Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2002_07_22GPAC 2002 07 22 •NEWP(6 GENERAL PLAN UPDAiE VISIONING PROCESS July 22, 2002 7:00-9:00 p.m. General Plan Advisory Committee MEETING #5 AGENDA REVISED Police Department Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive 7:00 I. Welcome and Introductions A. Agenda Overview B. Committee Communications 7.10 II. Approval of Minutes —June 10, 2002 • 7:15 III. Vision Statement A. Report from David Janes B. GPAC Approval 7:30 IV. Phase I Report: Retail Market Analysis A. Presentation by Doug Svensson B. Question and Answer 8:10 V. Discussion of Priority Topics to Address in the Survey 8:35 VI. Key Questions: Continued Report Out on Small Group Discussions from June Meeting 8:50 VII. Next Steps 8:55 VIII. Public Comments • NSEWPS July 22, 2002 7:00-9:00 p.m. General Plan Advisory Committee MEETING #5 AGENDA Police Department Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive 7:00 I. Welcome and Introductions A. Agenda Overview B. Committee Communications 7:10 II. Vision Statement • 7:25 III. Phase I Report: Retail Market Analysis 8:05 IV. Survey Topics: A. Where Do We Need More Direction? B. Recommendation to GPAC 8:35 V. Key Questions: Report Out on Small Group Discussions from June Meeting 8:50 VI. Next Steps • 8:55 VII. Public Comments ie NEWPCM 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 Pblice Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Ernest Hatchell Dorothy Beek Bob Hendrickson Phillip Bettencourt Tom Hyans Carol Boice Mike Ishikawa Karlene Bradley David Janes John Corrough George Jeffries Julie Delaney Mike Johnson Laura Dietz Todd Knipp Florence Felton Phillip Lugar Nancy Gardner Catherine O'Hara Joseph Gleason Carl Ossipoff Louise Greeley Larry Root 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 John Saunders Brett Shaves Robert Shelton Ed Siebel Alan Silcock Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo 1 '7•1111 • 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. U. Approval of Minutes —May 13, 2002 The minutes of the May 13th meeting were approved as submitted. Ill. 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 OA II ' . 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 #1S— How should the City 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 c II '7\ . 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 harbors and beaches as a visual recreational and economic resource? Ifs 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 9 DRAFT • 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 Citv 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—Should 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 22nd @ 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. F- L JUN710-2002 08:52 3108540B21 P.02 PUBLIC COMMENT FOR T;HE .NNE 10, Z002 GPAC MUTING 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 "land trusts" have been created. "Land trusts" are non-profit organizations that use private and public 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 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" than 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 money. 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 Preservc Task Force hopes to work with private land owners and public agencies w create parks and preserves on the Banning Ranch land. Before that is possible, it is important that the views of the residents of Nevmort Beach be clearly and accurately investigated regardinj their desire for open space, thoir 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! &e,'� 1 • Terry Wel Chairperson, Banning Ranch Park and Preserve Task Force JUN-10-2002 09:13 3108540821 99% TOTAL P.02 NEWP(M GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CH • VISIONING PROCESS GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Roger Alford 1862 Tustin Newport Beach 92660 Phone: 949-645-3199 Work: 949-833-2815 Fax: 949-833-2876 E-Mail: roger( hbla.com Dorothy Beek 620 W. Ocean Front Newport Beach, 92661-1112 Phone: 949-673-8744 Fax: 949-673-4991 E-Mail: beekdaa aol.com John Corrough 1004 South Bayfront Balboa Island, 92662 Phone: 949-673-8927 Work: 949-673-8077 E-Mail: icorroug_h aol.com Seth "Hoby" Darling 443 1/2 Begonia Ave. Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-675-8132 Work: 714-755-8198 E-Mail: hoby.darlingOlw.com Julie Delaney • Phillip Bettencourt 10 Sugar Pine Road 1136 W. Balboa Blvd. #B Newport Beach, 92661 Newport Coast, 92657 Phone: 949-723-8251 Phone: 949-760-6061 Work: 949-588-5060 x271 Work: 949-720-0970 E-Mail: ipjad@aol.com Fax: 949-721-9921 E-Mail: pbcourt pacbell.net Laura Dietz 325 Cameo Shores Road Carol Boice Corona del Mar, 92625 2945 Catalpa Street Phone: 949-721-8035 Newport Beach, 92660 Fax: 949-721-1357 Phone: 949-759-0809 E-Mail: Ibekeart(a)aol.com E-Mail: wboice@adelphia.net Florence Felton Karlene Bradley 230 Lille Lane #201 9 Summerwind Newport Beach, 92663 Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-646-6192 Phone: 949-548-3016 Work: 949-553-5923 E-Mail: karlyjobCcbaol.com E-Mail: florence.felton(a)mindspring.com Or florence_m_felton@balboainsurance.com 0 • Nancy Gardner 323 Jasmine Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-673-0706 Fax: 949-646-7093 E-Mail: gardnerncyaa aol.com Joseph Gleason Jr. 606 W. Balboa Blvd. #1 Newport Beach, 92661 Phone: 949-723-5068 Work: 949-225-9523 E-Mail: (turner broadcom.com Louise Greeley 16 Swift Court Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-931-1475 Fax: 949-645-0065 E-Mai I: Iouisesgapacbel I. net • Evelyn Hart 49 Balboa Coves Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-645-9127 Fax: 949-645-9127 E-Mail: ohartlineCabaol.com Ernie Hatchell 19 La Rochelle Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-721-8739 E-Mail: ehatch pacbell.net Bob Hendrickson 1815 Newport Hills Drive East Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-759-1202 Work: 949-721-9747 E-Mail: rhpacrealty@aol.com • Tom H�rans 21719 Street Newport Beach, 92663 Phone 949-673-0333 Work: 949-673-3777 Fax: 949-673-0377 E-Mail: tomhyans(ftacbell.net Mike Ishikawa 438 Riverside Ave. Newport Beach Phone: 949-650-3996 Work: 949-293-1976 E-Mail: mnishikawa(d)adelphia.net David Janes 121 Harbor Island Road Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-675-0183 Fax: 949-673-9117 E-Mail: dianes0pacbell.net George Jeffries 1039 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-759-0400 Fax: 949-644-6999 E-Mail: gji4Ca cox.net Mike Johnson 5803 Seashore Drive Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-642-3125 Work: 949-250-6369 x127 Fax: 949-642-5369 E-Mail: delandmlke@earthlink.net Todd Knipp 3110 Clay St. Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-650-7068 Work: 949-644-3378 Fax: 949-650-3843 E-Mail: tknipp city.newport-beach.ca.us As of 7/8/02 • Donald Krotee 2916 Clay Street Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-646-6030 Work: 714-547-7621 Fax: 714-647-0193 E-Mail: dkroteeCalkrotee.com Phillip Lugar 1704 Park Avenue Newport Beach, 92662 Phone: 949-675-4982 Work: 949-824-9460 E-Mail:. phi Ilipll()orimenet.com Catherine O'Hara 1937 Port Albans Place Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-640-7433 E-Mail: oharas5@)r)acbell.net • Carl Ossipoff 720 Bison Ave. Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-644-0469 Work: 818-569-7633 E-Mail: hiingyber@)yahoo.com Larry Root 1210 Polaris Dr. Newport Beach, 92660-5724 Phone: 949-548-9474 E-Mail: rootis@adelphia.net John Saunders 26202 Glen Canyon Laguna Hills, 92653 Phone: 949-643-2399 Work: 949-251-0444 Fax: 949-251-0888 E-Mail: john@londoncoin.com n LJ Brett Shaves 1731 Port Henley Circle Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-720-1922 Work: 949-644-8900 E-Mail: bshaves@aol.com Robert Shelton 3719 Park Green Drive Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-760-0390 Fax: 949-760-1136 E-Mail: Shelwaid(a)ea rthlink. net Ed Siebel 114 Apolena Avenue Balboa Island, 92662-1214 Phone: 949-673-7448 Work: 949-675-8736 Fax: 949-675-0461 E-Mail: ges@)cenprowest.com Alan Silcock 9 Balboa Coves Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-722-6421 Fax: 949-722-6450 E-Mail: balboaal@pacbell.net Jackie Sukiasian 1215 Baypointe Drive Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-759-3191 Work: 949-219-2643 Fax: 949-219-2657 E-Mail: iackie.sukiasian@adam-us.com Jan Vandersloot 2221 E. 16"' Street Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-548-6326 Work: 714-848-0770 Fax: 714-848-6643 E-Mail: j_onv3aaol.com 3 As of 7/8/02 • Don Webb 1821 Mariners Drive Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-646-3133 E-Mail: don2webb(cbearthlink.net Jennifer Wesoloski 307 Montero Ave. Balboa, 92661 Phone: 949-675-3929 Work: 949-644-3147 Fax: 949-673-0838 E-Mail: idwesoloskMcs.com Ron Yeo 604 Iris Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-644-7896 Work: 949-644-8111 Fax: 949-644-0449 E-Mail: ronyeo@earthlink.net • 0 CITY STAFF: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Work: 949-644-3222 Fax: 949-644-3020 E-Mail: SWood( cdty.newport-beach.ca.us Patty Temple, Planning Director Work: 949-644-3228 Fax: 949-644-3229 E-Mall: PTemt)le(@cily.newport-beach.ca.us Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Work: 949-644-3238 Fax: 949-644-3229 E-Mail: Tcampbell city.newport-beach.ca.us Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Work: 949-644-3000 Fax: 949-644-3020 E-Mail: DebbieLCalcity.newport-beach.ca.us • NEWPORT BEACH VISION STATEMENT VISION: Our desired end state. What we hope to have achieved by 2025. Community Character We have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique residential community with a diversity of coastal and upland neighborhoods. We value our colorful past, the high quality of life, community bonds, and the successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses and visitors. Growth Strategy, Land Use and Development We have a conservative growth strategy that balances the needs of the various constituencies in our community and that cherishes and nurtures our estuary, harbor, beaches, • open spaces and natural resources. Development and revitalization decisions are well conceived and beneficial to both the economy and our character. There is a range of housing opportunities that allows people to live and work in the City. Design principles emphasize characteristics that maintain the community's desire for its particular neighborhood or village. Public view areas are protected. Trees and landscaping are enhanced and preserved. A Healthy Natural Environment Protection of environmental quality is a high priority. We preserve our open space resources. We maintain access to and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves, harbor and estuary. The ocean, bay and estuaries are flourishing . ecosystems with high water quality standards Draft #3 6124102 • Traffic Circulation Traffic flows smoothly throughout the community. The transportation and circulation system is safe and convenient for automobiles and public transportation, and friendly to pedestrians and bicycles. Public parking facilities are well planned for residents and visitors. Community Services We provide parks, art and cultural facilities, libraries and educational programs directly and through cooperation among diverse entities. The City facilitates or encourages access to high quality health care and essential social services. Newport Beach is noted for its excellent schools and is a premier location for first-hand educational experiences in the natural sciences. • Our streets are safe and clean. Public safety services are responsive and amongst the best in the Nation. Recreation Opportunities Newport attracts visitors with its harbor, beaches, restaurants and shopping. We are a residential and recreational seaside community willing and eager to share its natural resources with visitors without diminishing these irreplaceable assets in order to share them. We have outdoor recreation space for active local and tourist populations that highlight the City's environmental assets as well as indoor facilities for recreation and socializing. Coastal facilities include pedestrian and aquatic opportunities. Draft #3 6124102 • Boating and Waterways v We are recognized as a premier recreational boating harbor. We have maintained a hospitable, navigable pleasure boating harbor in the lower bay through careful, low density, non -intrusive on -shore development, by regularly dredging navigation and berthing/mooring areas, and by providing adequate access to the water and vessel related servicing facilities. The upper bay retains an unencumbered shoreline and its waterways are maintained free of sediment and debris. Airport We remain united in our on -going efforts to control and contain noise, air and traffic pollution associated with operation of the Airport. Our City government vigorously and wisely uses the political process to control the impact • of the Airport on our community. We have a level of Airport operation that preserves our unique character and land values. C1 Draft #3 6124102 Responsive Government Elected and appointed officials are proactive in resolving both local and regional issues. They and city staff understand and are responsive to the concerns of residents and the business community. June 20, 2002 • Tamara Campbell, AICP Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 REGARDING: Banning Ranch Planned Community District Supplying documentation affecting Plan SUBJECT: To alert Planning Department and all Committees of the liabilities it faces if it approves development ( tyP^C Note: Further documentation is available by appointment. James Orstad 11 Rnmmenminrl Cnnrt u I DRAWBACKS OF DEVELOPING BANNING RANCH OIL PROPERTY • This is not just another oil field. This one is unhealthy. It contains both man- made and natural hazards. It would not only subject our city and county to continuing lawsuits, but endanger the safety and welfare of workers and potential families. In 1935 EXXON began drilling and cleaning equipment with toxic chemicals. This sludge was disposed of by dumping into sump pits, which dissipate into the soil. On March 10, 1999, the Daily Pilot reported the Orange County District Attorney's office caught workers discharging dredged material on this property. State and Federal agencies also became involved. In April, 2002, the State Department of Toxic Control discovered contaminated soil located on old oil property in Huntington Beach. They notified all residents within one mile that contact with this soil is harmful. The Register newspaper announced May 16, 2002, that more than 900 Orange County people had died within a year from fine particle Air Pollution. Chemicals can also cause corrosive soil that destroys cement foundations of homes and bearing walls. Previous EIR and Geological reports call this area "Tensional and Unstable," • that the bluffs contain a web of old faults. 1. The U.S. Geological Survey Office stated: Major epicenter quakes can cause sympathetic land disturbances within a 100 mile radius. Banning faults are within range of five (5) major quake epicenters. 2. Old faults act as conduits for gas and crude oil. Gas seeps are active and that was reported to authorities. 3. Newport Beach homes have experienced fire and damage from seeping gas and crude oil (See L.A. Times, July 30, 1999). 4. Banning bluffs are unstable because of WWII gun emplacements. When removed, they were replaced with "FILL." 5. Bluffs became more unstable when Caltrans excavated much of their natural footing support in the 1960's. 6. A Newport Crest condo that shares a bluff with the oil property has already experienced tension cracks and subsidence that resulted in damages. F2 2 SUMMARY • A. The Planning Department needs to know what liabilities it faces, if it approves construction. B. Investors, loan, insurance and real estate companies, as well as prospective buyers, have a legal right to be told of these hazards. Concealing these dangers is felonious. C. Unstable hazards make it impossible to safely mitigate. D. Construction will kick up dust pollutants and sea breezes will spread it to neighboring families. High bluffs make it difficult to control dust by watering. Excessive water will also spread contaminants. Even the "El Nino' rains are dangerous. CONCLUSION • A far safer plan would be a Park and Wild Game Nature Preserve to attract tourists. There are hundreds of various birds, animals and reptiles, many of which are on the endangered species list. The Sierra Club is on record as desiring to develop Banning Ranch as well as enhancing its wetlands. This plan should satisfy the State, please the Coastal Commission, and delight our Mayor and the citizens of both Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. Dr �� P 0,4,��0 Jame L.Orstad mmerwind Ct. Newport Beach, CA 92663 949-548-5931 • 5 jAESA CCOMMUNMES SINCE 1907 Fh%n' 04g. PIW7" WEDNESDAY. NWRQ1 10, 1999 EPA probing Banning Ranch water violations ■ Federal agency is investigating whether dredged fill I the EM San Ramuv sills. . material was dumped Into wetlands. told the ag�y rYea DOM Mod euma at ths r Mlaw bean Il.�ov RA te,M NEWPORT BEACH — The U.S, Environmental Protection Agency It investigating a Possible. violation of the Clean Water Act by the owner of the Ban" - Ranch property in Wall Newport and an od company. The propertr bordered by West coast Highway and the Santa Attu River. comubof a 292- ave mess overlooking about 120 acre of degraded wetlands. Iaadownen Ave Energy and Rancho Santiago' Pennenhlp • here fouled with housing devel• ve Cl oper Taylor Woodow Homes in Rd form Newport Banning Ranch aLLC. a real state vmtue pmpm• Log to build 1.750 home, a retail m JA village and a small Inn not the ran mesa. About hall of the land would remain open space. to Uylor Woodrow offs da he week unveiled a plan to ream m, the degraded property Into &N he viable wedend. The land he been the site of oil operations by an West Newport Oil Co. for 15 Terri Rob Leidy. wetlands science uw an and field pmgmm manager for Olt d No acould heceg"*t sM 0faBtleal discharging; of matnaL JdmFlyml. an anomry for the tatldornlals and devdopm raid it Is difficult for his liberal to cam• Iomt about the matter and the federal it d�aaency completes ins •A, Iv ae we're cgrM."L then was M fBlln't of wedands ' Naeq' Woo. chid d Itlt FPAY a" ad. mom JaIU rth klcestlgation an la a etdl matte and m law he lld hrvdved the Wldawnen and Ne ng to O"I' olpany. In November. the EPA requoa- BANNING CONTINUED FROM 1 affected by any discharge. Leidy said violations of the Clean Water Act are punished either by fines or a• requirement to do some restoration for the damages. i West Newport Oil also is they 'subject of a criminal investigation by the Orange County 'district attorney's office, along with state and federal agencies, for other possible environmental viola tions. Officials at the district attor- ney's office and the state Depart- ment of Fish and Game have declined to comment on the details of that investigation. Fly- nn also declined to comment. Olt would be fruitless to specu- late about what conclusions the DA might or might not reach," he said. I f1am lYnh Inllllnn 1Mme • u+p.rl... n cYVmNNP. ab. 1 VM IIN• CI'•\ well asp in the pm,.1. e anti dMermmr lln• the wMlamf. dh.l WltOy w,t lh of the Barimm, Ranch property are wMimul. Owl were tMlmed by Id• 11 N Allnl Corps nl GmmMe% tom wNl lb"• NIP may fir may n4N herl. lN.