts and other public facilities. Do we want to develop those areas to provide public facilities? — The group said "no". Do we want to develop those areas to provide tax producing uses? —The group said "no". Do we want to preserve the areas as open space? —The group said "yes". These findings are supported by both reports. Discussion: John Corrough thought there is a need to acknowledge the existing conditions, the three answers offered for this question work only in new areas. • John Saunders doesn't think that the responses received from the public on this question represent the community because they might not understand the tradeoffs; he is concerned City services may have to change due to the lack of revenue sources. Mr. Saunders feels that the public should be educated about the tradeoffs before they are asked this type question. Mr. Corrough said the group discussed revenue derived from the tideland areas vs. the cost to run those areas. They felt there is an imbalance there and maybe a misallocation of available revenues. Jan Vandersloot thought traffic impacts should be taken into consideration, open space may create less traffic than other types of uses. However, John Corrough pointed out that that may not be the case based on the number of people coming to the beach and to the party boats. George Jeffries suggested we need to be concerned about City budget accountability. Don Webb represented the group assigned to discuss Question #15— How should the Cily preserve its remaining public view corridors, for example the Coastal Bluffs or views of or from other prominent natural features? The group included: Don Webb, David Janes, Todd Knipp, Nancy Gardner, and Ron Yeo. Mr. Webb said the group agreed that there is a need to preserve the current views as well as creating additional views through redevelopment. Expanding boardwalks adjacent to the bays and ocean would increase pedestrian views. Additionally, there are views found while traveling the streets of the City such as MacArthur, San Joaquin Hills Road and Ocean Boulevard. The group discussed . looking at additional locations for view parks such as Marguerite and Haborview 3 Drive. They also felt the City should investigate incentives to encourage • developers to build greater view corridors during redevelopment. Discussion: Catherine O'Hara related her experience when reviewing plans for a house on the bluffs in Corona del Mar. She reviewed the policies and felt the house did not comply and recommended denial of the project, however she was told the Council did not like to deny this type of project and the house was built at a higher level than allowed by current policy. Ms. O'Hara works with other cities and their policies are adhered to. David Janes said the group discussed whether the public has an absolute right to a public view and if so, does that abrogate private property rights —to what degree? Mike Johnson served on the PB&R Commission and said the biggest problem was trees, residents who have the trees think they are beautiful and residents above have their views blocked. Nancy Gardner said their group focused on public views, not private. John Corrough feels one of the problems is the definition of these view areas has not been quantified, it is qualified and only generically described. Ms. O'Hara agreed and noted that the maps in the current General Plan are of such poor quality they couldn't be used for enforcement of the policy. Ron Yeo brought up the importance of identifying the view corridors. Mr. Janes feels there is a danger using the word "protect"; does it mean that we freeze all areas as they are today? Ms. Gardner said the group agreed the answer was "no" because they wanted to be open to future opportunities. Jan Vandersloot said that in the • Mariners Mile area, buildings and vehicles have taken away some of the views. Mr. Webb pointed out that a view is more than just of the water. Mr. Corrough again said there is a need to determine a baseline definition and some way to quantify it. Karlene Bradley agrees we need to identify the views as they stand now and quantify what they are now, we don't want to take away from what we have now, we want to add to it. George Jeffries wonders if there should be a rule on maximum tree heights, homeowners are losing their views due to trees. Ron Yeo disagreed saying trees frame the view, they don't block it. Mr. Webb's group also discussed Question #13—Should the City better utilize its how? Mr. Webb said the group agreed with the Mailback Report. They felt if recreational and visual resources were enhanced, the economic resource would follow. A big part of this is improving water quality. Laura Dietz represented the group assigned to discuss Question #37—What types of transportation improvements should be made in the City? The group included: Laura Dietz, Jennifer Wesoloski, Phil Bettencourt, Julie Delaney, Bob Hendrickson, Carol Boice, and Mike Ishikawa. At the District 4 workshop those in attendance were not in favor of grade -separated intersections. The group discussed a grade separation at Jamboree and PCH, and the question was how much traffic travels across PCH up and down the hill to and from Bayside? The • group also discussed the widening of PCH in Mariners Mile, vehicles are using M Cliff Drive to bypass which creates problems for residents in that area. • Additional public transit hasn't seemed to work in the past. The group discussed the potential separation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic in some of the highly congested areas along PCH giving them a throughway at intersections. Corona del Mar High School will be adjusting their start time next year to help with traffic in that area. Ms. Dietz also had an idea of constructing an elevated boardwalk running down the center of PCH along Mariners Mile, it would create views of the bay and provide access to local businesses/restaurants. Discussion: Carol Boice pointed out a couple errors in the Strategic Directions document: 1) Districts 3 and 4 do not want street widening and 2) District 4 did not want grade separations. Discussion cut short due to time. Ms. Dietz' group also discussed Question #43—How should we protect our residential neighborhoods from parking impacts from commercial customers and beach users? Phil Bettencourt reported that although the group had little time to discuss this question, their conclusion was one size does not fit all and all of the techniques suggested could be applied in different areas. Catherine O'Hara represented the group assigned to discuss Question #18— What City area(s) are suitable for additional development? The group included: Catherine O'Hara, Ed Siebel, Jan Vandersloot, Joseph Gleason, Larry Root, . George Jeffries, Louise Greeley, and Karlene Bradley. Ms. O'Hara reported that the group focused on the area bounded by Campus, Bristol, Birch and MacArthur, they talked about how this area currently is underutilized. The group focused on goals for the area such as maintaining the traffic circulation and bringing in businesses with non -airport, non -peak hour traffic and non -airport expansion enhancement uses. One idea they came up with was an upscale auto mall, including ancillary businesses such as detailing shops and restaurants. Incentives could be used to bring in dealers from other areas. Another idea was a multiplex cinema center. The main concern regarding the Fashion Island/Newport Center area was the traffic; level of service D would be the goal. They were concerned about requiring prompt mitigation when necessary to maintain level of service D, if developers could not afford this, special financing might be an answer. Their focus was on maintaining traffic levels, not stopping development in the area. No time for discussion. Roger Alford represented the group assigned to discuss Question #48—What should be the City's funding priorities? The group included: Roger Alford, Florence Felton, Mike Johnson, Alan Silcock, John Saunders and Carl Ossipoff. Mr. Alford reported the group's Number 1 priority was maintenance of infrastructure, and Number 2 priority was revitalization of parking. Number 3 • included discussion about public safety, water quality, and non -cash 5 enhancements to encourage business. The need for revenue needs to be a priority. The group also felt that educating the public was important when they are asked about choices for land use. Mr. Alford's group also discussed Question #51-5hould the City encourage growth of the local economy to help pay for municipal services and facilities? If so, how? The answer was "yes". No time for discussion. VI. Next Steps Carolyn Verheyen reminded everyone that our plan for the next meeting on July 22nd is to hear from the Economic and Fiscal Consultant. The Vision Sub - Committee will have a report and then we will return to these questions or other questions. The group indicated that they liked the format used tonight. The idea of changing locations to the Central Library and time would change to 6:30-8:30. Most felt we should keep the meetings at the Police Department. Next meeting, Monday, July 22"d @ the Police Department. 0 VII. Public Comments Chris Manta read a statement from Terry Welsh which is attached to these minutes, copies had been forwarded earlier and were available to Committee Members at the end of the meeting. Phillip Arst stated he was here to observe and was pleased with the ideas and process. 11