HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2002_08_26*NEW FILE*
G PAC_2002_08_26
•
•
40
NEWP
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
VISIONING PROCESS
August 26, 2002
7:00-9:00 p.m.
General Plan Advisory Committee
MEETING #6
AGENDA
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— July 22, 2002
III.
Traffic Modeling Presentation by Carleton Waters,
7:15
Urban Crossroads
A. Introduction to Modeling
B. Preliminary Existing Conditions Findings
8:15
IV.
Banning Ranch Open Space Potential
A. Presentation by Terry Welsh, Banning Ranch Park
and Preserve Task Force
8:30
V.
Discussion of Strategic Directions
A. Small Group Discussions and Report Back
8:50
VI.
Next Steps
8:55
VII.
Public Comments
Vol 71
•NEWP
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
VISIONING PROCESS
41 C H
n
u
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
Nancy Gardner
Phillip Lugar
Phillip Bettencourt
Louise Greeley
Catherine O'Hara
Carol Boice
Evelyn Hart
Larry Root
Karlene Bradley
Tom Hyans
Brett Shaves
John Corrough
Mike Ishikawa
Ed Siebel
Hoby Darling
George Jeffries
Alan Silcock
Laura Dietz
Mike Johnson
Don Webb
Florence Felton
Donald Krotee
Ron Yeo
Members Absent:
Dorothy Beek
David Janes
Robert Shelton
Julie Delaney
Todd Knipp
Jackie Sukiasian
Joseph Gleason
Carl Ossipoff
Jan Vandersloot
Ernest Hatchell
John Saunders
Jennifer Wesoloski
Bob Hendrickson
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
DRAFT
• 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
DRAFT
• 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 co%rfu/past, the high qua/ity oflife, communifybonds, and
the successfu/ba/anc/ng of the needs ofres/dents, businesses and v/sitors
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.
u
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]
II'
Community Character
Mr. Siebel referred the committee to the 2nd sentence in this section:
• Developmentand 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 1st sentence:
• We have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique
residential community with a diversity of coastal and up/and
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.
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.
W
DRAFT
• Mr. Vandersloot referred the committee to the second sentence:
'Development and r6V&1ization decisions are rve// conceived and
beneiidal 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
economyandresidentia/character"or %ommunitycharacten "
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 wi/ling 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.
r,
DRAFT
. 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, CitywideRetai/Caoture, 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
isgross 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 GENER4L PLAN UPDATE ECONOMIC
.5TUDIE5PHA5EIREPORT). 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 char.
1.1
DRAFT
• 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
0
• 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
DRAFT
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.
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
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.
13
Newport Beach
Economic Studies
Phase One Report
Slide 1
1 =F-
Scope of the Report
Cityv aide Retail Market Analysis
k _Special Focus -on -.Coastal Commercial Centers
1 ZF\
Citywide Retail Capture
($Million)
Total Sales Total Demand
$11,570 $1,544
kers $55
:ors $449
idents $1,040
Slide 3
s
Citywide Sales Leakage and
Regional Capture
(Selected Retail Store Types - $Million)
Auto Parts and -$26.5
Service $56.4 Boats
$31.6 Automobiles
Building Materials -$15.0
and Hardware 1= Home Furnishings/
$14.6 Appliances/ Garden Supplies
$40.5 Restaurants
$15.8 Grocery Stores
Music -$4.0
Warehouse Clubs -$65.0
and Discount Ctrs
Shoes -$8.1
Family -$26.3
Clothing $10.8 Women's Apparel
& .1
Slide 4
7j
11
•
Economic Analysis Coastal Study Area
E
Coastal Area Overview
Household Demand
Visitor Demand
37'
57'
= Percent of Citywide Total
Retail Sales Leakage Fashion
Demand
Island
Sales from
Coastal Area
Slide 6
s
0
Coastal Centers Sales and Leakages
1J
Balboa Balboa Corona Lido- McFadden Mariner's Total
Island Village Del Mar Cannery Square Mile Coastal
(c) (c) Area (a)
(a) Includes some sales not included in subareas
(b) Of this total, about $60 million is estimated served at Fashion Island
(c) Leakage has been adjusted -from figures in the tables to avoid double -counting
Slide 7
In,
s
Balboa Island
$15
2
$42 0 Sales
Balboa
Island
Visitor Spending
Unmet Resident Demand
Slide 8
u
Balboa Island Selected Sales
per Square Foot
F*10j
241
216
217
185
183
180
180
178
N
118
78
177
17
11*59 25
M ] I
Women's
Family
Grocery '
Eating Gifts
I
Florists.
Misc. TOTAL
Men's
Clothing
Specialties
er..Ities:
Places Home
Sporting
Specialty BALBOA
Apparel
Shoes
Foods
Furnishings
Goods
Retail ISLAND
Books,
etc.
Slide 9
& 4
Balboa Village
$61
Balboa
Village
Sales
Visitor Spending
Unmet Resident Demand
Slide 10
t'
Balboa Village Selected Sales
per Square Foot
332
r
a
1
216
71
E1-1I7
229
n
Nat'l Average
: 69
`1 `J L/ wmmJ `J
Women's Records Misc. TOT/
Family Grocery / Specialty Eating Gifts / Sporting &Music / Specialty BALE
Apparel/ Clothing Liquor/ Foods Places Novelties Goods
Shoes Drug Jewelry Retail VILL
Stores
Slide 11
u
Lido=Cannery
$44 $46
Lido -
Cannery
Sales
Visitor Spending
Unmet Resident Demand
Slide 12
Ih
Lido=Cannery Selected Sales
per Square Foot
412
283
2
21316
85
169
116 fi
98
&kf
-5.
Women's Eating
Men's Places
Apparel
Gifts-/ Jewelry
Sporting
Goods /
Stationery
NaVI Average
231
175
172
172
62
126
34
Misc.