•u SEE BANNING PAGE a • • RoZ�GItilMSTER L\� s -L May Thursday "e- A 1G, 2002 THESE ORANGE COUNTY DEATHS POINT TO THE DANGERS OF DEVELOPING BANNING RANCH OIL PROPERTY. REMEMBER THAT EXXON WAS DRILLING HERE IN 1935. NO REGULATIONS PROHIBITED THEIR BURYING TOXIC CLEANING CHEMICALS IN SUMP PITS. THIS AREA IS NOT VERY SAFE OR HEALTHY FOR FAMILIES. CONSTRUCTION KICKS UP DUST PARTICLES AND OUR SEA BREEZES WILL SPREAD IT TO NEIGHBORING FAMILIES. IT ALSO ENDANGERS CONSTRUCTION WORKERS. THE TOPOGRAPHY WITH HIGH BLUFFS, MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CONTROL DUST BY WATERING. EXCESSIVE WATERING ONLY SPREADS CONTAMINATES. EL NINO RAINS ALSO ADD TO THIS DANGER. Pollution deaths studied Environment • Group says its report, based on data gathered by the state, justifies . tighter restrictions on airborne particles. RT PAT BRENHAM The Orange County Register Air pollution from fine par- ticles kills an estimated 9,360 people in the state each year, including more than 900 in Orange County, zit environ- mental group contended in a -report•released Wednesday. The report is based on fsg- ures gathered by the state Air Resources Board and the Of - Bee of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Those agencies relied on a variety of epidemiological studies worldwide to make statistical links between particulate pol- lution and death and illness. The Environmental Work-' ing Group, based in Washing- ton. D.C. is using the report to push for tougher standards on fine -particle pollution, to be considered June 20 at a meet- ing of the state Air Resources Board in El Monte. State and federal regulators are working on new, tighter standards for fine particles, the road dust, soot, bits of burned oil and brake linings and other microscopic bits suspended In the air. "We usually find ourselves criticizing state regulator for not going far�enohgh,' laid Bill Walker of the Environ- mental Working Group. "In this case, the state regulators have taken some pretty bold step in terms of advancing a new frontier in the protection of public health." Experts believe these tiny particles may lodge deeply In the lungs, leading to a variety of health problems. They come from car exhaust, large industrial plane and other sources. New federal mles may take several years to develop. But the state air board could adopt new Califumi5 standards at the meeting nett month. The environmental, group looked at a variety of in- formation on people, includ- ing smoking and eating habits AIR •PAGE2 AIR: Many deaths blamed on particles FROM FACE I and where they lived to con - elude which deaths and illnesses were caused by air - home particles, said Renee Sharp, co-author of the report. A scientist who helped gather the original dam esti- maung the number of deaths from fine panicles now as well as how many would be avoided under the new stan- dards, said the activist group appeared to report these fig- ures accurately, said Allan Hirsch. spokesman for the Of- fice of Environmental Health Ha2ard Assessment. I hose tiwtc% say that. of the 9,300 estimated deaths statewide, 6,500 could be averted if the tighter rules are adopted. Of the 956 estimated deaths in Orange County, 744 could be avoided, the report says. Hirsch said scientists at his agency were less certain aleout how the Environmental Working Group arrived at its other conclusions 'While we're not saying they didaR use our numbers, and we're not saying they did not legiti- =rely (compute them). we're not certain exactly what they did." Hirsch said. For example, the group says more than 66.000 asthma at- IkRe edae Tove.afmYamrYl waMsg iraw'ettpa4rW tnWeb teA rwAttgag •Ism the 90 triad as atshtle edtktr leper Is heel go to the Ay a0artn Im Me,nwioragw/ttsaedJupffaiN7aMWarlratm . tacks in Orange County are cased by fine panicles and that more than 44.000 could be avoided under the new rules • .The report also says more than 500.000 lost workdays can be attributed to fine pani- cles and that tighter standards would reduce this number by more than 374.000. It also says the new stan- dards could save half a billion dollars in health costs, in, eluding millions of dollars In Orange County. Walker said only the r figures were based on forr Iss devised by the Eavir mental Working Group. said the rest of the rep closely parallels the work state sciesewts •The ASSIN390 Bess oxitribded C Cis report. -COW Itwren at Met) 7*766. pORtrswrPonegtRerron �J IS BANNING RANCH SAFE? • Recently Huntington Beach residents living within a mile from a contaminated area were notified that soil containing a cancer -causing agent was present. It is known as PCB (Poly Chlorinated Biphenyl). Human contact with the soil could be harmful. Its actual source is unknown, but is believed to be from past oil operations or illegal dumping. EXXON in 1935 was conducting oil operations on Banning Ranch. There were no environmental regulations in those days. A variety of chemicals were used to clean drilling equipment. These mixtures were disposed of in sump pits. After seeping into the soil, they were covered with earth. There are no maps of these pits or all abandoned wells. Sulphates also have a devastating effect on regular cement foundations. What environmentalists fear is that once the soil is disturbed by construction 1) dangerous gas is airborne, and 2) their clean-up water or even rainfall will spread any contamination. Worse, it could run into the wetlands. If this committee is considering recommending a housing project, then consider the danger. At least, recommend a survey by the State Department of Toxic Substances before doing so. • A DRAFT BY: James Orstad 11 Summerwind Ct. Newport Beach, CA LOS ANGELES TIMES B4 TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 HUNTINGTON BEACH State to Notify Residents Near Contaminated Site The carcinogen is not carried in -- I the air and is not expected to leach Residents who live within a mile into the ground water, said Lucy of a Rolsa Chica site contaminated i Dunn, executive vice president of by a cancer -causing agent will re- I Hearthside Homes, which is trying ceive notices from the state De- to develop nearby land. Contact partment of Toxic Substances Con- ' with the soil could be harmful, but trol this month, Officials have known for three the site has been fenced for more than a year. The source of the con - years about the polychlorinated bi- lamination is unknown, though it phenyl, or PCB, contamination on could be from past oil operations, , lh acres of unincorporated county land owned by Signal Landmark illegal dumping or electrical trans - formers, officials said. near the end of Graham Street. 0 1 1 • • u SUPPLENMNTAL DRAFT This Report for Hoag and Vicinity (page 6 section2.4) NJns.NTAL I.�ACT REPORT NO. 142(�� Hoag FOA p g anBanning Oil property of Hd Bin are adjacent. The NO. 142 > � � % HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN are considered common geological areas of gas seeps. SCH #89061429 APPENDIX L (PPI-13 Sections 1.0-6.0) �*^^� •�"` SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEN SULFIDE/METHANE GAS STUDY 3.2 Methane The effects of the local methane seeps in the Newport Beach area have been noted as including minor fires from the trapping of the gas within a confined space and economic impacts from source control measures and monitoring. . The hydrogen sulfide and methane gases are likely to be seeping from the soils, with the unknowns associated with the fractured geologic system, leads us to conclude that the concentrations and locations of gas seepage from the soils are very poorly known. Scattered fractures may be acting as conduits for the gases almost anywhere on the subject property. 5.1 Project Specific Impact The project would result in the excavation of 4*9;989 cubic yards of soils to anundetermined Aepth. The disturbance of the soils may result in levels of hydrogen sulfide and methane, or another unknown hazardous constituent, in the atmosphere in quantities greater than the NIOSH, OSHA, and ACGIH limits, or in concentrations which may pose the threat of. explosion. • It is recommended that continuous monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide be conducted during the disturbance of the soils and during any construction activities which may iesult in an increase in the seepage of the gases. A study of other hazardous constituents which may be present in quantities which pose a health risk to exposed individuals should be evaluated prior to the initiation of the project. These may include compounds which are directly related to petroleum, such as benzene and toluene. • potential for increased fault activity and gas seepage during construction -related activities. • solubilized gases and byproducts in the water runoff form the site. January 14, 1992 Project No. 200160-01 i 0 • STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF WEST NEWPORT MESA Published in conjunction with by The South Coast -Geological Society's EXCERPT Paul Guptill, Casey Armstrong September 19-20, 1992 Feld Trip and Marc Egli INTRODUCTION A detailed geologic investigation was conducted on West Newportmesa in 19a6 to evaluate the potential cf,f4ult9.ng on property planned f-ture development. West Newport Beach is one of the few locations along the Newport -Inglewood structural zone where offsets in Pleistocene sediments can be observed in outcrop._ During our field investigation we identified numerous near -surface faults in the mesa escarpment along road cuts and in. trenches. The majority of these faults are normal faults with less than 6 inches of apparent dip separation in late Pleistocene sediments. Some faults were mapped, however, that have displacements, as great as 2 to 3 feet. Vhe oil lield''is found to consist of two primary faults and numerous? ri1 �wssociated-'smaller faults such as the _Banning fault. -La prominent faults are designated the North Branch_o! the Newport -Inglewood fault and the North Branch Splay fault. A third fault, the South Branch, which has the largest apparent separation (1,500 feet) of all of the faults is located south of the study area as reported by Hunter and Allen (1957) and is the main branch of the zone. The general tensional environment across the mesa 1z reflected in the near surface apparent dip -slip separation observed in trenches and in the bluff exposures. The discontinuous nature of faults on the terrace surface and small normal displacements, predominantly down on the southwest toward the North Branch, indicate a broad zone of oth. rgnSion at the Surface in response to normal fault lip T,ha fallowing conclusions are mada: o Two zones of faulting are present on the mesa; one spatially associated with the North Branch Splay fault and the other with the North Branch of the Newport -Inglewood zone. o The zone of faulting associated with the North Branch Splay consists of a broad zone (up to $00 feet) of subparallel, discontinuous, normal fault traces, typically with less than 6 inches of dip -slip separation within the Pleistocene marine sediments. PACIFIC COAST MIDWAY FLUVIAL 'Ht vd. 3AD CUT SCHEMATIC CNOSS SECTION . WEST IIEWPORT MESA The mesa is underlain by predominantly Pleistocene shallow -marine and tidal -flat and fluviomarine deposits that have been incised locally by several stream channels. The marine and tidal deposits typically consist of well -sorted fine-grained sands, silts and clays. i .. I GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS Geological Evaluation of Faulting Potential • West Newporf 011 Field, • Orange County, California -!2 LARTB TLCHNOLOGY CORPORATION Paul Gupc ill Senior Engineering Geologist C.L.C. 1081 � <S�'C770brs' Dater July 31, 1986 Project No.: 86-820-01 Marc Lg1i Project Geologist 2.1 Objectives The principal 04jectives of our geologic investigation were to char- acterize the nature of apparent faulting on West Newport Mesa, to delineate individual fault traces, to interpret the origin and significance of fault traces, and to estimate the age of latest fault movement. The site is presently a producing oil field. Operation of the oil field began in 1943, and since that time many modifications to the natural_ surface have resulted Scan oil field operations. Foremost among these modifications are road and drilling pad excavations, surface and subsurface Pipelines ,and asphalt slope protection of the mesa bluff face. yA deep road cut was exca- vated in the 1960's in a north -south trend along the eastern side of the study area as a possible extension of Balboa Boulevard. This cat is parti- cularly useful for interpreting geologic relations on site. in this eepoit, it is referred to as the Balboa Boulevard cut ' 2.3 Previous Investigations Previous investigations at the West Newport mesa had ide^eifded+ qvi dence of faulting at and near the W.N.O.C. property. Guptill, and Reath •(1981) reported offset soils at the mesa as well as one locatioh •>ftiefre man-made dill appeared to be involved in faulting. R. Miller, of the Cali- fornia Division of Mines and Geology, also mapped displacements in the mesa sediments along the Santa Ana River and at the road cut along Superior Avenue !or this report, we have interpreted (personal communication, 1986). subsurface faults to be related to the mesa faulting. 4.2 During our field investigation we identified numerous near -surface faults in the mesa escarpment along Balboa Boulevard and in trenches associ- ated with the North Branch Splay fault. Faults were easily identifiable because the sediments are "ell -bedded The majority of these faults are normal faults with Less than 6 inches of apparent dip separation in late Pleistocene sediments. some faults were mapped, however, that have displacements as great • as 2 to 3 feet. se Comor— R GEOTECHNICAL REPORT C,�cTroNs y� 3� G•d,J • 4-3 The general tensional environment across the mesa is reflected in the • 0 near surface expression of faults observed in trenches and in the bluff on the west side of the property. The discontinuous nature of faults on the terrace surface and the small normal displacements, predominantly down on the south-west toward the North Branch, indicate a broad zone of tension. 3-2 Several broad ephemeral streams have incised drainages into the mesa surface. They drain south -southwesterly, and although the drainages ace fairly deep, exposures of underlying sediments along their course are usually poor. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Geologic mapping and trenching of the West Newport Mesa reveals the presence of many small faults. '6.0 The following recommendations are made for planning future development on the mesa at the W.N.O.C. property. These recommendations are in conform- ance with prudent aeotechnical practice and are based on both the conclusions of this study and State of California criteria for evaluating surface faulting. o Although the faulting in the bluff spatially associated with the North Branch fault appears similar in age to -the faulting documented along the North Branch Splay fault, uncertainties '`in tectonic origin and age need to be better explained. Those uncertainties stem from the lack of knowledge about the location of the North Branch fault trace and its association or lack thereof to the faulting oserved in the bluff. We recommend that future studies of those fault traces be con- ducted to better define the zone width and activity if habitable etruetures are planned across the fault traces. (FOOT NOTE): The journal SCIENCE said most scientists now question the term; "INACTIVE" when reviewing faults and volcanoes of any period. a January, 1992 5UPPLEhfLNTAL DRAFT Prepared for. ENVMONMF.NTAL BWACT REPORr NO. 142 FOR City ofNeuport Beacb HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN PlanningDepartamnt ScH#89061429 3300 Neuport Boulovard Newport Beacb, C19266336844 Contact Perron: Patricia remple (714) 644-3225 Prepared by. LSA Associates, Inc I Park Plaza, Suite Irvine, California 9. 014) 553.0666 BANNIM ir4 Underlying Thrust Faults area potential threat in any area : Steve Walter, Seismologist, U.S- Geological Survey 1998. �_— _•���VEMUE DUPERIpn Syltgto e Monterey Cos Angeles Mimcfl MONDAY.NOVEMBER L Iquq B13 R Report on New Fault The aork has been recognized as important because it helps under- stand more about a fault that was not known to have existed. Recent earthquakes. including the Hector Mine earthquake and the North- ridge temblor. emanated from pre- •: iousiv unidentified faults. "Prior to this work. most people considered the Newport -Inglewood to be the principal source of seismic activity in Orange County;' said Tom Rockwell. geology group 'xader at the Southern Californa Earthquake Center. "One possible mitcome of this research is :hat there are other blind thrust faults that ne do not know about in the nrpa. � Approximate Trace of 4ttrust Fav�t� 1 / ==01M In 6 CONSTRUCTION HISTORY Geology Notes added 1/92 HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN dal 22 Jan .1976 NINYO & MOORC SanJa Rills Fault A New Fault I10 scientists have discovered Po int a new blind thrust fault in south Orange County capable of generating a 7.3 magnitude earthquake. A look at a blind -thrust fauh: Blind fault thrusts upward. without breaking surface \ L 8 \I so.'ee uG yam:=:III"'® • n U 59E ZWU V19W7'AT7a1( �!L- PA?e-- 11 Summerwind Ct. Newport Beach, CA 92663 949-548-5931 May 11 1998 County of Orange 300 North Flower St., Room 321 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attention: Ron Tippets, E.P.D. REGARDING: NEWPORT BANNING OIL RANCH This is unusual property with gullies and 55 foot high bluff tops. The area contains a multitude of natural and man-made hazards. This area is on Monterey formation with a dense bedrock of compressed earth. However, the bedrock contains old faults, fissures and clay seams. The risks of mitigation increases when over old faults and an old oil field. Oil development began 1935' There was no state controlled safeguards. Old drilling oil, sludge and slurry was disposed of in an open pit to dissipate and dry before bulldozing over. Exhausted wells were not abandoned safely and old corroded pipes also leaked oil. Some geological reports made mention that old fault lines appeared to be transporting oil or gas. (See E.I.R. Report 142, Hoag Hospital Section 4.10.1.) .Slope stability appears to be a major problem. (See Report by Earth's Technical Corp., July 31, 1986, for the oil company.) It states: "We recommend caution because of uncertainties and the lack of knowledge on the mesa walls." Our Condo structure shares a bluff top with Banning property. This bluff is 55 feet above the gully and our condo is 65 feet from the edge. We are the only structure that comes this close to an edge. This is the only bluff top that has experienced both surficial and deep failure. Subsideshas damaged our condo. This is the only bluff top having an old well site at its base, the only bluff top showing evidence of liquefication. We believe any excavation at this area of the cliff, bluff top, face or base will contribute to its geologic instability. In fact, our request for help began in June 1993 to the City of Newport and later to the oil company, who never responded. At this time we are in the dark as to their iy planning to buttress this area or that it remains untouched as a park area. At • any rate, some mitigation should be attempted even though it remains as is. SLIDES AND SUBSIDY 1. kenneth Henderson, an official of -the State Department of Conservation, Division of Gas and Oil, stated: The State needs additional inspections and test requirements on all old oil fields in our coastal zone. (L.A. Times, 12/29/93, page A3.) 2. The famous Geologist Arthur Sylester reported in the Science Journal: "Coastal oil fields pose a big worry to earth movement when old fault lines and fissures allow subterranean fluids to weaken and cause hillside disasters." 3. Geophysicists now use G.P.S. "Ground Positioning System" to pinpoint land subsidence within a few thousands of an inch. Also to determine how and s where it is occurring. This method uses satellites. California's state law in r 1956 required oil companies to inject as much fluid as it took out of the ground. This technique prevents subsidWr However, between 19.35'and 1956 they created many cavities. Cavities cause movement, even sink holes. On January 15, 1993, Costa Mesa experienced a large sink hole very near the oil property, at Superior and 16"' Street. No thorough investigations were made, • but there were several theories. 4. Gases have no known means of generation, accumulation or migration. Hydrogen sulfide is dangerous to humans (E.I.R. No. 142 for Newport City, January 1992, page 5, Section 2.3). S. A letter from this writer was written to your E.M.A. Department, September 8, 1991, reporting fumes and odor from the oil fields onto our area. SEISMIC DANGERS 1. Geological reports verify the presence of old faults; California's existing criteria on faults state: Pre -Holocene faults are presumed to be inactive and require no setbacks. However, Earth's Technical Corp. report for the oil company dated July 31, 1986, Section 3.4, states: `Owing to the lack of charcoal or other material amenable to absolute dating techniques" their age is imprecise. 2. Pre -Holocene faults and volcanoes surprised everyone a few years ago when they became active. Science Journal reported scientists now theorize they cannot be considered inactive. • 13 Who Can You Blame When Land Collapses? ByjA"B s. Gf NELLL - �_ JONNLToM TI ESSLIE EARNEST srrgnt ro rxr nMts LAGUNA NIGUEL—Almost Immediately after A hillside col- lapses and homes topple, the fin- ' Ser-po(ntingbegins. Owners of once sturdy homes stare at the rubble and figure someone must pay. This act of God 'can't be prevented, but someone should have foreseen this tragedy. Was the hillside graded properly? Was the $od packed down enough? Was the foundation deep enough? Where were the city building in- speetnrss Were the neighbors A. raring too much, or did they divert A natural drainage path? The fist of those to blame goes on• and lawyers skilled At finding fault plumb the depths of con- tracts• other people's Insurance Policies and government records to help their clients recover what they tan. "The rains have brought these issues to the forefront.- one lawyer SAYS, "We don't Rve an bedrock like they do in Manhattan." The path to economic recovery through the court process is weil- trodden and very Iang. Lawsuits stied yeah ago haven't yet gone to Wal. The in targets are de- velopers, grader, engineers. ge- ologists —and sometimes cities In Laguna Niguel, residents are Angry at velopers for hauling In toils of filldirtto build a slope Supporting a row of affluent homes. The slope partially gave way early Thursday, toppling two houses and demolishing five condominiums at the base of the hill. "I blame the developers who graded the property. They're the antl who are responsible." said Ann Andrews, whose hilltop home Is nest to one tagged unsuitable for occupancy. 'They say it was the storms, but as was just the Icing on the 90 ccn years that a landslide Inore occur At the slope• created for th hWtop subdivision known as In Summit. Indeed, state geologists sal av tong ago As 1973 that much o South Orange County s hillsides unstable because of ancient land Slides and earthquake faults, But that hasn't slopped develop- er from gelling housing tracts ready for builders• and it hasn't Stopped residents from later suing developers in An effort to recover their losses from slides and other. earth movements. In- Mission Viejo, one of the earliest of the master planned Communities• numerous soil slip- page lawsuits have been filed Against the developer, the Mission Viejo Co., over the past decade. Typically, the suits were settled Wore going to trial. Terms were 'kept Confidential. In Laguna Beach. two former Dunning (hive residents blame the city for failing to repair leaky underground drain and sewer pipes that, they contend. caused land movement during 1995 storms and desimyed their homes. The city asserts that over -watering by one of the residents made the land unsta- ble. Trial is scheduled in June. Thursday's slide In Laguna Ni- guel is the nightmare Come true for residents. The Crown Valley Park- way Condominium Assn.- which oversees the condo complex at the bottom of the hill, had sued Niguel Summit developers and the subdi- vision's homeowners association four yeah ago. alleging defective grading and workmanship. The Suitis pending. Often, developers will try to move quickly to resolve obvious defec s We find that builders of single- family homes damaged by mil Angeles 01M es FRIDAY, MARCH 20,1998 MPYRiGi1r19Va/niCr1MPSMIRROReOMPA.", CCI 1IMPAGFS d it Problems often buy back the homes 0 and repair them in order to avoid ,.its and keep things quiet." said Thomas E. Miller• a Newport f Beach construction defects lawyer. are In some of the Mission Viejo cases, for instance• the company Purchased the damaged homes from disgruntled owners and re- sold them after repairs were made. Damage from soil movement usually *Pew because South County tract homes often aren't built on natural terrain, says Irvine lawyer Kenneth Kasdam also specialist in ConsWction defect bti. gation. "Bu iders can gel much greater demsty—and more prom —if they alter lhe'natluul slopes and can- yons'' Kasdan said "So they create Bat pads where there used to be canyons —or on lemces cut into hillsides. "There's a reason a canyon is there." he said. "Water cut rt into the terrain, and water still runs there. When you fill one up, you've got to take that into account" Lawsuits against cities are much less common than those against developers• geologists, graders, soil compactors. neighbors and others who alter land That's because government entities are immune under slate law from most oeglf- ' Bence lawsuits. Even If a city official forgets about a fault under a vacant plot and approves a building permit the city. usually isn't liable. Owners or dam. aged homes have to show actual fraud or Corruption. such as a builder paying off an imjiector to Ignore a defect.said Philip D. Kohn• city attorney for Laguna Beach But cities and counties face tougher Issues when homcovners claim that a city facility or service damages theirpropernes. he said. Sliding Blame When a landslide occurs, finding the right party to blame Is complicated. Sometimes il'sjust Mother Nature, or a neighbor who left the sprinklers on too long. And the process of building a housing development is complex, with responsibilities for testing and preparing the land spread across the planning table Alook at who's involved in readying land for housing, Developer a Buys land ■ Hires soils engineer, grading contractors Soils Engineer a Samples souls. identifies ancient landslides and locates underground drainage courses ■ Reports findings and recommendations for preparing the site for construction ■ Resamples soils at each lot before fine grading ■ Audits all grading Rough Grading Contractor ■ Rough grading includes compacting fill soil and excavating ancient landslides a A city or county grading inspector checks the grading. compaction and drainage installations Fine Grading AN Prepares each lot for construction Rrrr�VA�UlAW1LLMr�[bl1Yn „iI�p FMfMAMMbC J �1 SUNDAY TUNE 25. 2000 By DIANBy DIAN—DNER '1'IbIL•s s'CAfR wttt t Lit • he property seems perfect: great location, well -designed house, good price. The landscap- ing is lush, the ocean view sublime. But beneath the plush lawn, the bright begonia beds and the kids' jungle gym With abandoned oil fields tank that had been buried near his garage. "I was in shock, absolute shock," and other potential hazards beneath some Southland homes, it pays to do research before you buy. could lie something more ominous: an until savvy home buyers or suspicious abandoned oil well, bubbling tar, homeowners do a little investigating. methane gas, a city water main. What they uncover isn't always pretty. At best, subterranean surprises lie Long Beach resident Clint Stadig dis- dormant, posing no health risks. At covered a little too late that his backyard worst, they belch fire or burst. Most of soil was contaminated with petrochemi- the time, they sit unnoticed. That is, cals, the byproduct of an underground off Continued from K1 land before it was converted to housing. Unfortunately, the aver- age person doesn't consider doing this." There are 70 oil fields in the L.A. Basin, containing about 33.000 •knotm wells, according to the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geother- mal Resources. About three- quarters of the wells_ have been abandoned, only about 25p10 of them sealed'to today's strict stand- ' ards. The rest were capped accord- ing to the requirements of the 'time. Dried-up wells from the 1920s may have been literally aban- doned, with no plugs or sealants, said Richard Baker of the Division of Oil and Gas. Before 1985, some cities checked residential areas for tanks, others didn't. In any case, "lots of houses are built over wells," he said. Real estate attorneys caution home sellers that they have a legal obligation to disclose problems about the environmental condi. tion of their homes, including haz- ardous substances and flood and wildfire risks, to the extent that they know about them. _Bryan Mashian._a. Los Angeles reaf estate attorney, recommends that buyers hire an environmental' engineer to issue a written report, but warned that thg •process is ex- pensive, about S700. a .' lie also cautioned that b gre, have little legal recourse if refit• discover toxic materials on ~rtt properties after the sale is cotr plete. The burden rests on•(he; buyer to prove that the seller had knowledge or piohlem and failed leJisdos0Ir,- "It's important to know 1vh3t went on on the property, to know about long-term seepage prob- lems," Neilson said. "You need to look at the past. But I guardnttie that 95% of people don't do it." Bill Brooks, a Los Angeles resi- dent, didn't have to look any fur- ther than the backyard of the Mira- cle Mile home he purchased five years ago to see what nature was serving up. He found tar oozing; through small fissures in the con-1 Crete on the property,[ - in March 1985, a methane gas explosion ripped through a Ross Dress for Less store at nearby 3rd Street and Fairfax Avenue, injuring 24 people and forcing the clo- sure of stores in the shopping cen- ter for several days. Methane is a colorless, odorless, highly explo- sive byproduct of the oil fields. Today, the risk of methane gas explosions is slight, experts say. The Los Angeles Building Code calls for laying pipes to collect and vent the gas, then covering the pipes with a plastic membrane. Additional safeguards, including methane detectors, also are in place. Sthdig said. "we've opened a can of u�rmsI%i shwe'd never known abouL" From Ventura to Newport Beach, many of the regions most concentrated rest- dential and business areas have been built atop abandoned gas and oil fields. Many homeowners don't know of their existence, and most home buyers don't seem to care. But experts say they should. "Southern California was one huge oil field," said Ron Baker, an information of- ficer for the California State Department of Toxic Substances Control. "It's impor- tant to know what was on your Ron Baker, of the State Depart- ment of Toxic Substances Control said that more and more agricul- tural land —contaminated with pesticides —and former oil fields are being converted to housing to- day. it behooves consumers to do their homework, he said. "Buying a house is the most ex- pensive investment we make," Baker said. "Read the dtie report and do your research on the property. Even if the investigation is expensive, it will cost you less in the end." But Richard Baker cautioned that Mother Nature can be tamed only so -far. "09 has been seeping here for thousands of years,' he said. "There's not much you can do about it." Please see sites, K4 SEE City and county planning departments: for history of the property. You can research your property with help from the following: _^ ✓ The Division of 011, Gas and Geothermal Resources: provides maps of abandoned and current oil wells for 24 Southern California cities. (714) 816-6847 or (805) 654-4761 in Ventura.— _.._ ✓ California Environmental PrUtection Agency: information about water, air an`d soil contamination. (916) 324-9670. California State Department of Toxic Substances Control: information on hazardous waste sites and cleanup. (818) 551- 2800; (714) 484.5300; (916) 322-0476. ✓ "Environmental Hazards: A Guide for Homeowners, Buyers, Landlords and Tenants," published by the California Department of . Health Services. —DIANE WEDNER 15 LUJ HIVuz"r J Il1"l o U�. Wf:LL�a.Jvu, • Orange County • Developer Ordered to Shore Up Slide Area By DAVE McKIBBEN TIMES STAFF WRITER San Juan Capistrano officials must require a developer to stabi- lize a hdlside that partially col- lapsed in 1998 during El Nifio storms, damaging or threatening five homes, a judge has ruled. SunCal Cos. of Anaheim contrib- uted to the collapse while grading for the Pacific Point project, Orange County Superior Court Judge William F. McDonald ruled last week in a lawsuit homeowners filed in May 2001 against the city and the developer of the 256-acre project. Jay Curtis, forced out of his Mer- edith Canyon home after the land- slide, said the ruling was a victory for the homeowners. "This means they're going to Lave to make the homes stable so that they can be lived ill. again," Curtis said. "In order to do that, they'll have to put the hill back. The judge ruled the developer had a duty to support the hill and they didn't do it." Lawyers for the city and SunCal said they have not decided whether to appeal the judgment, which ordered the developer to for- mulate a plan to stabilize the hill- side within 60 days. John Shaw, at - A Slippery Slope Residents are living in four of the five Meredith Canyon homes affected by the May 21,1998, landslide. Jay Curtis' home, which suffered the most damage, is still red -tagged. Addresses affected Q 26962: Threatened ® 26952: Lost comer of backyard; pool apparently intact © 26932: Portion of backyard lost O 26922: Suffered the most damage; two-thirds of backyard lost, including pool and deck Q 26902: Threatened ;LPL .�„,"1�'t.- ,,,T'; ut• ,VIA LAgMIRADi 's `4,4, -.,11•-mow /c'.,�f:;' Q:vt. af�+7a••t�./ �• •; •' •' ,� � Red tag— uninhabitable Yellow tag va habitable, D E E'A could be evacuated c ,t torney for San Juan Capistrano, ar- gued before McDonald that the city's original agreement with the developer said the city was not re- quired to stabilize the hillside. Lawyers for the homeowners ar- gued that the hillside should have been stabilized early in the project.. The homeowners also have law - Los Angeles Times snits pending against SunCal and the city of San Juan Capistrano for damages for the value of their homes and relocation expenses. Curtis' house on Via La Mirada Is the only home still declared un- inhabitable. Owners of the other homes could be evacuated if there is more slippage. ANOTHER CITY GETS SUED A city is not required to stabilize a bluff or hillside, but they are responsible to see the builder stabilizes it early in the project. If Banning Ranch is allowed to be developed • with all their bluff problems, the safety and welfare of future buyers are at risk. A buyer must be given a full disclosure of the risks he takes. If not, it just presents another liability to be settled in court. There appears to be no time limits or Deep Pockets defendants. How Hazards May Be Removed The Belmont Learning Complex, the enormous high school just west of downtown Los Angeles, was designed to enroll about 4,600 students in one of the city's most crowded corridors. But, midway through construction, the Los Angeles Unified School District two years ago Venting System stopped work on the project because of fears that gases from a former oil field under part of the campus could pose health hazards. Now, after spending $1.54 million on construction and about $20 million on litigation and other expenses, the district has voted to enter negotiations on a plan to mitigate environ- mental hazards and finish the school: The work may cost as much as $88 million more. Methane and hydrogen sulfide in the soil will never be eliminated, but can be safely removed, treated and vented. The following are examples of the kinds of venting methods being proposed by the Los Angeles Unified School District to be installed throughout the entire Belmont Learning Complex campus: Buildings With Unfinished Floors L Methane and hydrogen sulfide gases travel up from the soil until they hit the liner, which they cannot penetrate. t C Treatment system ............... Vacuum -system An air monitoring station nearby keeps track of gas levels. 2. Sensors under the liner detect high gas accumulation. 3. This triggers a vacuum system that pulls gases through perforated pipes In the gravel. 4. Gases are carried to a treatment system. Tiny amounts of treated gases are released into the air. Building With Finished Floors L Holes are drilled in the existing concrete to place sensors in the soil below. 2. Layers of gravel, perforated pipes, sensors, liner, sand and concrete are spread over existing flooring. Computer monitor and alarm system Sensors, vacuum system and treatment system are monitored by a staffed, remote computer system. In addition, sensors and an alarm in the building act as an additional safety measure. Sensors pipes ©Gas; Im liner outdoors 1. Methane and the liner detects 3. The gases are hydrogen sulfide high gas carried to a gases travel up accumulation. . treatment from the soil until Sensor triggers a system. Once they hit the liner. vacuum system treated, small to pull gases levels of the •2. Gases accumulate under through perforated pipes. gases are released into the liner. A sensor the air. placed just under Outside the building, perfor- ated pipes are placed vertically In the ground. 3, The lower concrete floor would act as the initial barrier to gases traveling up from the soil. Perforated pipes 4. If the sensors detect high gas accumulation under either concrete layer, they trigger the vacuum system to pull gases to the treatment system. Once treated, small levels of the gases are released into the air. liner Sensor Gas _ `Boll . .,.,t• .. s�. _.: Grass/landscaping/concrete Orainage.plpesfor water �.... ............••., Polyethylene liner n Perforated pipes Gas Sol]-' - 5 Note: Schematic is .j not proportional A 13 O V S A Sauices: L.A. Unified, GeoSyntec Consultants; graphic reporting by LYNN MEERSMAN / Los Ange les Times n Times DP r8IV i"N n a CLIFF AREA DEEMED HAZARDESS. I`'"•' ''� F` '''' " IN OLD FAULT ZONE•SLIPPAGE 1 cli`' .,. _ .a. _rls�.''j(rre1'�L"�9rtYs,;j ': •, � �,�. ao Leaks and fellow geologists!;;: i._- Chris Hitchcock and Jerome A. f `4i 4 Treiman unveiled their prelimi- 4 : nary findings to other scientists, ;, .As.• consultants, and local and state i' government officials Wednesday. i So far, Lettis said, it looks as {p though the Simi fault could generYl - ate an earthquake with a ma)omum. I} magnitude somewhere between 6.5 yy^^ and 7.0. He also believes the fault is tam^° "slipping" at a rate between one- half millimeter to a millimeter a Indeed, if the fault meets state i 4 : activity criteria, geologists would :+ + draw up an earthquake fault zone map marking 500-foot buffers on 1t.��•-, either side of the shear. After about a year of review by the publie'and s„ �'• other geologists, that map would Influence development and prop- -- . .- ..._ -. Pbola by MELMELCON / Im AnBelHTImH Geologists study, fault in the Arroyo Simi In northwest Simi Valley. State will decide whether to zone. it as active. Geologists Say Simi Fault May Be Active ■ Geology: Researchers believe quake occurred there between 1,200 and 8,000 years ago, which means another one is possible. By KATL• FOLMAR TIMES STAFF WRITER • Saturatauthe Soil Heavy rains can cause street flooding and minor mudslides, but a longer -term problem occurs when the soli _ gels oversaturated. Here is a look at what can happen during the rainy season from December through March'. Ej �• r�i/ 13 With rainfall of © With more than 10 Inches, , When rainfall is less real problems begin -These •• than 4 inches, d//�,/d 6 to 10 Inches, soil begins to p g there tend to be / saturate and can absorb less /// Include farge mudslides during ' • = 4 . water. Small mudslides the storms and, later In the year, few problems. • . d ,///d the chance of massive landslides • ' d t• with a few feet of °'0•'`'d,,; d;C soil washing away , df as water undermines •• . can occur. }; d,; ,r. bedrock layers of .• :^� •` w.t*• �`� d, compacted earth.' -.%'�t'o�ufi'' ,,lz�,• rri .�5'�t� /(�/!