Furniture
Bldg
TOTAL
TOTAL
Specialtyand=e
Merchandise
Materials,
LIDO -
Retail
CANNERY
Slide 13
L-,
0
McFadden Square
Sales
$46 ® Visitor Spending
tww
McFadden
Square
Unmet Resident Demand
Slide 14
4J
McFadden Square Selected
Sales per Square Foot
227
68
269
216
I I �
Apparel Eating
Places
* Does not include Albertson's
287
.i
200 190
—McEadden-Smuarc
w • _, 154 EI Nat'l Average
133 120 I I _-
78
r
ti
Sporting
Grocery /
Misc. TOTAL
Goods
Liquor *
Specialty McFADDEN
Retail / SQUARE
Gills
Slide 15
Corona del Mar
$108
Corona
Del Mar
Sales
Visitor Spending
Unmet Resident Demand
Slide 16
Corona del Mar Selected Sales
per Square Foot
175
174
.i
Gifts / Grocery / Specialty
Women's / Drug Foods
Family Stores
Apparel
Corona-d
Nat'l Average
433
378
351 345
293
252
216 220 203
172 151 ?
p, �. 42
Eating Sporting Misc. Furniture Appliances Garden TOTAL
Places Goods / Specialty and Home and Supply / CORONA
Photo Eq. / Retail Furnishing Electronics Bldg Mat. DEL MAR
Stationery Hardware
Slide 17
L
C�
Mariner's Mile
0 Mariner's
Mile
Sales
Visitor Spending
Unmet Resident Demand
Slide 1S
w
11
•
Mariner's Mile Selected Sales
per Square Foot
Eating
Places
269
169
Florists /
Sporting
Goods /
Gifts
*Does not include auto and boat sates
221
41 "0
Specialty
Food /
Liquor
172
47
Misc.
Specialty
Retail
Nat'l Average
m
TOTAL
MARINER'S
MILE *
Slide 19
w
N
Retail Opportunities
•i M�.4 �
COASTAL AREA;
Sy•T
maller scale specialty retail including books, music,
photo equipment,
r;UTH ER`AEAS
{`j;�f;�sk la's „-� }��J^`�'+1, �.r�'�-�:,�.4�:•.�.;ri'��;?a ��y.,'''i:Z. `-� "�v':-�;.
u- �♦t ?T'. ,:r'l?.y,;n.:,:�M4` ":r.:.P�i;F•sp G 4' _ -
'.i,g" Y,•.:�;.�'.r',.e.>,rwL.s:,�ar: 3'�":. i.-" 'Yr'-'.� 'T:_•ty- ..i �'�':
[C.�E:31' +�..� c�i5 (�,''. ii.•lavStJ'sP'+r. }�,eit'ZE +A. i'� �-`r�il'4w�>n .�`.i ."}•P p�'
'�'+.'�+3. `Yj �.F...e •e.. i.".,: %:a.. .�C .ti - vT•.,� .. t n 11..;ir', TM:°: E_ ,'�`►#; l=ani�y,appar_eltrscounf'centers, building materials,
t `, :tii.. i:._�i., _:,;:c?,r�,'rr�+,��•Sstf3�',ttr':<; �2.:r., .s.. T���; ir;,
a.. r
qfF, si pphes and computers ''�•�!.!;t'�''.. '�`..^: lr-l.Y'�ri-s�-.S.aty; :%�� [(ja 71_t.v"T + P.vf }�
vir.: i �'• � .� ..w.r �t : 1 ` Q'} ' ib♦(`.P,,:)'.�� fi; �.� ✓ s'� �^> % � _ 'S T.v ��'•✓-;
�'�V�,•c<�:�'>:i���'tr•�4tt�-it.•416'a�,aG,'�4i�,i�:'`'•'•rr�'•if%: �.5!:;': ;.;Y :{ti.=:.m ��:�� :t.•,:1 ;,.'.:�� '
Slide 20
•
Newport Beach -Marine
Industry .�
k Exowdi's of firms from waterfront
20% decline in businesses in ten years, although
sales,%have increased
f H:`440',,.k;of.•,.publ'tc=,�facilities'reduces potential industry
l- -�,�� � = :;':arc•.:*'.��r'. �' x;�� :. , �:: .;� �t - -
S•, h' ��' r•'M";,�?. M,C J1,ita'yQM1S��.`y�rL'+F_CVRSW. "r,\r 1C1:�t�N���� � _
.ry. `r' ve? �t<'• 6£lC-++G? �!''.:.6 i:: 7 `�L r � .
;r�!%lit.�f;;%z•�•'b -
=.:`t,r �>` 'it:."
£} .37{: Y,}i' ��j-. 'yi•. °• f.y4� .+. , "�..:...,.; i:. Gt ti..?°;1,1.E ; a a
lyBggesh:�rerat�=Re.1,-_sate�;P-.,,rice Inflation ,. .,.- KD
Slide 21
APPLIED
DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMICS
Building the Knowledge and
Resources Communities Need to
Realize Their Economic Potential
Slide 22
�h
• MEMO TO: GPAC FILE
FROM: GEORGE JEFFRIES
DATE: 7-21-02
RE: DRAFT RESPONSE TO DRAFT N.B. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ECONOMIC
STUDIES PHASE I REPORT (July 15, 2001)
I never heard the terms "leakage" and "capture" as used in this report before Sunday,
when I read the draft report. However, I have been reading experts' reports and
financial statements for over 40 years. I am concerned about numerous aspects of the
above titled report.