/�Ci�/�//a/ The Worst Case "'u� A major long -Lorin risk of saturateil soil is that It will be weakened and later give way. ■ In some areas of the Southland —especially in coastal places such as Pacific Palisades. Malibu, the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Laguna Beach —the underlying bedrock is not the usual granite but compacted earth. ■ Heavy rainfall during the winter can seep into this weaker type of bedrock. ■ The seepage can loosen the soil. .I ■ In the fall, minor rains can make the weakened area vulnerable to a big slide. tHeirock r : 'l14n E/rmAngelaTlmH Sumce• Cattech Slide Claims Against 2 Cities Flood City Halls Damages: Homeowners in Dana Point and San Clemente have -manded millions of dollars from their towns in the legal actions at keep the door open for later lawsuits. Cities deny liability. LEN HALL iES STAFF WRITER )ANA POINT —The cities of Dana Point f San Clemente have been flooded with ims filed in the past week by homeown- demanding millions of dollars in dam- 's and alleging that the cities were Illy responsible for the massive Febru. landslide that claimed five oceanfront nes and threatens others. >ana Point alone was hit with 29 claims, luding 18 that ask for damages in excess ;I million each, said Andy Anderson, the ''s emergency services coordinator. • San Clemente City Ally. Jeffrey M. Oderman said Tuesday that his city also received a number of claims from home- owners, although he did not know how many. Officials in both communities called the devastating slide unfortunate, but said the cities are not to blame. The Feb. 22 slide destroyed five bluff -top homes along La Ventana, endangered 95 others and has left a 30-foot pile of rubble covering a vital one -mile stretch of Pacific Coast Highway, which remains closed to all traffic. The bluff overlooking the highway is in San Clemente, while beachfront property below, as well as the highway and adjacent Santa Fe railroad tracks are within the city �•'- •'"' ,'' ^ `r"' ''='^^' "" "'^='�'�i10in� limitsAnderson soDana said the {io .Aligele� ^(tmnC Anderson said the bluffs in the slide area jj..j� C• 7J Vy C�7J were an accident waiting to happen. "The geologic structure of the slope was prone to failure," he said. The claims• malty of them filed through the office of San Diego attorney Patrick E. The tracks have since been cleared, but the cities are still Catalano, suggest that the cities "failed to awaiting a final engineering plan adequately investigate the condition of the and funding from the Federal hillside" and installed water systems that Highway Administration to clear leaked into the soil and,contributed to the the highway, which is a vital slide. evacuation route for the San Ono- Oderman, San Clemente's attorney, said fre Nuclear Generating Station. the slide was caused in large part by The homeowners met with city, excessive rain last winter. The city has federal, state and Caltrans repre- tested water and sewer lines on the bluff sentatives Monday at Dana Point tops for leaks and found them functioning City Hall to discuss the progress on properly. the project, said James F. Hollo- "It's an unfortunate situation, but not way, San Clemente's director of one the city feels it has a legal liability for," community development. Federal Oderman said. -funds will be used to clear the The claims were filed this past week to • highway, but the homeowners will preserve their legal rights to file damage have to come up with some of their suits in the future, homeowners said. By . own money to restore their proper - law, homeowners have six months from a 'ties Holloway said. slide date to file a claim or not have any "Under federal guidelines, the legal recourse later. Anderson said. mission is to clear the road and Nat Rogers. a San Clemente homeowner make it safe." Holloway said. "But whose property sits atop the La Ventana that doesn't mean building back bluff but was not directly damaged, praised private property for the sake of the work the cities have undertaken since building back private property." the slide. But he was forced to file a claim Holloway said the claims were to protect himself and his property values, discussed at the meeting "more or he said. less as an aside." Most of the "With a deadline of six months, you residents were just protecting either file or you are a fool;" said Rogers, themselves by filing claims, Hollo- who has lived on the bluff for 17 years. way said. "We feel the cities have been wonderful "I understand where they are and ought to be commended. All the coming from if they have done this agencies are working very hard not to have to protect their rights down the any lawsuits occur.' line;' Holloway said. The landslide, which began along the' Holloway said the cities and the Continued from Bf other agencies have two plans to bluff's edge, spilled 75 feet down restore the bluffs using a combina- tion of retaining walls and under- -the hillside and across Coast High- way and the railroad tracks, tem- ground cables. He declined to esti- porariting all commuter and mate a cost, but said it would freighIMce to San Diego. probably be less than the $2.8 mil- lion price tag suggested last month. "It's a very complicated deal; Holloway said. "All the solution turned out to be less than the original estimates. But there is still a gap between the preferred solu- tion and what the federal funding would provide. We still need tr figure out how to fill that gap." • • NEWPORT BEACH VISION STATEMENT VISION: Our desired end state. What we hope to have achieved by 2025. Community Character We have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique residential community with a diversity of coastal and upland neighborhoods. We value our colorful past, the high quality of life, community bonds, and the successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses and visitors. Growth Strategy, Land Use and Development We have a conservative growth strategy that balances the needs of the various constituencies in our community and that cherishes and nurtures our estuary, harbor, beaches, • open spaces and natural resources. Development and revitalization decisions are well conceived and beneficial to both the economy and our character. There is a range of housing opportunities that allows people to live and work in the City. Design principles emphasize characteristics that maintain the community's desire for its particular neighborhood or village. Public view areas are protected. Trees and landscaping are enhanced and preserved. A Healthy Natural Environment Protection of environmental quality is a high priority. We preserve our open space resources. We maintain access to and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves, harbor and estuary. The ocean, bay and estuaries are flourishing • ecosystems with high water quality standards Draft #2 4129102 • Traffic Circulation Traffic flows smoothly throughout the community. The transportation and circulation system is safe and convenient for automobiles and public transportation, and friendly to pedestrians and bicycles. Public parking facilities are well planned for residents and visitors. Community Services We provide parks, art and cultural facilities, libraries and educational programs directly and through cooperation among diverse entities. The City facilitates or encourages access to high quality health care and essential social services. Newport Beach is noted for its excellent schools and is a premier location for first-hand educational experiences in the natural sciences. Our streets are safe and clean. Public safety services are responsive and amongst the best in the Nation. Recreation Opportunities Newport attracts visitors with its harbor, beaches, restaurants and shopping. We are a residential and recreational seaside community willing and eager to share its natural resources with visitors without diminishing these irreplaceable assets in order to share them. We have outdoor recreation space for active local and tourist populations that highlight the City's environmental assets as well as indoor facilities for recreation and socializing. Coastal facilities include pedestrian and aquatic opportunities. Draft #2 4129102 • Boating and Waterways We are recognized as a premier recreational boating harbor. We have maintained a hospitable, navigable pleasure boating harbor in the lower bay through careful, low density, non -intrusive on -shore development, by regularly dredging navigation and berthing/mooring areas, and by providing adequate access to the water and vessel related servicing facilities. The upper bay retains an unencumbered shoreline and its waterways are maintained free of sediment and debris. Airport We remain united in our on -going efforts to control and contain noise, air and traffic pollution associated with operation of the Airport. Our City government vigorously and wisely uses the political process to control the impact of the Airport on our community. We have a level of Airport operation that preserves our unique character and land values. Responsive Government Elected and appointed officials are proactive in resolving both local and regional issues. They and city staff understand and are responsive to the concerns of residents and the business community. Draft #2 4129102 DRAFT NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ECONOMIC STUDIES PHASE I REPORT July 15, 2002 Prepared for The City of Newport Beach Prepared by Applied Development Economics 2029 University Avenue • Berkeley, California 94704 • (510) 548-5912 1029 J Street, Suite 310 • Sacramento, California 95814 • (916) 441-0323 www.adeusa.com 0 . CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................1 Introduction........................................................................................................1 RetailMarket Analysis.......................................................................................1 Marine Related Industries.................................................................................4 Newport Beach Citywide Retail Market Analysis ................................................ 7 Coastal Subarea Retail Summaries........................................................................10 Methodology............................................................................................................. 31 FIGURES Figure 1 Economic Analysis Coastal Study Area.................................................2 . Figure 2 Citywide Retail Capture............................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Citywide Sales Leakage and Regional Capture......................................3 Figure 4 Coastal Centers Sales and Leakages........................................................3 0 TABLES Table 1 Estimated Employment in Marine Industries Located in NewportBeach...................................................................................................... 6 Table 2 Newport Beach Retail Market Analysis...................................................9 Table 3 Balboa Island Subarea Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, andSales Leakage................................................................................................11 Table 4 Balboa Island Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot.......................12 Table 5 Balboa Village Subarea Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, andSales Leakage................................................................................................14 Table 6 Balboa Village Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot......................15 • Table 7 Corona del Mar Subarea Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, andSales Leakage................................................................................................17 Table 8 Corona del Mar Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot...................18 Table 9 Lido -Cannery Subarea Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, andSales Leakage................................................................................................20 Table 10 Lido -Cannery Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot.....................21 Table 11 McFadden Square Subarea Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, and Sales Leakage..........................................................................23 Table 12 McFadden Square Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot.............24 Table 13 Mariner's Mile Subarea Selected Sales per. Square Foot Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, and Sales Leakage.................................................26 Table 14 Mariner's Mile Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot ...................27 Table 15 Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, and Sales Leakage for Newport Beach Coastal Area......................................................................29 • Table 16 Analysis of Leakage from LocalHosuehold Demand for the Newport Beach Coastal Area................................................................................30 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This report presents in a preliminary fashion the first phase of economic analysis prepared for the Newport Beach General Plan update. The report is focused on retail commercial business types. In addition to a citywide overview, the report discusses in detail the commercial centers in the coastal area of the City, in view of the fact that the schedule for updating the City's Local Coastal Program must run slightly ahead of the process for the citywide General Plan update. The report provides a retail market analysis and a preliminary fiscal analysis of land uses in the coastal area. The "coastal area" as denoted in this report is not necessarily coterminous with the "coastal zone" of the city. The coastal zone of the city includes nearly two-thirds of the city's land area, whereas the coastal area analysis in this report focuses on economic uses that are in some way related to the coast. From a geographic perspective, this generally means businesses located along or west of the Pacific Coast Highway (see Figure 1), with the addition of residential neighborhoods and marine industry businesses located in the West Newport area • The scope of work for the economic studies includes developing a comprehensive fiscal impact model as well an analysis of non -retail business development opportunities citywide, i.e., office -based business. Subsequent reports will present these components of the work. RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS Citywide in 2001, Newport Beach retail businesses generated about $1.57 billion in retail sales. City residents have an estimated retail purchasing power of $1.04 billion and the city is estimated to capture $449 million in visitor spending as well as about $55 million from employees not residing in Newport Beach (Figure 2). Although the balance between demand and sales is very close, the city actually captures large amounts of spending in some categories from the surrounding region, while losing local spending in other categories. The City's retail base is particularly strong in boats, autos, restaurants, furniture, apparel and specialty retail stores. Conversely, relatively large sales leakages occur in other general merchandise, family clothing, discount department stores and home improvement store categories. Most of these spending categories represent "big box" retail store categories that require large tracts of land and seek more central locations than tourist oriented coastal areas • (Figure 3). APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE/ I z FIGURE'1 -FE nomic-Analysis,Coastal-StudrAre - , 052514 039238; y 4 I (` _ 052610 .. 7-Mile i aas3oo4 06"7 s3olo-' _ — 062645 - .. 062800 -� 08260 - ' ' = Study Area 062doo = Census Tracts i 1 1• lu FIGURE 2 Citywide Retail Capture ($ Million) FIGURE 3 Citywide Sales Leakage and Regional Capture ($ Million) (Selected Retail Store Typos) FIGURE 4 Coastal Centers Sales and Leakages Workers $55 visitors $449 Residents $1,040 j Total Sales Total Demand $1,570 $1,544 Auto Parts and Service Building Materials and Hardware Warehouse Clubs and Discount Ctrs Music Shoes Family Clothing $56.4 Boats ® $31.6 Automobiles Home Furnishings/ $14.6 Appliances/ Garden Supplies ® $40.5 Restaurants $15.8 Grocery Stores $10.8 Women's Apparel APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGES Coastal Areas The commercial centers in the coastal area largely serve the visitor market and do not capture a large proportion of residents' spending, with the exception of Corona del Mar (see Figure 4). :r With the exception of the Balboa Village area, most of the coastal commercial centers perform adequately in terms of sales per square foot among existing businesses. In Balboa Village, the average is relatively low in a number of the visitor -serving store types categories, reflecting the less accessible location and attractiveness of this older commercial area. In terms of opportunities for new retail establishments in the coastal subareas, the focus should be on retail categories that have retail leakage throughout all of Newport Beach and would also be at the appropriate scale of commercial development. Certain specialty retail categories such as music and bookstores would fit these criteria. MARINE RELATED INDUSTRIES There are an estimated 10,000 boats in Newport Harbor. The Harbor and the Back Bay, together with the oceanfront beaches, define the character of • the City. Yet the marine industries that manufacture, sell, and service the boats have undergone a significant transformation in the past twenty years. There are issues today about the continued viability of the marine industry in Newport Beach that should be recognized in the general plan update process. C� Twenty years ago, there were five to six major boat manufacturers in Southern California, and a number of smaller outfits. Since that time, all of the major manufacturers have left California, mostly to Florida. While a few of the smaller manufacturers remain, others have moved inland to Riverside County. This has largely been due to increased environmental regulation in California affecting fiberglass manufacturing processes, as well as real estate price inflation in coastal communities. There has been a consolidation among boat supply and servicing companies as well. As costs have risen, fewer firms are now serving the demand for specialty boat parts, and boat repair and servicing. Those that do not have to be on the water have moved to inland locations. Some have found locations in the West Newport industrial areas, but many have gone further inland to the Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Long Beach industrial areas, as well as locations in Riverside and San Diego counties and Mexico. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGES • Those businesses still in the industry report very strong demand for their goods and services. Although the total number of slips in Southern California is not growing dramatically, there is a lot of "move up" sales activity as existing boaters purchase larger and more expensive boats that require a greater level of support and servicing. • The industry in Newport Beach is currently estimated to include 144 businesses and 740 jobs. These figures are derived from City Business License records and may understate the total size of the industry. For example, a number of business that service boats regularly in the water (i.e., not needing dry dock facilities), are no longer physically based in Newport Beach although they are serving boats in Newport Harbor. Table 6 summarizes the business types and estimated employment for the industry in Newport Beach. Businesses throughout the industry have expressed concern about the real estate pressure on their locations near the water. This is a longstanding issue in Newport Beach, but one that continues to affect businesses leasing space, particularly in the Cannery and Mariner's We areas of town. As noted above, many businesses have moved inland and service boats in the harbor from more remote locations. If this issue reduces the availability of boat services in Newport Beach sufficiently, it may cause the consumer market in boats to shift as well to other locations such as the San Diego and Long Beach areas. Currently, the city realizes significant sales and property tax revenues from boats and related industries. The indirect benefit of the boating industry could also be improved by increasing access for visiting boats to dock and launch facilities in Newport Harbor. This issue is complicated by the fact that over 90% of the bay frontage is in private ownership. This leaves little opportunity for the City to increase the availability of public facilities. However, if private entrepreneurs could add to the available facilities, it would help increase the capture of visitor spending in Newport Beach on restaurants and other retail goods and services. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOM/CS PAGES • Table 1 Estimated Employment In Marine Industries Located In Newport Beach Business Type Jobs Boat Building, Repairing, Maintenance 229 Other Related Mfg. 31 Water Transportation 77 Boat Sales and Leasing 189 Marinas & Yacht Clubs 97 Amusement and Recreation 119 Total 742 Source: ADE, Inc., based on City business license records • • [This space intentionally left blank] APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE6 NEWPORT BEACH CITYWIDE RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS ■ Newport Beach's retail base benefits from a very strong local spending base, as well as a high level of spending attracted from non=rersidents. Overall, Newport Beach households (including Newport Coast) generate about $1.04 billion of retail spending annually (Table 2). ■ In addition, Newport Beach attracts about $449 million of retail spending from visitors and another $55 million from employees not residing in Newport Beach. The largest spending categories are grocery stores, restaurants, automobile dealerships, gas stations, and department stores. ■ In 2001, Newport Beach retail businesses generated about $1.57 billion in sales. The largest categories include restaurants/eating places, auto dealerships, grocery stores, department stores, miscellaneous specialty retail, gas stations, and boat/motorcycle dealers. ■ Comparing the overall household and visitor demand with the retail sales shows that the totals are very similar with a slight net capture of retail sales. However, closer examination of individual store categories finds that Newport Beach has been very successful at attracting spending from outside the city in some categories, while it remains very underrepresented in others. The largest net capture categories include boats/motorcycles, auto dealerships, restaurants/eating places, furniture, nursery products, men's and women's apparel, and miscellaneous specialty retail. In addition to drawing high levels of spending from local households, visitors, and workers, these store types also attract significant spending from neighboring communities. Newport Beach also has several categories where the local and visitor demand significantly exceed the existing retail sales, resulting in sales leakage to surrounding communities that have more retail offerings in _ these categories. The largest leakages are in other general merchandise, family clothing, discount department stores, and home improvement businesses. Most of these spending categories represent "big box" retail store categories, which often have compatibility issues with sensitive coastal areas and require Large tracts of inexpensive land with visible highway access. Moreover, large-scale developments are generally located in more central locations rather than in coastal areas. • ■ Other retail categories with at least $1 million of retail leakage in Newport Beach include shoe stores, music stores, and auto parts stores. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOM/CS PAGE7 • These more specialized retail categories do not typically need large building footprints. • ■ Leakage in the coastal subareas represents unmet consumer demand that could be recaptured into retail potential for new businesses. However, because of Newport Beach's comprehensive retail base on a citywide basis, attracting new businesses into these coastal subareas that already have a citywide excess capture of sales could transfer sales.away from existing businesses elsewhere in Newport Beach. ■ The first options for new retail establishments in the coastal subareas would be retail categories that have retail leakage throughout all of Newport Beach. For the coastal areas, this would likely need to be limited to specialty retail categories such as music and bookstores, and other store types that do not need large building footprints. APPUI TABLE 2 • NEWPORT BEACH RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS Newport Beach Employee and Retail Sales Household Visitor Total Consumer Leakage/(Net Retail Group Spending Spending Demand Retail Sales Capture) Total $1,035,772,702 $503,285,293 $1,539,057,995 $1,572,843,168 ($33,785,163) Apparel Store Group $63,897,777 $45,893,644 $109,791,421 i $86,139,500 $23,651,921 Women'sApparel $14,623,970 $24,536,193 $39,160,163 _ $46,052,900 ($6,892,737) Men'ssApparel $5,631,796 $10,829,876 $16;461;672' $20,327,000 - •($3,865,328) Family Clothing $32,439,441 $6,997,996 , $39;437; J37 $13,134',800 $26,3D2,637 Shoe Stores $11,202,570 $3,529,580 $14,732,150 $6,624,800 $8,107,350 General Merchandise Group $181,563,394 $109,284,782 $290,848,175 $225,908,791 $64,939,384 Department & Dry Goods $105,042,314 $101,209,477 $206,242,79D $189,946,965 • $16,295,826 ,Discount Stores, '$61,985,810 - Department Stores - $43;055,859 Other General Merchandise $49,254,426 $66,928 $49,321,354 $281,112 $49,040,241 Warehouse Clubs and Superstores $36,394,079 - Mfsc. General Merchandise " $12,860,346, Drug & t?r'opHetary Stores- $27,266,654 $8,017,378 _ , $35,284:032 _ . $35,680,714 " ' '($396,683) Specialty Retail Group $76,680,910 $79,972,498 $156,653,408 $162,013,277 ($5,359,869) Gifts & Novelties Sportiug'Goo is $5,823,324 $8,978,055 $10,023,118 $11,288,484, $15,846,442 $20,256;544 $18,812,766 $21,187,788 '" ($2,966,324) ` ($921,243) Florists $2;001',735 _ $2,4501.0q $4 ,._ ,g51,839 _.-$4,598;693 ($146,854) Photographic Equipment $1,092,262 $869,288 $1,951,551 $1,631,600 $319,951 Records & Music $4,830,280 $894,116 $5,724,396 $1,678,200 $4,046,196 Books,68tationery, - $5,197,264 $5,906;590, $'f1,163,%S_ $f1,086;300 $1'7,554 Off(ce•SupPlies/Computer Equipment $13,212,883 $0-, $13,2L2,883 _, $L1,909,900' $1,302,983 Jewelry $8,460,886 $11,172,279 $19,633,165 $20,969,670 ($1,336,504) Misc. Specialty Retail $27,094,220 $37,368,512 $64,462,732 $70,138,360 ($5;675,628) Food, Eating and Drinking Group $266,319,868 $268,134,369 $534,454,237 $589,540,295 ($55,086,058) Grocery,Stores_ Spec'falty ootl Stores $170,675,644 $5,290,478' $21,068,114 $1,213,170 ,- $191,743,758 $6,563;649" $207,549,011 $7,9fi,S57 ($15,805,253) ($1,347,509) Liguor:5tores $7;951,848 $2,456,364 $10,408;213 _ $7,784,639 $2,623,574 Eating Places $82,401,898 $243,336,721 $325,730,619 $366,295,489 ($40,556,870) Building Materials And Home Furnishings Group $116,985,295 $0 $116,985,295 $116,524,239 $461,056 Furniture & Home Furnishings $54,730,766 $0 $54,730,766 $59,117,335 ($4,386,568) Household Appliance"s•&,Electroniis $18y791,361 $0 $18,791,361 ,$f9,764,300 ($972,939) , Used Merchandise_ _ 31022,133 $0' $3 022;133' •$2;965,500• , $56,633 _ Nurseries & Garden Supply Stares _ $9,490,015 $0 $9,490,015 $18,702,405 ($9,212,390) Lumber & Other Building Materials $17,768,043 $0 $17,768,043 $6,803,000 $10,965,043 HomeiCentiers; an aiAardware'Storas,, - • $12,914;135 $,0 _ $�12,314,135. ' �$8,699,760 $3,614,435 Palnt&Wallpaper_- $868,843 9 -„ _ .$868;843 „�_r, $;472,000 $396,843 Automotive Group $330,325,457 $0 $330,325,457 $392,717,055 ($62,391,598) New Cars & RVs $218,719,752 $0 $218,719,752 $249,448,200 ($30,728,448) Used Car Dealers " $75;978,023 -, $0 $f5;978;023' $f6;8X8,0lf0'""' ($099,977) Gasoline Sergice Stations $81,128,752 - $0 $81,128,752 _JAI , _._ $20;075,397 - - MOb110 Homes & Trailers $56,521 $0 $56,521 $948,900 ($892,379) Auto Parts & Accessories $7,073,805 $0 $7,073,805 $643,700 $6,430,105 • Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited by MBIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Income for Newport Coast residents was calculated based on selling prices for housing units. Visitor spending derived from CIC Research visitor survey data. Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling APPLIED DEVELOPMENTECONOMICS PAGE 9 COASTAL SUBAREA RETAIL SUMMARIES BALBOA ISLAND' ■ Balboa Island's retail demand, which includes spending from local residents, visitors, and other non-residents, totals about $57.5 million annually (Table 3). Coupled with the Island's total retail sales of about $14.7 million, this results in an estimated sales leakage of $42.8 million. ■ Individual categories with large sales leakages among local residents include general merchandise, grocery stores, and automotive related businesses. Much of this leakage is accommodated by businesses in these categories elsewhere in Newport Beach. ■ Balboa Island's retail sales are dominated by apparel stores, specialty retail stores, and restaurants. These stores generally sell to tourists and other non-residents. ■ Non-residents account for about $12.6 million of the $14.7 million in retail sales on Balboa Island,. further reinforcing the perception of the area primarily catering to visitor -serving needs. ■ The average retail sales per square foot on Balboa Island (for those businesses for which square footage data is available through the County Assessor's database) is about $159, which is within a normal average range for a shopping area with mostly specialty retail stores (Table 4). Some retail categories appear to under perform compared to national benchmark averages, but on the whole Balboa Island does not have a particularly distressed business district. ■ In recent years, Balboa Island has seen an escalation in retail rents. This has resulted in some turnover of long-time businesses and a few retail vacancies. The sales patterns in the area indicate that excessively high rents cannot be supported over the long term. • 1 The Balboa market area includes all of Census Tract 630.06 APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 10 TABLE 3 • BALBOA ISLAND SUBAREA ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE Non -Local Total Retail Retail Resident Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Sales Leakage Businesses Spending Total $57,356,397 $14,710,572 $42,804,912 55 $12,395,232 Apparel Store Group $6,399,833 $3,883,800 $2,516,033 17 $3,650,772 Women's&Men'sApparei* $2;809;875 '.$3;071,000 $738,875 e 8 $1,946,740 Family Clothing/Shoe Stores* $3,589,958 $1,812,800 $1,777,158 9 $1,704,032 Food Store and General Merchandise $4,536,803 Group* $24,205,158 $6,181,299 $18,023,859 16 Department & Dry Goods $4,502,813 $0 $4,502,813 0 $0 DrugSfores - ' " �. $3,4y5,628, , ', ,$0 �;$1;215,828_ •, 0,� $0 Grocery/Specialty Food%Other General' $10,550,682 $9,492;855 - $9;663;827 , , 5, $551;625 %Merchandise.St'ores* Ltquor Stores- -- $347,289�- _~ �- $0 $347,289 0 $0 Eating Places $7,582,547 $4,688,444 $2,894,103 11 $3,985,178 Specialty Retail/Home Furnishings $4,207,657 Group* $12,351,228 $4,645,473 $7,864,842 22 Gills/Home Furnishings* $4,437,807 $2,070,035 $2,367,773 8 $1,945,833 Florists/Garden Supply/Sporting $1,284,499 $384,750 $1,058,837 4 $202,577 Goods/Books & Stationery* $200,621 0 $0 Off a Supp es/Computer Equipment $561,591 $0 $561,591 0 $0 3ewelry $350,448 $0 $350,448 0 $0 •Misc.Speciaity.Retail $3,232;438 $2,190,688 , - $1,641,750 10 $2,059,247 ;,Household,Appliances& Electronics; $809,269 $0' $809,269 0 Used Merchandise $128,476 $0 $128,476 0 Lumber & Other Building Materials $747,268 $0 $747,268 0 Home'Cente'rsiatid.Hardware5toies $3i7;626 TO $517,026 0 '. Paint'& Wallpaper $36,885 $0 $36,885 0 Automotive Group $14,400,178 $0 $14,400,178 0 New Cats & RVs $9,457,874 $0 $9,457,874 0 Used Car Dealers $689,762 $0- $689;762 0 1 Gasoline,Servlce'Stations, $3;621,847 $_0 '$3,623;847 0, Mobile Homes &Trailers $2,479 _ $0 _ $2,479 0 Auto Parts & Accessories $317,251 $0 $317,251 0 Motorcycles $308,964 $0 $308,964 0 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1P97 US Retail Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited by 101A. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Lmda Congleton & Associates. Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct • APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE/l • L • TABLE 4 BALBOA ISLAND SUBAREA SELECTED SALES PER SQUARE FOOT National Retail Sales Average Sales Retail Group Per Sq. Ft. Per Sq.Ft. Total $159.09 Apparel Store Group Women's & McWs Apparel* Family Clothing/Shoe Stores* Food Store and General Merchandise Group* Grocery/Specialty Food/Other General Merchandise Stores* Eating ;Places Specialty Retail/Home Furnishings Group* Gifts/Home Furnishings* Florists/Garden Supply/Sporting Goods/Books & Stationery* Misc. Specialty Retail $140.57 t $117J7 $174101196, $182.95 $200 to $281 $180.40 $180.51 $144 to $399 $180.36 $216.22 $151.20 $216.67 $136 to $220 $78.57 $153 to $201 1;2633 $171.82 Source: ADE., Inc., bsaed on data from the Orange County Assessor and the Urban Land Institute. Refer to Methodology Appendix for details of the analysis. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 11 • BALBOA VILLAGE' ■ Balboa Village draws from a total household and non-resident spending base of about $75 million (Table 5). ■ Balboa Village generates approximately $13.6 million of retail sales. The single most prominent category is restaurants and eating places, which alone account for $8.5 million of retail sales and exceed the spending from local households alone. ■ Non-residents account for about $10.5 million of the retail sales in Balboa Village. Much of this is due to the very large base of eating places that are mostly supported by visitor spending. ■ Excluding non-resident spending, Balboa Peninsula residents generate a sales leakage of about $61 million. Individual categories with large sales leakages among local residents include general merchandise, grocery stores, and automotive related businesses. In addition, several specialty retail categories generate large sales leakages. This is due to the shopping area's heavy orientation towards visitor -serving uses, and limited • availability of local serving retail. ■ Out of all the coastal subareas examined in the retail analysis, Balboa Village has by far the lowest average sales per square foot (Table 6). Neatly every retail category represented in the area under performs compared to national retail averages. Not surprisingly, Balboa Village has a noticeably higher number of vacancies than other prominent retail districts in Newport Beach. ■ Even though Balboa Village Nvill continue to draw large numbers of beach visitors, the area's long-time function as a regional destination for general entertainment purposes, has diminished in recent years as competing year-round entertainment options have emerged inland. This trend is clearly reflected in the under performing retail uses and -- comparatively high retail vacancies. • 2 The Balboa Village market area includes Census Tract 628. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE l3 TABLE 5 . BALBOA VILLAGE SUBAREA ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE Non -Local Total Retail Sales Retail Resident Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Leakage Businesses Spending Total $74,995,407 $13,569,984 $61,425,423 50 $10,532,041 Apparel Store Group $4,999,572 $1,120,500 $3,879,072 r 8 $1,053,270 Women's Apparel/Shoe Stores* $1,920,284 $323,100 $1,597,184 3 $303,714 Men's Apparel $338,884 $0 $338j884 0 $0 Family Clothing $2,740,403 $797,400 $1,943,003 , 5 $749,556 Food Stare and General Merchandise $36,583,045 $11,137,815 $25,445,231 29 $8,302,826 Group* Department & Dry Goods $6,459,969 $0 $6,459,969 0 $0 Other General Merchandise $3,095,799 $0 $3,095,799 0 $0 Grocery/Liquor%Drug'Stores* $14,194,076 $2,418,53_7, '$11,777;539 3 '$966,615 Specialty�Food Stores $408,059 $170,833 $237,225 6 $68,335 Eating Places $12,425,142 $8,550,444 $3,874,698 20 $7,267,878 Specialty Retail Group $5,854,101 $1,311,670 $4,542,432 13 $1,175,945 Gifts & Novelties $600,031 $257,042 $342,989 3 $241,619 §potting Goods $849,177 $333,16'4 $515,344 3 $313,804 Florists_ $121,002 $0 $121,092 0 40 Photographic Equipment $64,236 $0 $64,236 0 $0 Records & Music/Jewelry* $934,215 $213,608 $720,607 3 $143,768 Books -&Stationery" $320,401 '$0 Jr320;46f 0 $0 Office Supplies/Computer $804,531 - $0 $804',531 " 0 $0 • Equipment Misc. Specialty Retail $2,160,419 $507,186 $1,653,233 4 $476,755 Building Materials Home Furnishings $7,003,103 $0 $7,003,103 0 $0 Group -_ ._ Furniture,& Horne Fumilshings. $3,227,738 ,$0 ;$3,227,738, 0 $0 Household Applianc_es�&-Electronic§'''-$1,157,674 $0. '$i,1571674 0 ''$0 Used Merchandise $184,362 $0 $184,362 0 $0 Nurseries & Garden Supply Stores $575,192 $0 $575,192 0 $0 Lumber'& Other Building,Materials $1,065,322 $0 $1,669,322 0 $0 Home Centors•and,Hardware Stores $740,059 $0 $740;059 0 $0 Paint & Wallpaper �- $52,755 _ $0 $52,755� 0 $0 Automotive Group $20,555,586 $0 $20,555,586 0 $0 New Cars & RVs $13,468,291 $0 $13,468,291 0 $0 Used -Car Dealers $982,256 $6 $962,256 0 $0 Gasoline,Service Stations $5,206,115 0. $0_., $5,206,i15 0 $0 Mobile Homes & Trailers $3,535 $0 $3,535 0 $0 Auto Parts & Accessories $454,645 $0 $454,645 0 $0 Motorcycles $440,743 $0 $440,743 0 $0 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Cennu, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data mm Equalization, data audited by MBIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton & Asso Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. APPLIED DEVELOPMENTECONOMICS PAGE/4 • • 0 TABLE 6 BALBOA VILLAGE SUBAREA SELECTED SALES PER SQUARE FOOT National Sales Per Average Sales Retail Group Sq.Ft. Per Sq.Ft. Total $128.80 Apparel Store Group $83.47 ' 'r 'women's Apparel%Shoe stores* , ' 45.92 . $167toi$262 Family Clothing $125.26 $200.10 Food Store and General Merchandise Group* Grocery%Lf quor%Drug. Stores* Specialty Food Stores Eating Places ,Speciaity,Retail, Group Gifts'&Novelties Sporting Goods Records=& Musfc/jewelry* Misc. Specialty Retail Automotive Group New Cars & RVs Mobile Homes &Trailers $165.98 �`P$242:45 $285+fo•$399 $28.17 $174.42 $153.40 $216.22 `$71'.29 $75J4• $135;94 $71.02 $200.56 $90:01 $1'75:Po,f283 $68.64 $171.82 $125.26 $200.10 $165.98 $242.45 $265 to $399 Source: ADE., Inc, bsaed on data from the Orange County Assessor and the Urban Land Institute. Refer to Methodology Appendix for details of the analysis. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGES 0 CORONA DEL MAR' ■ Corona del Mar's households and visitors account for about $160 million in retail spending annually (Table 7). ■ Corona del Mar retail businesses generate approximately $109 million in retail sales. About half of these sales come from grocery stores and restaurants. Compared to other coastal areas, Corona del Mar has a relatively diverse variety of retail businesses, many of which are primarily local serving. In addition, $14.4 million in sales are generated by furniture and home furnishings stores, while various home improvement businesses generate another $9.8 million in sales. ■ Non-residents account for about $82 million of the retail sales in Corona del Mar. Although many retail categories capture high proportions of non-resident spending, many of the categories represented in Corona del Mar are not necessarily tourist oriented, which indicates that much of this non-resident spending likely comes from other Newport Beach residents and customers from neighboring communities. ■ Individual categories with large sales leakages among local residents include general merchandise'and automotive related businesses. Because many local serving businesses are already represented among Corona del Mar's retailers, the leakage from local households is not as widespread as in some other coastal subareas. Corona del Maes retail district is generally in the best condition among the coastal subareas. It has a very diverse range of retail stores that both serve local residents and attract significant spending from outside of CdM. The sales per square foot data finds that CdM retail stores generally fall within or exceed national averages for these retail categories (Table 8). The major retail category in Corona del Mar that under performs is the furnitute and home furnishings category. However, it should be noted that some key businesses in this category did not have accurate square footage counts available, and their inclusion could change this conclusion. ■ Although Corona del Mar's retail uses may face market some pressure for conversion to residential uses similar to other coastal areas in Newport Beach, the district's existing retail market is very strong and there are no clear indications that the area is oversupplied for commercial uses. • 3 The Corona del Mar market area includes Census Tract 627.02 and Block Group 627.01 BG5. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE16 TABLE 7 . CORONA DEL MAR SUBAREA ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE Non -Local Total Retail Sales Retail Resident Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Leakage Businesses Spending Total $159,927,25 $108,067,01 $51,860,241 106 $81,809,592 6 6 r General Merchandise and Food Store $40,961,060 Group* $74,907,264 $59,280,606 $15,626,658 46 Department & Dry Goods $7,874,118 $0 $7,874,118 , 0 $0 Other General Merchandise $3;727,012 $0 $3,727,012 0 $0 Grocery/Drug stores* $23,613,746 $20;581,431 $3,032,315 3 $8,500,453 Specialty Food Stores $1,867,889 $1,867,889 $0 10 $1,464,057 Liquor Stores $1,939,064 $1,939,064 $0 5 $1,338,161 Eating Places $35,885,435 $34,892,222 $993,213 28 $29,658,389 5pecialt;Retll and ApparelGroup. $20,108,164 $10,1910 $9,917,117 27 $9,579,584y, Gifts%Women's&Family-Apparel* $5,334,535 $1,459,749, $3;874,786 5 $1,372,164 Men's Apparel $419,052 $0 $419,052 0 $0 Shoe Stores $853,111 $0 $853,111 0 $0 SpotttngrGood"sjPhoto Eq. $4,404,022 $3,478;468, 405,554 5 $3,269,760 :Stationery* Florists $1,855,256 $1,814;874 $40,382 5 $1,705,982 Records & Music _ $356,888 $0 $356,888 0 $0 Office Supplies/Computer Equipment $988,364 $0 $988,364 0 $0 jewelry � _ _ . $624,095 „ $0 $624;095 0 $0 Mlsc.,Speciaity'Retall• $5,272;840 $3,437•;955; $1,834,685 12 $3,231,678 . ,' Building Materials and Home $26,400,179 $24,200,327 $2,199,852 28 $17,737,613 furnishings Group Furnifur'e &:Home Furnishings $14,433,768 '$14,433,768 $9, 18 $10,419504, Household Appliances & Electronics/ $4,481,318 $3,026,000 $1,455,318 5 $2,844,440 Used Merchandise* Garden Supply/Building Materials/ $7,420,299 $6,740,559 $679,740 5 $4,473,669 Hardware* Paint & Wallpaper $64,795 $0 $64,795 0 $0 Automotive Group $38,511,650 $14,395,036 $24,116,613 5 $13,531,334 New Cars & RVs $16,484,040 $0 $16,484,040 0 $0 Used ee-iDealets $1,203,223 $6 $i;203,223 0 $0 Gasoline Service Statiohs/Auto+Parts* $20,272,089 $14,395;036. $5;877,052' S $13;531,334 Mobile Homes & Trailers $4,281 $0 $4,281 0 $0 Motorcycles $548,017 $0 $548,017 0 $0 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Read Couiu, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes Equalization, data audited by MBIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 200C estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton & Associab Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail estabbshments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. • APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE/7 u TABLE 8 CORONA DEL MAR SUBAREA SELECTED SALES PER SQUARE FOOT National Retail Sales Average Sales Retail Group Per Sq.Ft. ,Per Sq.Ft. Total $345.38 General Merchandise and Food Store Group* Grocery/Arug,$tores* Specialty Food Stores Liquor Stores Eating Places ,Specialty'Retail'and!A'pparel Group* 'Gifts/ Wdmen's-&- Family:Apparei* Spotting Goods/Photo Eq.