This Memorandum's Executive Summary: The report, provides an economic
analysis (tables and commentary) of retail commercial sales in Newport Beach
citywide and in individual coastal areas. It provides helpful data but appears to be
lacking in several particulars:
- It provides a limited and inadequate orientation describing its purpose,
scope, and how it relates to the update process
- It identifies other reports in technical terms, without description or
explanation of their contribution to the process
- It fails to identify, define, and explain essential terms
It fails initially to identify or summarize its methodology, which is tacked on
at the end of the report. It makes assumptions, based upon data without
assessing their reliability
It contains, by inclusion and exclusion, judgments which are better left to
decision makers
It implies that future studies will be done on a highly selective rather than a
comprehensive basis
- Although it discusses citywide and localized issues, it uses different
definitions for the same terms so that local statistics can not be integrated
into city statistics
- Citywide and locally, it emphasizes the effect of leakage over capture, failing
to quantify components of the latter or the geographic areas contributing to it
- On a local basis, it fails to distinguish or quantify in -city capture/leakage to
out of city capture/leakage, one effect of which is to over -state capture and
leakage in comparison to the same area's contribution to city amounts
- There may be a question as to whether all of the retail sales reported are
taxable, which could skew meaningful analysis
- The report leaves one with the conclusion that it is of questionable benefit to
the process in which we are engaged
Report.- Executive Summary. Introduction: page 9: The summary fails to provide
explanations or definitions of some fundamental information to guide us concerning its
sly
• purpose and limitations. I refer more specifically to the use of the terms: "first phase
of the economic analysis," "retail economic analysis," and "preliminary fiscal analysis
of land uses" While the report discusses the geographically limited scope of the
intended work, it fails to describe the limitations of it or the future components of a
"comprehensive fiscal impact model" or how it will assist us. Thus, in reading this
report, apparently the first of several to be submitted in the future, I was looking for
information that was not there and may, or may not, be in future reports. As a result, I
looked for the effect of sales on revenues to the city, and more particularly on the net
effect when costs of city services are factored in. The reader is left to struggle with
these concepts because the Executive Summary further fails to summarize or even
invite•our attention to the "Methodology" at the end of the report, which, it will be seen,
appears to create further problems.
In discussing future reports, the summary mentions office buildings. Significant
economic studies by other cities, including Irvine, already exist on this subject.
Presumably, our consultant will incorporate appropriate findings from these reports. I
hope we are not reinventing the wheel in doing a further study on this subject.
However, nothing is mentioned about hotels, which, I assume in this visitor -oriented
community, have a significant economic impact. Will analysis of any other sources of
city income, say Fashion Island, be included in the future?
The summary and report (infra) contain certain evaluations and judgments, which one
• would think, are beyond the scope of the report, even though they may be valid. For
example, the summary, at page 4, discusses replenishment of leakages through retail
shoe and music stores that "would be at the appropriate scale of economic
development." The scale of entitlements should be for the city to decide, not its
economic consultants. (And, see infra.)
Newport Beach Citywide Retail Market Analysis (pages 7-12)
While the summary gives substantial attention to `leakage," it fails to discuss the effect
of gross and net capture of $33M annually. (Table 2, page 9, top of last column.)
Depending on the definition of "visitors" and "capture" which are not defined, the city
appears- to have greater sales to residents of other cities than it is losing to those cities
when our residents buy there. With $449M in sales to visitors, representing
approximately 113 of our gross sales, our city appears to be a retail magnet. Why
does the report emphasize the supposed detriments of leakage without commenting
on the supposed benefits of net capture? In an ideal "balanced" community one might
argue that the city's businesses would meet the needs of the city's residents without
depriving other cities of revenues from their residents.
For this portion, the term "non-residents" and "leakage" means non-residents of the
city of Newport Beach and other cities. The use of the terms "non-residents," "capture"
and "leakage" is different from the same terms used throughout the rest of the report
for sub -areas. (See Methodology, p. 32, and other parts of the report.) Because of
• this difference, the totals for these categories in the sub -areas will most likely bear no
62
• resemblance to their part of the city as a whole. (However, I have not tried a
comparison.)
Once again, the report becomes judgmental at the last paragraph on page 7. In
summarizing categories businesses with "at least $1 million in retail leakage" (as
reflected in Table 2, page 9 last column), the report includes several categories but
fails to include office supplies, $1.3M, liquor stores, $2.6M and service stations $20M.
By failing to do so, the consultant appears to be excluding these categories from future
consideration as possible sources of income. Additionally, in discussing big box
options for our city the writer discusses, probably quite accurately but nonetheless
judgmentally, "compatibility issues with sensitive coastal areas," requirements for
"large tracts of land," and "visible highway access" among others. While these
judgments are obvious, this committee and our leaders, not our consultant, should be
making them.
Fortunately, citywide, the report allows us to analyze and plan for potential business
additions to the city, which might increase city revenues from our own residents, who
would otherwise go out of the city to make purchases. However, while including
visitors and nqn-resident employees, the report does not appear to quantify the impact
of in -city purchases made by another significant class of non-residents, namely
residents of adjacent cities (See Methodology, page 32, bottom), which also increases
our traffic and should be factored into our circulation element. Of our $449M in sales
• to visitors, to what extent is our city a retail magnet to adjacent areas? We cannot
determine from the report whether this is a significant amount requiring further
planning because there is no breakdown. The report merely states: " ...[Tj he city
actually captures large amounts of spending in some categories from the surrounding
region.. .." (Summary, page 1, last par.)
Coastal Area Retail Summaries (page 10-30.)
The writer changes the definition of "non-residents," in the sub -areas, as those people
who live outside the sub -area, but not outside the city. (Methodology, p. 32, 3`d
par.) This definition affects sub -area "capture" but not city capture. Therefore, as to
sales in Corona del Mar, purchasers from Big Canyon, Spyglass Hill, Harbor Ridge,
and Newport Coast are non-residents, grouped with "visitors" and non-resident
employees. Further, leakage, to sales venues within other areas within our city, is
seen as leakage of the sub -area. A Corona del Mar resident who makes a purchase
in Corona del Mar Plaza (in Newport Beach) is seen as leakage in Corona del Mar for
purposes of the study.
If our purpose is to acquire economic and fiscal data to assist our coastal economic
areas in increasing sales mainly to city residents to enhance city revenues, and our
quality of life, then it would appear that the definitions of "non-residents," as used in
the Coastal Area Retail Summaries, are misplaced at best and dangerous at worst. It
would appear to grossly overstate leakage and capture in the sub -areas and make
0
• further analysis difficult. I wonder whether we can build a useful database for our sub-
areas into reliable citywide information based upon this preliminary information.