% Stationery* Misr; SpecialtylRt:tail" Building Materials and Home furnishings Group Furniture & Home Furnishings Household Appliances & Electronics/Used Merchandise* $450.53 _ $1,L82.34 $265 to $399 $93.98 $174.42 $104.09 $267.87 $433.86 $216.22 $147:53 $17523 $13640 $201 $252.04 $173•to $582 $32J6_ $171.82 $240.53 $151.33 $220.02 $293.39 $175 to $230 • Garden Supply/Building Materials/. Hardware* $351.2T $13Qt9$153 Source: ADE., Inc., bsaed on data from the Orange County Assessor and the Urban Land Institute. Refer to Methodology Appendtx for details of the analysis. • APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGEI8 0 LIDO -CANNERY' ■ Households near the Lido -Cannery business district and visitors to Lido - Cannery account for about $187 million in retail spending annually (Table 9). The household base includes the Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, and West Newport. It should be noted that this market area definition overlaps with McFadden Square and Balboa Village. ■ Lido -Cannery retail businesses generate approximately $43.8 million in retail sales. About $35 million of these sales come from grocery stores and restaurants. In addition, nearly $2 million in retail sales come from jewelry stores. ■ Non-residents account for about $19 million of the retail sales in the Lido -Cannery area. Compared to other coastal areas, this district captures a relatively high proportion of its retail sales from local residents. ■ Residents around Lido -Cannery generate a sales leakage of about $143 million, which includes some of the leakage also shown for Balboa Village and McFadden square. Individual categories with large sales leakages among local residents include general merchandise and 40 automotive related businesses. In addition, the sales leakages from some specialty retail and home furnishings categories could be sufficient to support additional businesses of this type. ■ The businesses in the Lido -Cannery area generally produce sales per square foot that are in line with or slightly below the expected sales ,per square foot for specific retail store types (Table 10). The jewelry stores represent the strongest performers in the area, while the restaurants are right at the national benchmark average for that category. It should be noted that the square footage data does not include most of Lido -Marina Village because the data is too aggregated to accurately assign square footages to individual businesses. The detailed data for this center will be v included in the final report. 4 The Lido -Cannery area draws from a larger market than some of the other coastal Iscommercial centers. The market area includes Census tracts 628 ,629, and 635, which overlaps with Balboa Village and McFadden Square. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE/9 TABLE 9 • LIDO -CANNERY SUBAREA ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE 11 Non -Loral Total Retail Sales Retail Resident Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Leakage Businesses Spending Total $186,921,30 $43,845,702 $143,075,60 54 $19,273,388 6 4 Apparel Store Group Men's and Women's Apparel* Family Clothing Shoe Stores General Merchandise and Food Store Group* Grocery Stores/Drug Stores* Departinenf & Dry'Goods ' Other General Merchandise Liquor Stores Eating Places Specialty Retail Group Gifts/Sporting Goods/Stationery* Florists ` " Photographic Equipment Records & Music Office Supplies/Computer Equipment Jewelry Misc.•Spedalty Retail, Building Materials, Home Furnishings, and Automotive Group* Furniture & Home Furnishings tHousehol& ppBan6es,&Electronics Used;Merchancifse. Nurseries & Garden Supply Stores Building Materials/Paint & Wallpaper/ $10,703,521 $436,700 $10,266,821 $3,653,565 $436,700 $3,216,865 $5,206;026 $0 $5,206,026 $1,843,930 $0 $1,843,930 $86,938,865 $38,042,724 $48,896,141 $36,150,559 $24,852,835 $11,297,724 $16;876,844 $6, $16,876;644 $8;619,142 $0 $8,019,142 $1,293,521 $0 $1,293,521 $24,598,799 $13,189,889 $11,408,910 $15,645,601 $4,171,867 $318;592 $170;341 $760,521 $2,111,295 �$3;138,645 $4,974,330 $3,601,107 $1,046,802 00 $0. $0 $0 $1,922,422 $631,883 $12,044,494 $3,125,065 $318,592 $170;341 $760,521 $2,111,295 -$1,21'6,222 $4,342,457 4 $410,498 4 $410,498 0 $0 0 $0 $13,818,589 22 4 $2,607,184 0 $0 0 $0, 0 $0 18 $11,211,406 17 $3,385,040 6 $983,993 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 $1,807;077 7 $593,970 $1,659,261 $73,633,319 $1,765,171 $71,868,148 11 $9,435,049 $935,671 $8,499,377 4 $879,531 $3y024;336 . $0 $3,024,336 01 $0 $5b2;527 $105,8,0d $476,727 3 $99,452 $1,512,182 $0 $1,512,182 0 $0 $680,278 Used Cars* $6,202,399 $723,700 $5,478,699 4 Home Centers a ndHardwareStores' $1,951,512 $0 $1,951;512 0 $0' New Cars & RVs $35;20L,308 $0 $35,201,308• 0', 40 Gasoline Service Stations $13,381,608 $0 $13,381,608 0 $0 Mobile Homes &Trailers $9,185 $0 $9,185 0 $0 ,Auto Parts&Accessories '$1,167;663 ' $d $1,167J663 10 $0 Motorcycles $1,16%551 $0, $1,165;551 0 $0 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes Equalization, data audited by LABIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 20C estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton & Associa Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE20 TABLE 10 LIDO -CANNERY SUBAREA SELECTED SALES PER SQUARE FOOT • National Sales Per Average Sales Retail Group Sq.Ft. Per Sq.Ft. Total $172.36 Apparel Store Group $97.84 _ Men's and Women's Apparel* $97.84 $174 to $196 General Merchandise and Food Store Group* $203.43 droceryStores/Drug•Stores* .n/a. ' . �Eating,0aces $212.81 $216:22 SpeclaltgRetalVGroup- Gifts/Sporting Goods/Stationery* $116.38 $136 to $201 Jewelry $412.14 $283.16 441S . Spectift Aetafl $34.26 $171.82 •Building,Materials;,Hbme Furnishings, and Automotiverdroup* ,$16S.08 Furniture & Home Furnishings $231.24 $220.02 `UsedMerdi'andise $21.67 $174:98 Building Materials/Paint & Wallpaper/ Used Cars* $126.42 $153 to $177 Sources ADE , Inc., bsaed on dam from the Orange County Assessor and the Urban Land Institute. Refer to Methodology Appendix for details of the analysis. 0 0 APPLIED DEVELO • MC FADDEN SQUARES ■ Households in the Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, and West Newport, and visitors to McFadden Square and Newport Pier account for about $191 million in retail spending annually (Table 11). ■ McFadden Square retail businesses generate approximately $27.7 million in annual retail sales. About $22.7 million of these sales come from restaurants. The other prominent retail categories such as apparel stores and sporting goods primarily cater to visitors. Non-residents account for about $23.6 million of the retail sales in the Lido -Cannery area. Compared to other coastal areas, this district captures a lower proportion of its retail sales from local residents. It should be noted that this total does not include data from the Albertson's shopping center. Inclusion of that data would likely change that conclusion because some of the businesses in that center are oriented towards local consumers and the center is easily accessible to West Newport residents. This issue will be corrected in the final report. ■ Except for restaurants, most of the retail businesses in McFadden Square (excluding the Albertson's shopping center) are under performing in terms of their sales per square foot compared to national averages for comparable businesses (Table 12). • • sT API • TABLE II MC FADDEN SQUARE SUBAREA ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE • • Non -Local Total Retail Retail Resident Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Sales Leakage Businesses Spending Total $191,242,112 $27,686,486 $163,555,626 39 $23,594,195 Apparel Store Group $11,696,255 $1,492,800 $10,203,455 . 5 $1,403,232 Apparel Stores* $9,852,325 $1,492,800 $8,359,525 5 $1,403,232 Shoe Stores 7 $1,843,930 $0 $1,043,930 0 $0 GenerabMerchandise.Gtoup� $29,407,266 $0 $29,407,266, 0 $0 Department & DryGoods $16,876,844 $0 $16,876,844 0 $0 Other General Merchandise $8,019,142 $0 $8,019,142 0 $0 Drug &-Propriebry,§i6res $4,511,281 $0 4',SL1y281' ', 0 $0 SpecialtyRetail Group $14;889,320 $2,796,552 $12;092;768 7 $2,628,759 Sporting Goods $3,698,333 $2,426,727 $1,271,607 4 $2,281,123 Florists $318,592 $0 $318,592 0 $0 Photographlc,Equfpment" $170,341 $0 $370,341 0 $0 Records & Music $760,521 $0 $76%521 0 $0 Books & Stationery $834,269 $0 $834,269 0 $0 Office Supplies/Computer $2,111,295 $0 $2,111,295 0 $0 Equipment jewelry, '$1,331,568 $0 ; $1,3311568 0. $0 Misc. Specialty Retail%Gifts* $5,1664,396 $369,825 $5,294,574 3 $347;636 Food, Eating and Drinking Group $63,275,213 $23,397,134 $391878,079 27 $19,562,204 Grocery/Liquor Stores* $30,614,826 $723,023 $29,891,8D2 4 $289,209 Eating,P.iaces $32;660,388 $22,,04,11i $9,986,277 23 $19,272,994 Butlding�Materf als_Ahd_, Home furnishings Group $18,479,756 $0 $18,479,756 0 $0 Furniture & Home Furnishings $8,555,518 $0 $8,555,518 0 $0 Household Apptlances & Electroni6 ' $3,024,336 �07$3,024,33fi 0 $0 Used Merchandise $483,075 $0 R $483,075. 0 $0 _ Nurseries & Garden Supply StoresW $1,512,182 $0 _ $1,512,182 0 $0 Lumber & Other Building Materials $2,814,594 $0 $2,814,594 0 $0 HothekCenters and HardwareStore's- ' $1,951,512 $0 $1;951,512 6 $0, Paint &Wallpaper $138,540 $0 $138,546 0 $0 Automotive Group $53,494,302 $0 $53,494,302 0 $0 New Cars & RVs $35,201,308 $0 $35,201,308 0 $0 Used, Car Dealers; $2;568,987 $0 $2,568,98Z ' 0 $0 Gasoline Setvice Stations $13,381,608 $0 $1%381,669, 0 $0, Mobile Homes &Trailers $9,185 $0 $9,185 0 $0 Auto Parts & Accessories $1,167,663 $0 $1,167,663 0 $0 htotorcyclles ' $1,165,551 $0 $1,165,55i' 0 $0 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Relad Cemrrr, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data come Equalization, data audited by N BIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 20C estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton & Associa Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mad order, home shopping, and direct selling. APPL/ED DEVELOPMENT ECDNma PAGET3 TABLE 12 • MC FADDEN SQUARE SUBAREA SELECTED SALES PER SQUARE FOOT National Average Sales Per Sales Per Retail Group SaXt. Sq.Ft. Total $189.80 or Apparel Store Group $68.38 i Apparel Stores* - $68:38 �04,to $280, 6pecialty Retail Group $125.49 i Sporting Goods $132.65 $200.56 Misc. Specialty Retail/Gifts* $119.91 $136 to $172 Food, Eating and Drinking Group $223.71 Grocery%Liquor Stores;* $78:45 $04,to $399 . Eating Places $269.54 $216.22 • • A Source: ADE., Inc., bsaed on data from the Orange County Assessor and the Urban Land Institute. Refer to Methodology Appendix for details of the analysis. • MARINER'S MILE° ■ Households near Mariner's Mile and visitors to the area account for about $154 million in retail spending annually (Table 13). . , ■ Mariner's Mile retail businesses generate approximately $103 million in retail sales. Nearly all of these sales came from restaurants and auto dealerships that rely heavily on spending from non-residents. Boat dealers and other marine sales generate another $44.7 million in sales. ■ Non-residents account for about $98.7 million of the retail sales along Mariner's Mile. Compared to other coastal areas, this district captures the highest proportion of its sales from non-residents. ■ Mariner's Mile generated the highest retail sales per square foot out of all the coastal subareas (Table 14). This is almost solely because of the exceptional performance of the area's restaurants and other eating places. With restaurants generating over $2 million each on average, and accounting for over $600 per square foot in sales, this sector performs very well. • ■ Even though Mariner's Mile has a very strong existing retail base, the area has seen several high profile business closures in recent years, including some large restaurants and marine businesses. In addition, some buildings along Mariner's Mile have high vacancy rates for office and local service uses as well. However, it also appears that even though several businesses have folded, the spaces continue to lease out and at least three properties have recently been sold. This indicates that interest in the area remains high for commercial and office activities. The retail mix in Mariner's Mile is citywide and regional in focus, with the almost complete absence of local serving retail businesses. • G The market area includes Census Tract 634. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PACE25 • • TABLE 13 MARINER'S MILE SUBAREA ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE Non -Loral Total Retail Sales Retail Resident Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Leakage Businesses Spending Total $154,570,686 $103,543,059 $51,027,627 42 $98,740,714 Apparel Store Group $3,422,697 $0 $3,422,697 0 $0 —V66ien'sAppa'rei � - - - $761,744 - $0 - $761j744 6 ' $0 Men'sApparel• $297,151 $0 $297,151 0 $0 Family Clothing $1,732,399 $0 $1,732,399 0 $0 Shoe Stores $611,403 $0 $611,403 0 $0 General:Merdiandise:Group - $9,798,W3 $6, , $9;7.96;273 . 0, $0 •Department.&,DryGoods, $5,623;61'6 $0 $5,623;616 0 $0 Other General Merchandise $2,669,716 $0 $2,669,716 0 $0 Drug & Proprietary Stores $1,504,940 $0 $1,504,940 0 $0 9p9dalty4tetalitroup $8,010;208 $4,173,787 '$3,836,420 11 $3;9231360 Gifts/Sporting,Goods/Florists* $3;873;60y $3,174190• - $698;809 4 $2;983,739 Photographic Equipment " $56,817 $0 $56,617 0 $0 Records & Music $254,344 $0 $254,344 0 $0 Books & Statfotiery $260,243 $0 -'$260;243. 0 -• $0 office;$upplies%Computer Equipment ', $701,345- $0 $701345 19 $0 3ewelry $538,445 $99,800 $438,645 0 $93,812 Misc. Specialty Retail $2,306,015 $899,798 $1,406,217 7 $845,810 Food,tatfng an&brinkfng1Group� $56,016;326 $43,5T6;662 $13,34t,674 22 _$42,372,292 Grocery, Stores ' $%370,736 $9,370,736 0 $0 Specialty Food/Liquor Stores* $1,772,599 -$0 $1,587,208 $185,391 3 $1,050,885 Eating Places $45,774,991 $41,989,444 $3,785,546 19 $41,321,407 ,Bwlding.MaterialsAnd $0 °Home,furnishiBgs,Group $9,346,590 $3;371,519� $5,975,071 6 ^ $3,169,228 Furniture & Home Furnishings $4,762,548 $2,009,519 $2,753,029 3 $1,8888,948 Household Appliances/Used $1,280,280 Merchandise/Building Materials* $3,384,328 $1,362,000 _ $2,022,328 3 & Nurseries•Garden §uppfy Stores $503,136 $0 $503;130 6 $0 Home.Centers-and•Hardware Stores $650;252 $0 $6501252 0' $0 Paint & Wallpaper $46,332 $0 $46,332 0 $0 Automotive Group $67,074,592 $52,421,100 $14,653,492 3 $49,275,834 Auta,Dealerships* $61,852,610 $52;421,100' '$91431y716 3' $40,275,834 Gasoline Service Stations $4,443,330 $0' $4,443,330 1$0 - Mobile Homes &Trailers $3,055 $0 $3,055 0 $0 Auto Parts & Accessories $387,539 $0 $387,539 0 $0 Boats & Mo'torcycl'es. $387,658 $0 $387,84 0 $0 Source: ADE, retail model developed from I997 US Reiad Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes Equalization, data audited by MBIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 20C estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton & Aesocia Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOM/CS PAGE26 • TABLE 14 MARINER'S MILE SUBAREA SELECTED SALES PER SQUARE FOOT National Retail Sales Average Sales Retail Group Per Sq.Ft. Per Sq.Ft. Total $455.38 §pectalty Retail -Group $199.65 Gifts/Sporting400ds/Florists* $269>13 $136to $201 +' Misc. Specialty Retail $47.29 $171.82 +Foody:Eatfng;and;Drinking;Group $551.57 ' t41.58 $174 to $268 APPh • COASTAL AREA TOTAL ■ Asa whole, the coastal area of Newport Beach generates approximately $662 million of retail demand annually (Table 15), about $257 million of which comes from non-residents. ■ Altogether, the coastal area generates about $355 million in retail sales. As is the case with most of the coastal subareas, about half of the sales come from food stores and restaurants, and over one-fourth of the sales in the coastal area come from auto dealerships. In addition, the coastal area has another $3.3 million of taxable sales that were not originally included in the subarea studies. Because this data remains in an aggregated form, it has not been assigned to individual retail categories and does not include any assumptions regarding sales of nontaxable items. The nontaxable sales, which are very prominent in supermarkets and drug stores, could amount to about $9 million if most of these sales are in supermarkets. The detailed categorization of these sales will be included in the final report. The subarea market studies include the nontaxable sales because detailed totals by retail category were available. ■ Altogether, the coastal area generates about $308 million of retail leakage • from household spending. About $59 million of the leakage is recovered by businesses in Fashion Island (Table 16). The remaining $248 million of retail leakage is largely in retail categories typically dominated by "big box" retail stores. These large-scale retailers are generally absent from Newport Beach's tetail mix outside of Fashion Island. Some other spending is likely recovered by businesses located elsewhere in Newport Beach. • APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PACE28 TABLE 15 ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH COASTAL AREA Total Non -Local Consumer Retail Resident Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Retail Leakage Businesses Spending Total $662,892,17 $355,261,51 $307,630,652 389 $257,055,269 Apparel Store Group 1 $31,547,643 8 $7,474,400 , $24,073,243 36 $6,604,380 women's,Apparef $8,838,140 $3;554;000 $5,284,146 16 $% 0,3'14 MenLs Apparel ShoeStores* $7,20 287 $764;000 $6 525,287 5 ;$ 7_S 70 Family Clothing $15,420,217 $3,156,400 $12,263,817 15 $2,788,995 General Merchandise Group. $72,255,826 $8,464,972 $63,790,854 5 $1,105,493 Department &Dry Goods , $40,938,846 $0 $46,938;846' 0' $0, Other GeneralMerchandise/Drug'Sfores_* $31y316;980 $8,464N972 $22;852;006, 5 $1105,493 Specialty Retail Group $52,652,904 $25,939,255 $26,713,649 104 $22,866,324 Gifts & Novelties $5,908,796 $4,116,717 $1,792,079 20 $3,637,531 Sporting Goods $10,833,135 $8,348,849 . $2,484,286 15 $7,377,043 Floristy _ ___ $2,411,581' '$102;060 $559,520 8 $1,636,180 Photographic Equipment/Music Stores* $2,759;834 $61210D $2,147,734 3 $,299' Books &Stationery $3,022,531 $1,129,400 $1,893,131 3 $997,938 Office SuQpiies/Computer Equipment $5,129,797 $0 $5,129,797 0 $0 Jewellry, $5,192j046 $2;1d0;230 ! $3,001,618-' •6 $1,882;271 _„ _ ' ' $17,455;183 •$7,749�89 '$9,705,284 49 $6,897,01.1 ,''MIsc,Speclalty✓Retall�_„� Food, Eating and Drinking Group $212,617,122 $173,151,258 $39,465,864 179 $107,280,454 Grocery yStores � $71,628,017 $40,245,080 $31,382,938 '$0 5 25 53 879,622 943,276: Specialty'Food Stores . $3,04,2;783 $3,042;783, LlquoP Store's_' ., „ $4,138,100 $3,678;840 $259,260,:; 11 $1y01;029' Eating Places $133,808,222 $125,984,556 $7,823,666 138 $101,445,526 Building Materials And Home4urnlshings,GrouP,_ $66,438;679' -$29;51'0;397 $36,928,2b2 52 $21,36'S;334' Furniture'&•Home Furnishings $33,06,384 $Y7;540,381 $1$;936;004' 29 $12;539"338; Furniture Stores $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Other Home Furnishings Stores ld, HousehoApplfce8t• ans'ElectronIcs $0 $9,396i977 $00 $2;335,100 ' $7,061,877 0 3 $0 $2;Q63,294 Qjkd'Merchandise.--, - $3,048;_691 $2,122,0 00 _ $926,68j 9 $�,874,999 ___ __ _ , _ Garden Supply/Hardware/Paint Stores* $11,143,390 $3,500,516 $7,642,874 5 $2,374,063 Lumber & Other Building Materials $9,373,247 $4,012,400 $5,360,847 6 $2,513,640 _ Automotive Group $227,379,997 $130,721,236 $116,656,760 13 $97,;833,284 New_Carsr&.RVs e_ _' -, -,_$161,126094' $8,5 62,400_ -$7S,463,694_ _ 3; $75;691,297 Used Car Dealers $15,659,245 $10,663,800 $4,995,445 5 $9,422,534 Service Statlons/Auto Parts* m' _ $47,730,527 $14,395,036 -To $33,335,491 5 _ $12,719,454 Moblie Homes&Trailers $4,217 $22,217 0 A iource: ADE, retail model developed from 097 US Retail Cenm , and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited by MBIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton & Associates. ,Totes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. Non -local resident spending can include visitors, business -to -business transactions, residents of neighboring communities, employees, and residents living in other parts of Newport Beach. The totals also do not include sales from marine dealers. • APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOM/CS PACE29 TABLE 16 ANALYSIS OF LEAKAGE FROM LOCAL HOUSEHOLD DEMAND FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH COASTAL AREA Coastal Area Resident Soendina at Net Retail Apparel Store Group $24,073,243_ .._$10,023,045 ., ,.Wbmen'srApparel $5,284,140 $4;755,726 i L n's.Apparel/,ShomStores* $6,525,787 __ $9;100;419 Family Clothing $12,263,817 $2,166,901 General Merchandise Group $63,790,854 23,766,637 Department &:'Dry Goods $40,938;846 21,763,856' r Other'General Merchandise/Drug Stores* $22;652,008; . $2;002",779 Specialty Retail Group $26,713,649 $6,053,328 Gifts & Novelties $1,792,079 'Spotting'Goods - $2,484,286' ,.. _.