What I believe we need to know is the leakage and capture from each of the sub
areas: 1) toffrom destinations sources outside of the city as part of a more
comprehensive analysis; and 2) to/from sales sources in other parts of our city. If we
plan for new businesses in one -area of Newport Beach, which are going to take
business from businesses in another area of Newport Beach, we are merely marching
in place.
Perhaps 1 did not read the report closely enough, but 1 cannot tell from the report
whether the sales in all categories are taxable. If we are comparing sales of taxable
and non-taxable items then this adjustment should be made to assist in planning.
The report leaves this writer with serious doubts as to its benefits.
F
0
List of telephone survey topics presented to
the General Plan Update Committee and
• the General Plan Advisory Committee
on 7/22/02
❑ Areas suitable for development (if any) - Q.18
(What City areas) are suitable for additions/ deve%pment.;)
❑ Areas suitable for reduced zoning - Q.19
(What City areas) shoo/d reduce zoning capacity.7J
❑ Job growth - Q. 12
(Shoo/d the City continue to accommodate job growth when we are
a/readyjob rich?)
❑ More hotels?
vs. promoting tourism result
(Do we want any more hate/s.;J
VS. (Shou/d we continue to promote and accommodate tourism?)
❑ Local economic growth - Q.51
�—► Traffic
(Should the City encourage growth of the /OC8/ economy to h%o pay for
municipa/seivicesandfaci/ities7 Ifso, how.P)
❑ Infrastructure 4—► economic development
• congestion
ElCoastal bluffs - Q.14
(How far should we go to protect coastal bluff)
/ residential
❑ Design review
commercial
❑ Large homes - Q.27
(Should the Cityp/ace restrictions on constructing /argerhomes that
change the character of ex/sting neighborhoods (mans/onOdt/on)?)
❑ Future of tidelands - Q.34
(Whatshou/d be the future of the tide/ands and otherpub/ic lands (eg.,
the Dunes, Newport lii///age, and Marina Park)?J
❑ Banning ranch
❑ Transportation - Q.37
(What types Oftransoortat/on improvements shoo/d be made in the 041.2)
❑ Regional growth/traffic - Q.40
(Shou/d the City/imitits deve%pmentandpotentia/ economicbeneritso
that loca/street capacity can accommodate regiona/growth 2)
•
US
Additional topics suggested by
the General Plan Update Committee
• ❑ West Newport industrial
❑ and, other areas of potential change
❑ Quality of life issues: noise, light pollution, safety, etc.
❑ Traffic: congestion relief, maintain level of service "D" (some areas
excluded)
Additional topics suggested by
the General Plan Advisory Committee
❑ Police & fire county consolidation
❑ Recreation facilities
--► Active playfields --► River park —► Gyms
❑ Trade-offs/willingness to pay in relation to above (e.g. sell off)
• ❑ Water quality,
❑ Peninsula revitalization
❑ Efficiency of government
❑ Ask length of residence
❑ Ask future plans for residence
❑ Open space (Marinapark, Banning)
—ip- Trade-off questions —► Active role
* Formulate questions carefully; neutral language
* Define terms (i.e. grade separations)
2
4(
• EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC DATA:
• Primary Study Area Zone Structure — Exhibit A
• Overall Zone Structure (Tiers 1, 2, and 3) — Exhibit B
• Traffic Analysis Districts — Exhibit C
• Intersection Locations/ID Numbers— Exhibit D
• Existing Peak Hour Traffic Counts — Exhibit E and F
• Average Daily Traffic (ADT) — Exhibit G
• Existing Peak to Daily Relationships Analysis —Table 1
• Number of Through Lanes — Exhibit H
• Existing Intersection Lane Geometry Exhibit— Exhibit I
• Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Summary —Table 2
00460-11
•
•
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) SYSTEM
v
w 0
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL Newport Beach. Califomia — 00460:t123-4 — rev. 02/08/19 URBAN
�J
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL INTERSECTION ID
LEGEND:
— — FUTURE ROADWAYS
EXHIBIT D
NUMBERS
PACIFIC • =INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION
OCEAN 53 = INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE, Newport Beach, Califomia - 00460:019 uFIRAN
CIA
EXHIBIT E
EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
•
(PART 1/2)
Qq
onoa�
�-182
n
mogm
�-10
m�wga
�.
�-65
0
.� { �.
`439
J
{ 4.
f-731
Cwm�
�912
.
�"41
01D
��
} (`
1319�
}
�"
197�
} r}
339'
0
2280�nnm
239
ri0113-
�-
N0�
�Nut
1
3:
4:
6:
BLUFF RD. &
BALBOA BL/
NEWPORT BL. &
NEWPORT BL &
NEWPORT BL. &
RIVERSIDE AV. &
COAST HW. (FUT.)
SUPERIOR AV. &
HOSPITAL RD.
VIA LIDO
32ND ST.
COAST HW.
COAST HW.
56
83
93
_Z
8t
-2 9J513
62o
nL
�-13
�276
ro�
-
{o-691
�
D�:143
626�
346-
44-1
} r
17-3:
2422�
2-�
omon
4-w
6.
t
40
mm
256--
;
118:
12:
13
TUSTIN AV. &
MACARTHUR 8L &
MACARTHUR BL &
VON KARMAN AV. &
MACARTHUR BL. &
JAMBOREE RD. &
COAST HW.
CAMPUS DR.
BIRCH ST.
CAMPUS DR.
NEWPORT PL
CAMPUS DR.
Ne
E-8
wm
{-229
va
•-•-
��.
9�-2273
{
{-13382
)�L--419C31
mN�
�
14:
15:
16:
18:
JAMBOREE RD. &
CAMPUS DR. &
BIRCH ST. &
BIRCH ST. &
IRVINE AV. &
BIRCH ST.