$1,595,242. _ $10;&43 Florists _ _ __, : $559;520- Photographic Equipment/Music Stores* $2,147,734 $425,048 Books & Stationery $1,893,131 $1,173,504 Office Supplies/Gomputer'Equipment $&,fi99;797 $0 2ew0a $3;001,818 $2;235 592 . Misc. Specialty Retail $9,705,284 $60B,328 Food, Eating and Drinking Group $39,465,864 �$8,319,181, Grocery' -Stores $31,382;'938, $1y277,887 Specialty Food Stores $0 ,_ ;-. _ $0 Liquor Stores $259,260 $0 • Eating Places_ $7,823,666 $7,041,299 a' BuildingMateriafsAnd HHome fir rnishings Group; $36�928,282 _ ., $SO}923;317 „ _ Furniture & Home Furnishings $15,936,004 $4,485,872 Furniture Stores 0 $0 _ _ _ btfier Home-Furoish7ngs Stores _ R w $0 $0 HouseholdAppliances&Electronics _ ,$7,061,_877' _.$6,437,4,§ Used Merchandise $926,681 $0 Stores* $7,642,874 $0 _GardenSuppiy/Hardware/Paint Lumber&Other'Building,Matefials $5,360;847' $0 !Automotive Group__ :_ $116,658,760 _Qe$4064415 New Cars & RVs $75,463,694 $0 Used Car Dealers __ $0 Sice Stations/Auto Parts* ery -$4,995,445 $33,491, ;335 �$3886,420' ' Motille_Homes�&Trailers $22,217, __, _ $19;995 _ , 0 $196,837 $2,473,743; $S54,449} $1,722,686 $719,628 $5;129,797, $766,226' $9,096,956 $31,146,683 $30,105,056' $0 $259,260 $782,367 $26)004,966 $11,450,192 $0 $0' $624,431 $926;681 $7,642,874 $5,360,847� Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Cenrar, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited by MBIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton & Associates. Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. Non -local resident spending can include visitors, business -to -business transactions, residents of neighboring communities, employees, and residents living in other parts of Newport Beach. The totals also do not include sales from marine dealers. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE30 • METHODOLOGY RETAIL ANALYSIS Market Area Definition The area defined as primary market area includes the City of Newport Beach. Because Newport Coast households were annexed into the city limits after the 2000 Census, the analysis used data from those tracts formerly in the unincorporated area. The retail subareas are geocoded according to the definitions used by the City of Newport Beach for its sales tax reporting. The market areas defined for these retail subareas are as follows: Balboa Island (Census Tract 630.06), Balboa Village (Tract 628), Corona Del Mat (Tract 627.02 and Block Group 627.01 BG5), Lido -Cannery (Tracts 628, 629, and 635), and Mariner's Mile (Tract 634). For the entire coastal area, the analysis included these tracts and added the households along Bayside Drive and the remainder of Census Tract 627.01. . Household Growth and Income Assumptions The household counts used in the analysis came directly from the 2000 US Census of Population. The household income distribution for the primary and secondary market areas comes from the 1990 Census, and the calculations hold this distribution constant. To estimate 2000 incomes, the income ranges were inflated using the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and real income increase was estimated by using the preliminary Summary File 3 data from the 2000 Census for Orange County (minus Anaheim and Santa Ana). In order to calculate total household income, the midpoint for each income range was multiplied by the number of households within that range. Data Sources Used In The Retail Model The taxable sales figures in the analysis come directly from the California State Board of Equalization (SBE) sales tax allocation records, audited by MBIA. This data covers all establishments for the City of Newport Beach for the 2001 calendar year. Due to confidentiality requirements, any retail category with fewer than three establishments must be aggregated together with other retail categories before data can be reported. The data for the subarea retail studies come directly from the MBIA sales tax audit reports, which use geographic definitions provided by the City of Newport Beach. isDuring the process of conducting the subarea analyses, some missing data along Bayside Drive and around McFadden Square was detected. The sales APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE3/ • tax data for these areas reflect aggregated totals with no detail by store type. This will be added in the final report. ADE's retail model estimates household retail demand by store type and product type. The variables that go into the model are average household income, the number of households in the study area, and any necessary inflation factors. The source of data for the household product type demand is the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, which the agency uses to compute the Consumer Price Index. These surveys stratify the sample based on type of location, income, and region. For purposes of analyzing the household spending in Newport Beach, data for analyzing the household demand by store type came from the 1997 US Census of Retail Trade. Additional Assumptions Made In The Retail Model Because the data from the State Board of Equalization only reflects taxable sales, the retail model makes an adjustment to account for nontaxable retail items. These items include food and prescription drugs. The adjustment inflates the taxable sales by the average ratio of nontaxable to taxable products for an individual store type. This distribution of sales by product • type comes from the 1997 Census of Retail Trade. Information regarding the taxability of different retail products comes from the California Tax Code. The household capture assumptions for different retail store categories in the coastal subareas came from the Linda Congleton & Associates market studies of the Balboa Peninsula. In store categories where the household capture assumption exceeded the available demand, the analysis assumed that the household demand would equal the local spending component. In the subarea studies, the non-resident spending includes visitors, business -to - business transactions, spending from households living in the surrounding communities, and residents living in other parts of Newport Beach. The capture assumptions for the entire coastal area aggregated the household spending for each individual subarea, and reapplied the household capture assumptions to the remaining leakage in order to differentiate between resident and non-resident spending for the entire coastal area. For the citywide totals, the visitor spending estimates are calculated from CIC Research visitor survey data. Because the data in both of these categories was reported at an aggregate level, AIDE took the data and distributed it according to the most appropriately matched retail category. The citywide analysis does not make any assumptions regarding capture of spending from residents living in the surrounding communities, such as Irvine, Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach, and Huntington Beach. For categories APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOM/CS PAGE31 • that have large excess capture of spending, it can be assumed that the regional capture of spending is at least this amount. Data for the average sales per square foot comes from the sales tax records and the County Assessor's database. The averages calculated for the retail analysis reflect the available data. In many cases, the square footage data in the Assessor's records was either missing or mixed together with several uses. In most cases where the square footage total included several uses sharing a single address, the analysis totaled the number of businesses at that address and assigned an equal square footage total to each business. Balboa Island had the most comprehensive and complete square footage data of all the subareas analyzed. Lido -Cannery had several properties with missing addresses, and most businesses in the Lido -Marina Village were excluded because the data was aggregated and no reasonable assumptions regarding the sizes of individual businesses could be made. In addition, the data records for Corona del Max had problems because most of the properties were improperly entered as "W Coast Hwy." The national benchmark data comes from the Urban Land Instimte's Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers publication. ADE's analysis used the community shopping center median sales per square foot for each retail • category. APPLIED DEVELOPMENTECONOMICS PAGE33 • Mrs. Louise S. Greeley 16 Swift Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 July 11, 2002 Mr. Robert Shelton, Chairman General Plan Advisory Committee Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Bob, • I have a request! I think it would be useful and productive for our GPAC Committee to address the topic of "variances". Here in Newport Beach much time and effort seems to be devoted to developing General Plans and adopting General Plan Amendments only to have these efforts overturned by granting variances. I believe guidelines for granting variances should be very much stricter in order that the General Plans and our "vision" recommendations make a more effective impact. Please let me know your thoughts about this topic. Sincerely, (Mrs.) Louise S. Greeley 949 631 1475 FAX 949 645 0065 louisesg@pacbelLnet I- L-1 • Statement for the General Plan Advisory Committee 40 7/22/02 It is the position of the Banning Ranch Park and Preserve Task Force, and many in the community, that the General Plan for the city of Newport Beach should be revised so that the entire area known as Banning Ranch (both within the city limits of Newport Beach and within unincorporated Orange County) be zoned as open space. The revised General Plan should allow for no commercial or residential development on Banning Ranch. Rather, the revised General Plan should ensure that the entire Banning Ranch be preserved, for perpetuity, as an open space and wildlife preserve/public wilderness park. The city of Newport Beach should also take the lead in securing private and public funds to allow for the purchase of Banning Ranch at a price agreeable to both the owners and the public. Terry Welsh Chairperson, Banning Ranch Park and Preserve Task Force • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, July 22, 2002 Roger Alford Dorothy Beek Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Karlene Bradley John Corrough Seth Darling Julie Delaney Laura Dietz Florence Felton Nancy Gardner • Joseph Gleason Jr. Louise Greeley Evelyn Hart Ernie Hatchell Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa David Janes George Jeffries Mike Johnson Todd Knipp Donald Krotee Philip Lugar Catherine O'Hara • Carl Ossipoff 1 fl. RI'k • Larry Root John Saunders Brett Shaves Robert Shelton Ed Siebel Alan Silcock Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo • • 2 L i GENERAL PLAN ADAORY COMMITTEE Monday, July 22, 2002 NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS S o a' 4 �C- GENERAL PLAN ADMORY COMMITTEE i Monday, July 22, 2002 NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS • 0 N EWP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, July 22, 2002, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Louise Greeley Larry Root Phillip Bettencourt Evelyn Hart John Saunders Carol Boice Tom Hyans Brett Shaves Karlene Bradley Mike Ishikawa Ed Siebel John Corrough George Jeffries Alan Silcock Hoby Darling Mike Johnson Jan Vandersloot Laura Dietz Donald Krotee Don Webb Florence Felton Phillip Lugar Ron Yeo Nancy Gardner Catherine O'Hara Members Absent: Dorothy Beek Bob Hendrickson Robert Shelton Julie Delaney David Janes Jackie Sukiasian Joseph Gleason Todd Knipp Jennifer Wesoloski Ernest Hatchell Carl Ossipoff Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager George Berger, Program Manager, Community and Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Shirley Oborny, Administrative Assistant Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator Doug Svensson, ADE Consultant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Members of the Public Present: Madeline Arakelian Carol Hoffman Dolores Offing Economic Development I. Welcome and Introductions • A. Agenda Overview Mr. Lugar called the meeting to order. This evening we will be discussing Vision Statement and Ms. Gardner will give us a report. Ms. Verheyen will introduce new consultants. She will also facilitate our discussion of priority topics to address in the survey, more key questions, possible extra meetings and the next steps in the process. Ms. Verheyen explained that if there is time left this evening, we'd like to work on Item VI, Key Questions. At the last meeting, time did not allow all groups to report what their small group discussion findings were. We will continue those discussions where we left off. Continuing, Ms. Verheyen said our main agenda topics tonight are the Vision Statement, the report from the fiscal consultant and a discussion of the survey topics. We have a list of survey topics to present to this committee. Staff and the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) developed the list and tonight we will discuss and refine the list. Ms. Wood introduced staff and consultants. Shirley Oborny will be taking • minutes because Debbie is on vacation. George Berger is our in-house project manager for the economic and fiscal studies. Doug Svensson is the consultant from Applied Development Economics (ADE). He will be giving us a presentation this evening. Woodie Tescher is also here. He is the consultant we retained to do the General Plan Update itself once we finish with the Visioning process. He will be involved during the Visioning process to make sure we're asking the right questions and we will be giving him information that will be helpful when we get to that phase. You are all familiar with Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner. • B. Committee Communications Ms. Wood said there is one item from Terry Welsh and a letter from Louise Greeley to Bob Shelton talking about discussing variances as part of the General Plan process. Ms. Wood clarified that the item from Terry Welsh is not the same one he previously submitted. II. Approval of Minutes —June 10, 2002 The minutes of the June 10, 2002 meeting were approved as submitted. 2 III. Vision Statement • A. Report from David Janes Ms. Gardner explained that Mr. Janes had mentioned writing a letter with comments on our discussion so the GPAC members who had made comments would understand that the subcommittee had addressed each of them. Unfortunately, he was unable to write those comments. I want to assure GPAC that the subcommittee did review everybody's comments and the minutes. We went back and looked at the Vision Statement in the light of those comments. Some comments were incorporated, some made us alter our language and some were disregarded after discussion. If GPAC has specific questions on something that was contributed and perhaps not considered, we will try to answer your questions. Discussion ensued as to which statement in the packet is the most recent. Ms. Wood clarified that the latest version is dated 6/24/02. Mr. Jeffries commented that the Vision Statement was extremely well written and he thanked and congratulated the subcommittee for a job well done. Community Character • Ms. Boice referred the committee to the last sentence in this section: We value our colorful past, the high quality of fife, community bonds, and the successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses and visitors After researching the meaning of "balancing" she's concerned that it could be interpreted by somebody to mean one-third residents, one-third businesses and one-third visitors. Ms. Gardner responded that the subcommittee read Ms. Boice's letter and it was discussed at length. We did not feel that "balance" meant dividing it into thirds. Mr. Hyans drew a fulcrum diagram. The fulcrum could be in many places but there can still be a balance depending on how things are weighted. • Ms. Verheyen suggested "balance" be included in the glossary. Discussion ensued. Ms. Verheyen said it would be included in the glossary. Mr. Tescher explained that a Vision Statement is often a statement about a community's core values and intentions. It's intended to be an umbrella but the statement is not held accountable. It's the policies and programs that are held accountable. Often visions are referred to as "apple pie and motherhood" kinds of statements because they are not action -oriented. They cannot be measured in a scientific way. The science comes later. It's giving the sense of the community, a sense of its value. K Community Character • Mr. Siebel referred the committee to the 2"d sentence in this section: Development and revitalization decisions are well conceived and beneficial to both the economy and our character. The word "beneficial" in that sentence could be interpreted to mean anything by either side. Mr. Silcock suggested replacing "beneficial" with "complementary." The committee agreed to change it. Ms. O'Hara referred the committee to the 11 sentence: We have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique residential community with a diversity of coastal and upland neighborhoods I don't agree with identifying Newport Beach as just a residential community. We are denying that it's a destination resort. It doesn't really come out in the rest of the statement either. If you go to other countries, people talk about Newport Beach as a resort. Ms. Gardner responded that when we talked about residential, it was because we felt we were reflecting the neighborhood workshops when the participants said they wanted to maintain a very strong residential character, and the residential aspect not get overwhelmed by other parts of it. Growth Strategy, Land Use and Development • Continuing, Ms. O'hara referred the committee to the first sentence: We have a conservative growth strategy that balances the needs of the various constituencies in our community and that cherishes... " I'm not sure what "conservative" means. I suggest we simply delete it and say "We have a growth strategy..." Ms. Gardner responded that "conservative" also came out of the workshops because there was a very big concern about growth. Greenlight shows it. To just say there's a growth strategy didn't seem to meet those concerns. To say it was a conservative growth strategy meant that we were recognizing we wanted to put some limits. E Ms. O'Hara expressed her concern. We were given the assignment to come up with a Vision Statement without having the results of the economic development study or the traffic study. It's difficult without the information. It might be better to wait for the statistically valid survey results rather than rely on what a small percent of people have said. Mr. Lugar suggested the term "planned growth strategy." It suggests a positive, organized approach. It will take into consideration all of the studies. It says that we are thoughtful and we know where we're going. Ms. O'Hara agreed with Mr. Lugar's suggestion. M Mr. Vandersloot referred the committee to the second sentence: • 'Development and revitalization decisions are well conceived and beneficial to both the economy and our character. " I was wondering if we should add the word "residential" or "community" in front of the word "character." Sometimes there is a dichotomy between economic decisions and residential decisions. I'd suggest "complimentary to both the economy and residential character"or "communitycharacter. " Ms. Wood responded to Ms. O'Hara's concern about not having all the information. I view this as a work in progress and the subcommittee will continue to work on it as we receive the survey information and economic and traffic study information. This is not something we're asking the committee to vote on and approve it as the final document. Does the committee think the revisions are okay so far given the information we have? Ms. Bradley proposed the committee vote to accept as it is and continue to revise it as we go. Ms. Verheyen suggested it could be placed on the agenda to look at it again prior to or after the Community Congress. Ms. Boice pointed out that according to the "Current Conditions...", Newport Beach is 70% residential. That part statistically would represent exactly what it is. Also, GPAC's whole job is to reflect the directions and values, visions and • choices from the Vision Festival and the Neighborhood Workshops as Ms. Gardner was saying. In response to Ms. Verheyen, Ms. O'Hara explained that she isn't suggesting "residential" be taken out. My concern was that we didn't recognize the other. Mr. Yeo said I'm comfortable with the structure as long as everything falls within that. It doesn't mention commercial development but hopefully it will later. Ms. Bradley repeated her motion to accept the Vision Statement as presented with the two minor changes we have noted and continue to look at it and reexamine at the end of our workshops. Ms. Verheyen asked the committee for input. Recreation Opportunities Ms. O'Hara referred the committee to the second sentence: "We are a residential and recreational seaside community willing and eager to share its natural resources with visitors without diminishing these irreplaceable assets in order to share them. " It sounds like we have ownership of our natural resources and beaches. I wonder if it could be said more positively and friendlier. 