N. BRISTOL ST.
N. BRISTOL ST.
S. BRISTOL ST.
MESA DR.
��.
r97-JOe
jA-324
01bNL-_w{�
"^"
21
{
22
2
�26
C
284-1
6
--naa
07�
1-
1og:
Nw1m9
t'e-m1i4e4
3602
na
8
102�
nw
53•
9
524.
123-1
mA:46SS18
MN
mm
v62
20:
21:
2:
24:
jr
IRVINE AV. &
IRVINE AV. &
IRVINE AV. &
IRVINE AV. &
IRVINE AV. &
DOVER DR. &
UNIVERSITY DR.
SANTIAGO DR.
HIGHLAND DR./
DOVER DR./19TH ST.
WESTCLIFF DR./
WESTCLIFF DR.
20TH ST.
17TH ST.
r
941
Z12
aomN�
3
wL-
m2
{
�39
15
52
{-64
38ro34m
�2
JT
16-J
}
91--1
} �^
40�
^� } �^
711 -1
}
}
2389
123
10-.
235 -t
Nt(f
wince
2246-.
25
2
IflNr
mrm
2596-.
386 -1
I(Imr
m N
300-.
107 -i
a
�o
nnr
nmco
oo_ic
n
n
r
m
off.-
26:
27:
28:
29;
30:
31:
DOVER DR. & 16TH ST./
DOVER DR. &
BAYSIDE DR. &
MACARTHUR BL &
JAMBOREE RD. &
BAYVIEW PL &
•
CASTAWAYS LN,
COAST HW.
COAST HW,
JAMBOREE RD,
N. BRISTOL ST.
BRISTOL IT.
0
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE Newport Beach California.0046D:04A URBAN
EXHIBIT E
EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
•
(PART 2/2)
maw
-40
27
6
�Naao1
r^ { �.
}m�
j
_
J{ 1
RB
p
13q
2
n
—300
41
10
7
)'-46
rvoaw�uo+
45��
wmevein
420f
19
4
m0
267�51.
437;
33:
3
:8-i
39
4
0:34:
JAMBOREE RD. &
JAMBOREE RD. &
JAMBOREE RD. &
JAMBOREE RD. &
SANTA CRUZ DR. &
BAYVIEW WY.
UNIVERSITY DR.
FORD RD.
COAST,HW. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD.
mm�—ZO5
-ggO
meow
q�^
J { 1�
4-141
1323
f-153
'L-148
�-89
ar-
N
1.
_ 187
�27
'I-31!_180mm
152�1723fiW
f-779501�
24-1
}
303�12�195.-r
E
"� } �"1639-r
145.-r
nao
N%*aNW.a-
1940-.
nom
793-.
�N
50—f
nN�n277
m42:
44:
45:
46.
47:
NEWPORT CENTER DR.
AVOCADO AV. &
AVOCADO AV. &
SR-73 NB RAMPS &
SR-73 SB RAMPS &
MACARTHUR BL &
& COAST HW.
SAN MIGUEL DR.
COAST HW.
BISON AV.
BISON AV.
BISON AV.
•
�-427
f-3
a')�:2
r
m�
L57
�2
—Mm
46�
158f4161
3fi9
59 --
50
12384
226�98-02
.-m.-
49:
51:
53
54:
MACARTHUR BL. &
MACARTHUR BL &
SR-73 NS RAMPS &
SR-73 SB RAMPS &
SPYGLASS HILLS RD.
FORD RD.
SAN MIGUEL DR.
BONITA CANYON DR.
BONITA CANYON DR.
& SAN MIGUEL RD.
2633
w�
3
2
—
�-30
1 —19
1808
�.}-5(`9L-13
`
f-42
J{ L
f
0
3
237} f
-
1030302
43—;
111847-5
57-1
4199102
109
11�
a
m
mm} n
59:
60:
61:
62:
6
GOLDENROD AV. &
MARGUERITE AV. &
SPYGLASS HILLS RD.
& POPPY AV. &
NEWPORT COAST DR.
NEWPORT COAST DR.
COAST HW.
COAST HW.
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD. COAST HW.
& SR-73 NB RAMPS
& SR-73 SB RAMPS
N
{569
jT
141
4
�Dj
6
64:
NEWPORT COAST DR.
NEWPORT COAST DR.
& SAN JOAQUIN
& COAST HW.
•
HILLS RD.
0
URBAN
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE COUNT PROGRAM, Newport Beach, California-00460:046 aa�eae. e
EXHIBIT F
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
(PART 1/2)
rin
�0
r
�--117
m
�m
�72
min
�--36
�
�1 o3
(-26
,.N }i'-5191
0-!
*4::
CS:
} (�
166-!
} r
286�
^I
} r
0-«
0�
00o
1083�
279-1
ae.-oin
Qmm
a
24w
12�
mrio
nN
1686:-
23
amm
6:
7:
BLUFF RD. &
BALBOA BL/
NEWPORT BL &
NEWPORT BL &
NEWPORT BL. &
RIVERSIDE AV. &
COAST HW. (FUT.)
SUPERIOR AV. &
HOSPITAL RD.
VIA LIDO
32ND ST.
COAST kW.
COAST HW.
m o
19
rjffft-
�1
o4
-7
-684
a
f-
r
f-1 6
N129
r98
35--7
.}t
99
311�
3682:r
2�
163-.
30052:�5908
)383"
1582506}---•��.
N"} �nr
4
nmry
31
563
Ir
2
79-1
3
i
6
18175�
mm
.-n
o,
wm
8:
9:
10:
11:
12:
13:
TUSTIN AV. &
MACARTHUR BL &
MACARTHUR BL &
VON KARMAN AV. &
MACARTHUR BL &
JAMBOREE RD. &
COAST HW.
CAMPUS DR.
BIRCH ST.
CAMPUS DR.
NEWPORT PL.
CAMPUS DR.
Nrn
rv�
�-0
+1
u°a
°'
L-173
+2261
my
'-ry
104
+1313
Nn
m
na.
�'�4"
•
�ry
i-
}
f-384
}
f-523
{
.,� '} L
`Ijicon
)-435
1It
163mN
mm
nln
1157�
119 -1
am
un-
1 3.-m
Nm
14:
15:
16:
18:
19:
JAMBOREE RD. &
CAMPUS DR. &
BIRCH ST. &
BIRCH ST. &
IRVINE AV. &
BIRCH ST.
N. BRISTOL ST.
N. BRISTOL ST.
S. BRISTOL ST.
MESA DR.
NNM
46
;�72
�n�
'F-72
mm
�--227
MN
L_73
} (r
..� } L
+21
+225
91
895
mr^u'i
127-J
55-.
� t r
C26.;
Di
53-J
� t r
304.,
� f r
158-J
D
187
mein
aoN
10.3
�nom
m�-
106-.
29
eNO
V1tON
559�
233
�
mmry
mnm
930
�m
m
n
rva
20:
21
23:
24:
25:
IRVINE AV. &
IRVINE AV. &
IRVINE AV. &
IRVINE AV. &
IRVINE AV. &
DOVER DR. &
UNIVERSITY DR.
SANTIAGO DR.
HIGHLAND DR./
DOVER DR./19TH ST.
WESTCLIFF DR./
WESTCLIFF DR.
20TH ST.
17TH ST.
m
46
m
nmimc
L-1936
N
t-283
n
aN
�{o+aN
{ �.
+40
`��p`-
+4415
jrm�pN
r
^-5380
�'
}�
534
�260
n"
�1
f-
t
f-54
f
-52
�f }
7�t�t
r
76J
�Q217691:��ar
22
r
227-r
0.mm
mr
Nam2
�2
7
a
nnm3
m36
5
i�-
er
a
rver-
msmm
m
27:
28:
29:
30.
31:26:
DOVER DR. & 16TH ST./
DOVER DR. &
BAYSIDE DR. &
MACARTHUR BL. &
JAMBOREE RD. &
BAYVIEW PL &
.
CASTAWAYS LN,
COAST HW,
COAST HW,
JAMBOREE RD,
N. BRISTOL ST.
BRISTOL ST.
0
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE COUNT PROGRAM, Newport Beach, California - 00460:05A
URBAN
EXHIBIT F
• EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
(PART 2/2)
Novo
4-93
•-32
emumi
mrvN
Lf-
L-168
~168
4 -23
166
wNm
i �.
il30
241
�Z6
rjj�.
.1{�.
f 2
f-
.�
f-310
$3y
298�
C33
} r
311
136�
mmm
5--f
f
*NO
mm,-ME
1432�
a{
i�'-33:
34:
39:
40:
JAMBOREE RD. &
JAMBOREE RD. &
JAMBOREE RD. &
JAMBOREE RD. &
SANTA CRUZ DR. &
BAYVIEW WY.
UNIVERSITY DR.
FORD RD.
COAST HW. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD.
ow
fnrvl
�1672
r
0
j-370
r
4--
-�-1417
f-121
4 -543
�-397
on
m�
r �.
352
�745f-168
co
'I-20
�162
295�
30-!
142�
6-�
157;
C12.0.
1437-r
628w
}
1499-.
65--j
t
mmn
364-�
702�
47.
44:
45:
46:
47:
NEWPORT CENTER DR.
AVOCADO AV. &
AVOCADO AV. &
SR-73 NB RAMPS &
SR-73 SB RAMPS &
MACARTHUR BL. &
& COAST HW.
SAN MIGUEL DR.
COAST HW.
BISON AV.
BISON AV.
BISON AV.
1-3
ci
r;5�93
E3
•
��f-6
222�
8E45--v
7!-30Z
�
9-j
876:.
565-.
516-
^
1213ra
397
7
�mm
�
395-1
rvciiii
49;
51:
53:
54:
MACARTHUR BL. &
MACARTHUR BL. &
SR-73 NB RAMPS &
SR-73 SB RAMPS &
SPYGLASS HILLS RD.
FORD RD.
SAN MIGUEL DR.
BONITA CANYON DR.
BONITA CANYON DR.
& SAN MIGUEL RD.
rjeL
'k-13
.-1658
r
�L-
.31
rJm
L-63
.-489
m o
k-
f-22
f-76
f 3
..) tT..
C62.:f'/)
f-100063:
176�23-1{
)f-2
r
ao.-
m
N
7788-.
87-
mm�
781 -•
55-1
mm.-
a m
1654-
29-f57:
N'53
59:
60:
61:
GOLDENROD AV. &
MARGUERITE AV. &
SPYGLASS HILLS RD.
& POPPY AV. &
NEWPORT COAST DR.
NEWPORT COAST DR.
COAST HW.
COAST HW.
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD. COAST HW.
& SR-73 NB RAMPS
& SR-73 SB RAMPS
m�
4-191
IT
�-7 67
122� }
C1429:�
mNa64:
NEWPORT COAST DR.
NEWPORT COAST DR.
& SAN JOAQUIN
& COAST HW.
HILLS RD.
•
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE COUNT PROGRAM Newport Beach California - 00460:056
URBAN
171
403
9
356
\ �9O
420 \ `
60
EXHIBIT G
EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
s�
48.7
BRMOLST.