5 Boating and Waterways . Ms. O'Hara said this should be a general statement and not dictate levels of development. Referring to the second sentence: "We have maintained a hospitable, navigable pleasure boating harbor in the lower bay through careful, low density, non -intrusive on shore development,... " If we only allow low -density development, what if an opportunity came up where we preserve part of it as open space and some development is consolidated where it might be more intense but yet other places are preserved in their entirety. I want to make sure we're not closing that opportunity. Ms. Verheyen responded that it seems rather specific. Mr. Bettencourt suggested that in this section "upper bay" and "lower bay" need definitions. If it's at the Bay Bridge, it does not acknowledge the recreational and pleasure boating activities above the Bay Bridge. If it meant the Upper Bay Ecological Reserve area implied by the final sentence, I think that's relevant. The Upper Bay includes the Newport Beach Aquatic Center, the UCI Rowing Center, and The Dunes. It has a very important role in pleasure boating and it appears to be precluded by the policy statement. I don't think it's intended here. I believe the distinction for upper bay in lower case words was designed to imply the ecological reserve area. This would make Dover Shores residents nervous. • Ms. Greeley seconded Ms. Bradley's motion. Ms. Verheyen said there are a couple of people that are particularly interested in moving forward, adopting the statement as is, but keeping it open for review later. There are others who have specific concerns with the language and would like to have it resolved now. Mr. Yeo suggested taking some of the edits now and leaving others open for review. Ms. Bradley said I move to accept the Vision Statement as presented to us with the changes and additions that we have discussed regarding the wording, and that we review it again further on in our process. Ms. Gardner amended the motion as follows: • replacing "beneficial" with "complementary" • adding "community" before "character" • clarifying "Upper Bay" to the "Estuary" Ms. Verheyen said the motion is now to accept the Vision Statement as it is but with those three changes. We will at this time accept only those changes and we'll put this back on the agenda for review later in the process, after the studies are in and after GPAC has more time to consider the policy implications. .,, B. GPAC Approval • The committee agreed to accept the statement as a draft and to include the above -mentioned changes. IV. Phase I Report: Retail Market Analysis A. Presentation by Doug Svensson Ms. Wood explained that we asked Mr. Svensson to do an economic study for the entire city and a fiscal impact study as part of the General Plan Update and finally an economic development strategic plan. As you know, at the same time we're working on the General Plan Update, we're working even faster on the Local Coastal Program update because we have a deadline with the Coastal Commission on that. We had asked Mr. Svensson to look at the coastal area first. This report is a quick overview of the retail segment of the economy citywide and then a focus on each sub -area within the coastal area. The reason we are looking for that kind of information is because there's a question as to whether we think we should continue to support all the commercial designated land that we have in the coastal zone. That's probably what the Coastal Commission would like us to continue to do but the City is not interested in having it if it's not supported by the market. • Mr. Svensson said one additional point is that this is a market analysis. In that sense, what it addresses are private sector business revenues. It doesn't directly address how these revenues and sales affect the City budget. That is something we will address very directly and in detail when we bring the fiscal analysis and fiscal model forward. This is one step in looking at potential business development opportunities in Newport Beach and specifically the retail part of that. • Mr. Svensson presented a PowerPoint presentation of his report to the committee and provided answers to the committee's inquiries (presentation attached). B. Question and Answer Q. In reference to slide 3, Citywide Retail Capture, Mr. Alford asked how the $55 million for workers was estimated. A. It's based on the studies that we've done like this in other cities; the amount of money and the types of expenditures that workers typically make. They buy lunch, make incidental purchases of clothing, etc. on lunch hours. It's a gross figure. 7 Q. Alan Silcock commented that the figure for grocery stores on slide 4 is • surprising considering the lack thereof and the amount of leakage indicated on page 29 (DRAFT- NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ECONOMIC STUDIESPHASEIREPORT). I would think that would be a negative. A. It shows as a positive in relation to what we would expect people to spend. It may be that the ability of the type of stores in Newport Beach to meet the needs of residents are especially good and therefore they're seeing more sales than otherwise might be expected. It's possible some of this is part of the employee -spending category. Mr. Saunders said I would guess that employee spending might be twice as much per capita as the typical city. People might go to Fletcher Jones to buy a car, eat at the evening restaurants, visit Fashion Island, etc. Mr. Svensson said it depends on how we categorize that spending. If it's not considered employee -spending per se, it's part of the excess capture the City is receiving from households that are in the surrounding region. Q. Ms. Dietz asked why hotels are not considered? A. Hotels are not retail business. We will be doing a focus on the hospitality industry. The CIC report done for the Conference and Visitor's Bureau looks at it in some depth and provides information about how lodging facilities are doing in the City. We will incorporate that into some of the later work we're • doing. Q. Ron Yeo asked whether Fashion Island is not included in the study on slide 7. A. It's out of this study area. It's part of the balance of the City. Q. Ms. Gardner asked whether the studies of Corona del Mar on slides 16 and 17 included Corona del Mar Plaza? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Webb inquired as to the analysis for retail demand for boats and motorcycles. There are no retail sales shown for Mariners Mile? A. We didn't include the boat sales in the coastal area. It's included in the citywide area. It does occur in the coastal area. That category is by definition a regional survey. It's just not in those particular tables that related to the coastal area. Q. Ms. Hart asked where the $60 million for Fashion Island is shown in the chart. A. It's in the last section of this report (slide 20), the table that looks at the coastal area as a whole. It's not in the bar chart. 1.1 Mr. Svensson summarized Retail Opportunities and Newport Beach Marine • Industry(slides 20 and 21). As per Mr. Vandersloot's request, Mr. Svensson agreed to provide GPAC with the PowerPoint Presentation. Mr. Jeffries said he spent four hours reading the report and prior to that had never heard of "leakage" or "capture." I have 40 years experience looking at adversaries and their experts' report. I looked at their reports critically and attempted to examine their legitimacy. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of this report but I do have a 3-1/2 page memo (attached). I provided copies to Mr. Svensson, Ms. Wood and two committee members who requested it and I also relayed my comments to Mr. Svensson at the earlier GPUC meeting today. Mr. Jeffries provided the committee with a brief oral summary of his memo. Mr. Johnson commented that a lot of Newport Beach's leakage is to Costa Mesa. Mr. Svennson's presentation mentioned bookstores being a possibility for Newport Beach. We already have three bookstores in Triangle Square. It might be interesting to find out what kinds of sales are going on in Costa Mesa that we could bring into our City. Ms. Gardner commented that some of the leakage was taken up in other parts of the City. It didn't all go outside City boundaries. • Mr. Svensson explained that there is a sufficient demand in Newport Beach to support some of those stores. Those stores mostly exist in Costa Mesa. There are places for Newport Beach residents to shop. In terms of sales tax, as Mr. Jeffries mentioned, this report does not deal with sales tax benefit to the City. The City will only receive sales tax from stores physically located in its jurisdiction. If Newport Beach residents are going to Costa Mesa to make these purchases then Costa Mesa is getting the sales tax. That's the question. Some of this may come together when we do have the fiscal analysis and we can look at how the impacts work, both for the City and the marketplace. This report is written as a set of bullet points. It's not a full narrative report. As we do the full analysis and report it will give us an idea of what needs to be emphasized to clarify for folks the questions that come up. Mr. Hyans wanted to make everybody aware that this report is a precursor to the fiscal analysis that will be coming out in September. Ms. Wood added that we're trying to give you the information as we get it. Mr. Corrough commented that he's had this dilemma before, preparing similar reports for coastal communities that have one side missing from the market place, the ocean. I've always had a tough time trying to take coastal cities with large inlands, such as Newport Beach has, then trying to derive from only the available examples some sort of rationale unique to the way coastal cities are set up, particularly mature ones like this where there isn't room to build new big box • stuff. Continuing, Mr. Corrough said in order to take an idealized community with an anonymous geography and say it should work like this (dollars per square foot, etc.), examples must be selected that skew toward this sort of unique market that are destination resort coastal communities as opposed to anonymous cities. Mr. Corrough asked Mr. Svensson if he has the flexibility in the scope of work to derive parallels to other coastal cities as opposed to using something inland. Mr. Svensson responded that he does. I would like to emphasize that this particular analysis is not dependent on comparing other communities. It's internally generated. Mr. Corrough said he understands that. In reference to the slides referring to the coastal area of the community, it's showing things not necessarily unique to coastal area retail environment — clocks, watches, cameras, etc., as opposed to a more competitive marine retail environment, for example. There are a whole series of other things that generate some good unit sales out of them. For example, there would be more sales per square foot from West Marine than from Tiffany's. These are some unique considerations that must be dealt with somewhere in the process when using the term coastal. There's more there than would typically fall out of the typical modeling. We must be very careful • when we get into these unique coastal communities. Mr. Svensson responded that he appreciates the comments. As we do more work on this, we'll try to separate out a little more clearly the unique opportunities that make sense. Ms. Dietz inquired as to whether there would be in the future some reference of businesses that are more vulnerable when our economy goes into downturn. Mr. Svensson said that in addition to this we're doing an economic forecast that looks at business types that go beyond retail. We'll try to highlight that information. Ms. Wood said one of the things we had specifically asked for is to look at the diversity of our economic base, especially to help us through economic downturns. Ms. Offing commented that in fairness to the presenter, he did this as part of the Local Coastal Plan that the City needs to have done according to state law. That's why it doesn't look like the whole package. V. Discussion of Priority Topics to Address in the Survey Ms. Verheyen explained that this is a very preliminary discussion on telephone survey topics. As you know the survey has been part of the program built into this Visioning Phase of the General Plan Update. We have it scheduled for October. We're getting an early start on it to allow GPAC the opportunity to . have some input into it. We have an opinion research consultant retained, 10 Godbe Research and Analysis, who met with staff and GPUC today. After he receives direction from both committees he will begin to draft a survey instrument. The GPUC will go through a review process. We will pilot test the survey in late September for administration by telephone in October. We will have a sample size of 1,000 residents. Mr. Silcock inquired as to whether GPAC would have the opportunity to review it. Ms. Verheyen responded that our consultant highly recommends the survey instrument not be released to a large group of people because it could end up in the newspaper and if it does prior to the administration of the survey, the results get skewed. It's really up to the professionals to craft the language. He recommended publicity announcing a survey would be coming, survey methodology and the purpose of the survey. No topics or questions would be revealed. For that reason GPAC will have to rely on the subcommittee of GPUC to approve the questions. We want to make sure GPAC has input as to the topics to be addressed. Continuing, Ms. Verheyen said it's a 12-minute interview of 1,000 residents and 150 business owners would also be interviewed using similar questions. Mr. Hyans said he is comfortable with having only the four subcommittee members seeing the questions. Ms. Wood added that initially the entire GPUC • was going to review the questions. With the advice of the consultant we cut it down to four. In response to Mr. Johnson's inquiring as to who the 1,000 people would be, Ms. Verheyen said there was a lot of discussion about this at the GPUC meeting today. The way it was decided was to try to get a representative sample of Newport residents drawing on the voter file because it gives us the ability to not only reach people at their phone numbers but also gives the profile of the people we're calling. We would know where they live, gender, etc. as part of the sample plan. Mr. Hyans added that GPUC rejected the randomized digital phone numbers. Ms. Verheyen clarified that GPUC discussed this for a long time and they decided to use the voter files to try to make it proportionate to the larger population distribution of the community. Ms. Verheyen clarified for Mr. Krotee that the surveyors would continue to make calls until 1,000 responses are received. Mr. Alford inquired as to whether there would be any effort to get input from younger people. Our average age is above the mean of the population. Ms. Wood responded that some workshops were held with high school students. In summary, Ms. Verheyen said we have a number of methods we are using in • our Visioning process. Many are completed. We still have the website up and 11 running, the survey and our Community Congress in November. We believe the • survey adds value because it gives a statistically reliable and valid sample of public opinion from a representative group of residents. It may confirm some of the strategic directions that are emerging. Those would be sent into the next phase of the General Plan policy development phase. It's understood that information that comes from the survey that might contradict what we've heard so far would still be an area of conflict or disagreement and would be set up for further discussion at the General Plan policy development phase. Any issue that is a contradiction or remains unresolved will need further discussion at a greater level of detail. 11 Ms. Verheyen responded to Ms. Bradley that our consultant, Tim McLarney, indicated that a typical sample size of a community the size of Newport Beach is 400 to 600. Nationally it's 1,200. A survey of 1,000 is pretty good and it gives us a low margin of error. Originally we had scoped and budgeted for 600 and we increased it to 1,000 in order to break it down to the sub sample level and gain more reliability. In response to Mr. Krotee, Ms. Verheyen said it may be difficult to publish the results district by district. Ms. Wood said I think GPUC would like the results to be broken down by district. The major reason for increasing the sample size was to be able to break it down geographically. In response to Mr. Hyans comment that Council District 7 is larger than the other districts, Ms. Verheyen said the survey would be proportionate to the population distribution of the district. Ms. Verheyen responded to Ms. Gardner that Ms. Verheyen, Ms. Wood, Ms. Temple, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Patrick Alford and Mr. Tescher would be working with the survey consultant. Survey Topics Ms. Verheyen explained that staff came up with the list of topics on the wall chart. The GPUC also added a few items. There are too many topics to be addressed in the survey so we'll want GPAC to prioritize the most important ones to address. The question numbers to the right of the topic refer to the original list of key questions that we have used in GPAC discussions. They are also in the resident's guide document. Ms. Wood clarified that we are not talking about using those questions worded that way for the survey. It's just to give us an idea of the issue. Ms. Verheyen reviewed the list of topics with GPAC. At this point these are very broad topic areas. No questions have been written. The survey consultant would probably meet with staff again based on the GPUC and GPAC input today and begin to draft the more specific questions. Ms. Verheyen invited the committee's input. Discussion and brainstorming ensued. The list of topics 12 suggested by staff, the questions they refer to, and the additional topics suggested by GPUC and GPAC are attached. Ms. Verheyen told the committee that they would each be allowed five votes for their top priority topics. There is no guarantee they will become part of the survey because there are many more topics than can be accommodated. We will email the topics to the committee for your votes. VI. Key Questions: Continued Report Out on Small Group Discussions from June Meeting No time was left for this agenda item. VII. Next Steps Ms. Wood explained that we are just starting to receive the technical information. There will be a lot of it. We'll be hearing from Mr. Svensson again. There will be two visits from the traffic consultant to discuss the model and how that's showing our existing General Plan build -out and how different land uses generate traffic. We will also have the results of the survey. We wanted to warn you that we are going to need more meetings and/or longer meetings. Ms. Wood asked the committee whether they would prefer longer 40 meetings or to extend the existing meetings one extra hour. Mr. Johnson responded that GPAC is a very powerful committee and it will have a big influence on the future of our City. If we need to have more meetings to do an excellent job, I think we should have more meetings. The committee agreed to have more meetings. Ms. Wood said the proposed new schedule would be sent to the committee. Mr. Yeo said he enjoyed the smaller groups better. VIII. Public Comments No public comments offered. L] 13