273
'
o
ay
/ Fe
/ O2
44.9
26.7
543
LEGEND:
FUTURE ROADWAYS
PACIFIC • =INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION
OCEAN 10.0 = VEHICLES PERDAY(1000'S)
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE COUNT PROGRAM, Newport Beach, Celifomia-00460:200 URBAN
o.
n
U
•
•
TABLE 1
EXISTING PEAK TO DAILY RELATIONSHIPS ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION
I ADT
% OF ADT
INUMBERI
LEG
I AM
I PM
TOTAL
AM
I PM
3
N
2,569
2,096
23,500
10.93%
8.92%
4
S
3,051
3,867
43,500
7.01 %
8.89%
4
E
711
660
6,700
10.61 %
9.85%
7
N
837
839
8,700
9.62%
9.64%
7
W
4,249
5,482
53,500
7.94%
10.25%
8
N
185
263
2,300
8.04%
11.43%
9
N
3,290
3,709
32,400
10.15%
11.45%
11
N
1,575
2,024
14,300
11.01%
14.15%
13
N
5,152
4,898
44,100
11.68%
11.11%
13
E
1,741
2,108
19,200
9.07%
10.98%
19
W
729
956
6,000
12.15%
15.93%
21
S
2,315
2,930
26,700
8.67%
10.97%
27
N
2,559
4,031
29,400
8.70%
13.71%
27
E
6,334
9,811
62,500
10.13%
15.70%
29
S
2,847
3,437
27,300
10.43%
12.59%
33
S
3,592
4,397
44,900
8.00%
9 79%
39
N
2,723
3,789
31,300
8.70%
12.11%
42
N
771
1,396
13,800
5.59%
10.12%
45
N
713
1,124
11,400
6.25%1
9.86%
48
E
724
599
6,500
11.14%
9.22%
51
E
847
1,176
12,200
6.94%
9.64%
55
E
846
971
9,900
8.55%
9.81 %
57
N
164
109
2,600
6.31 %
4.19%
59
N
414
506
6,100
6.79%
8.30%
61
N
80
166
1,600
5.00%
10.38%
621
N
967
908
1 O,OOFI
9.670/6
9.08%
651
N
1,109
1,046
12,200 1
9.09%1
8.57%
Total
51,094
63,298
562,600 1
9.08%1
11.25%
U: UcJob
0
WHIBIT H
NEWPORT BEACH
EXISTING THROUGH LANES
D
4D
D
4D
�4fF4
C`!L
F9
4D
4D 6D
J ENL
OQ'.
n p D 6D
v
D
fiD
i
TURTLE
O
y2y
x 4D
D
�NYON
SR-73
D Ei
/ -
�P,EOQ'�
3 3 BRISPOL ST. °
r
fiD 2
p
40
I _� p
mOD
fiD 4D
<` fi0 �
2 qy
2 D pA
�
�i
D
qD
MESA DR.
SD --
4D
Py, SPORTATIO
J.
6° 3t2
2D 2D 4
2 2U u 4D
6D SAN IOAQu� Hy1�LL5
4 4 2
'Piy a°.
6D G�
Y EL Up ARAV.
6DO,P
BKDa o 40
6D 6D90
rr
4D
4D
3
W
Q
m j 4D
4D 8 D
NFe`GFFO
4D
00
6D
�2 w 2u z zu
'
i z F
6Dl
6 �0�9D
P
Fy
3 z
g
OQp
R f 9D O,r
x 2D
D
Da�i D
z o
lzu
22ND Si
80 f
6D
4D3 i 4U
GP�S D
6 9ye0 ��J`
2U
2D 6D
< U 4D
2 2 2U 2u HIGHLAND
z
6D fiD D
6D SD P D zD
° YO
DR
4D
t'
4D 2 0
ci 40 m 9D
4D 4 2
SAN 2U
4D 6D
S
2U 49TH SP. 2U ¢
2
¢ /LF
n 6
CLI
6D 6D 2U 2 2U2U i 00
6D
0 ap R7 p 44D� 6D o 4D
yM1y RO-
PA
i'e 40 LP
ED
f6D a
a 6D 4D O
z 2D
G
q`IT
4D 4D 4D
3D ,4
2D 17f 1 Sf.2 ,ST OF
3D 4 2E 9D D DR
6D 04 W
HIGHWAY fiD 4U u Q T6j 6D
PTED
9Cd• 4D 1\
2D 4D 'yj� 1
O
4D D 76TH Sf. 4D 4 P
8D 4D
u Q 2U d zu 6D 6D
4D 4D
9
4D2 2U 2D
Q6D 2U 2U 4D 4
5�
D COP4D
4D 2U "
2D 9L
4
2U D 15TH 5T•
- 2u 2U 2U
7D
4
2V
D
D
4 HEDm 2U 2U 2U 2U
-j� 3V 4
2D
3U qp
4D D 2 D
u
LEGEND:
\F
\qo
4D D p
4U
4 = NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES
� sD
u
1D sD D
aD °
PACIFIC
D = DIVIDED
U =UNDIVIDED
6D
6D
eALBOg8L
4
OCEAN
4D
D
C' NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE, Newoort Beach. Califomia - 00460:04
0
URBAN
•
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
6: u�
NEWPORT BL. &
32ND ST.
4IL
11:
VON KARMAN AV. &
CAMPUS DR.
qj..HA
71
16: L�
BIRCH ST. &
N. BRISTOL ST
EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE
JILT
-1 S-
2:
PLACENTIA AV. &
SUPERIOR BL.
7: '--J--�
RIVERSIDE AV. &
COAST HW.
12:
MACARTHUR BL. &
VON KARMAN AV.
17:
CAMPUS DR. &
S. BRISTOL ST.
3: �
BALBOA
PERIOR BL.
HW.
TUSTIN AV. &
COAST HW.
�1i1ir
13:
JAMBOREE RD. &
CAMPUS DR.
I I LL
18:
BIRCH ST. &
S. BRISTOL ST,
I11IL�
4:
NEWPORT BL. &
HOSPITAL RD.
IIIIIL
EVIII
9:
MACARTHUR BL. &
CAMPUS DR.
111
14:
JAMBOREE RD. &
BIRCH ST.
J1ILf-
19: �L
IRVINE AV. &
MESA DR.
'IIL -�F �IIL.� F �IIL� �IILL�-
D�1ii- DE �1ii-T-
EXHIBIT I
GEOMETRY
(PART 1/3)
III LL�TD
riff
NEWPORT BL &
VIA LIDO
0: �/
MACARTHUR BL &
BIRCH ST.
1111i
1 S: ----1--�
CAMPUS DR. &
N. BRISTOL ST.
JII'Lf 4`
DEF-�ii(`
20:
IRVINE AV. &
UNIVERSITY DR.
1
JI
• 21 �1� 22:'---L---' 24: 25:
IRVINE AV. & IRVINE AV. & IRVINE AV. & IRVINE AV. & DOVER DR. &
SANTIAGO DR. 20TH ST./HIGHLAND DR. 19TH ST./DOVER DR. 17TH ST./WESTCLIFF DR. WESTCLIFF DR.
0
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE, Newport Beach, California - 00460:06A URBAN
63
EXHIBIT I
EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY
(PART 2/3)
J1LLLf--
0�711�
��ir
o
26:
DOVER DR. &
BAYSHORE/DOVER DR. &
16TH ST./CASTAWAYS LN.
COAST HW.
rr
31:
BAYVIEW PL. &
S. BRISTOL ST.
36: u�
JAMBOREE RD. &
FORD RD.
ri
41:
SANTA ROSA DR. &
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD.
47:
SR-73 SB RAMP &
111
� 11111-
32:
JAMBOREE RD. &
S. BRISTOL ST.
6111LL
Tiiirr
37:
JAMBOREE RD. &
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD.
42.
NEWPORT CTR. DR. &
COAST HW.
!—
�11l1 LL �
1 IMF,i
48'.
MACARTHUR BL. &
BISON AV
.1L� �1,111L (.H I I
28: 29: 30:
BAYSIDE DR. & MACARTHUR BL. & JAMBOREE RD. &
COAST HW. JAMBOREE RD. N. BRISTOL ST.
J1111Lf- J111LI. J111LL
�11111- �1111r ; 111�
33: 34: 35:
JAMBOREE RD. & JAMBOREE RD. & JAMBOREE RD. &
BAYVIEW WY. EASTBLUFF DR./UNIVERSITY DR. BISON AV.
J111LL J,11L JILji)
T
1111r ��11- l
—f
38: 39: 40:
JAMBOREE RD. & JAMBOREE RD. & SANTA CRUZ DR. &
SANTA BARBARA DR. COAST HW. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD.
4—
L_
1-i F ri
f—
DEF--f
43: 45: 46:
AVOCADO AV. & AVOCADO AV. & SR-73 NB RAMP &
SAN NICOLAS DR. COAST HW. BISON AV.
J1111 LLIFE
49:
MACARTHUR BL. &
FORD RD
BISON AV.
0
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE Newport Beach California - 00460:06B
URBAN
I*
EXHIBIT I
EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY
(PART 313)
(jilI LL
�IIILL
a=
��Illr
�11III
T-
50:
51:
MACARTHUR BL &
MACARTHUR BL &
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD.
SAN MIGUEL DR.
J1-IlLLf
IDEF
�1I1'
DU-1
--
55:
56:
SPYGLASS HILL RD. &
SAN MIGUEL DR. &
SAN MIGUEL DR.
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD.
u
�ILf—
�-DEF
-l-�}.
60:
61:
SPYGLASS HILL &
POPPY AV. &
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD.
COAST HW.
65: ��
NEWPORT COAST DR. &
COAST HW.
52: �
MACARTHUR BL Be
COAST HW.
57: �- .
GOLDENROD AV. &
COAST HW.
53:
SR-73 NB RAMP &
BONITA CANYON DR.
58:
MARGUERITE AV. &
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD.
n :-
n
63:
NEWPORT COAST DR. NEWPORT COAST DR. &
& SR-73 NS RAMP SR-73 SB RAMPS
54: ��
SR-73 SB RAMP &
BONITA CANYON DR.
ALf
59:
MARGUERITE AV. &
COAST HW.
64:
NEWPORT COAST DR. &
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD.
LEGEND:
RTO = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP PHASE
-1 = FREE RIGHT TURN LANE
DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE
= SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 19' BUT BEHAVED AS
DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE
•
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE Newport Beach URBAN California - 00460:06C o=
15
• TABLE 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY
INTERSECTION
PEAK HOUR ICU
LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM
PM
AM
PM
3
Superior BI. NS
Coast Hw. EW
0.846
0.898
D
D
4
Newport BI. NS
Hospital Rd. (EW)
0.539
0.703
A
C
5
Newport BI. NS
Via Lido EW
0.413
0.374
A
A
6
Newport BI. NS
32nd St. (EW)
0.727
0.777
C
C
7
Riverside Av. (NS)
Coast Hw. EW
0.837
0.936
D
E
8
Tustin Av. (NS)
Coast Hw. (EW)
0.804
0.674
D
B
9
MacArthur BI. (NS)
Campus Dr. EW
0.610
0.845
B
D
10
MacArthur BI. NS
Birch St. (EW)
0.506
0.661
A
B
11
Von Karman Av. NS
Campus Dr. (EW)
0.554
0.784
A
C
12
MacArthur BI. NS
Von Karman Av. (EW)
0.458
0.734
A
C
13
Jamboree Rd. NS
Campus Dr. (EW)
1.014
0.973
F
E
14
Jamboree Rd. NS
Birch St. (EW)
0.826
0.602
D
B
15
Campus Dr. (NS)
N. Bristol St. (EW)
0.637
0.751
B
C
16
Birch St. (NS)
N. Bristol St. EW
0.765
1.116
C
F
18
Birch St. NS
S. Bristol St. (EW)
0.455
0.520
A
A
19
Irvine Av. NS
Mesa Dr. EW
0.746
0.981
C
E
20
Irvine Av. NS
University Dr. (EW)
0.814
0.889
D
D
21
Irvine Av. (NS)
Santiago Dr. (EW)
0.687
0.747
B
C
22
Irvine Av. (NS)
Highland Dr. (EW)
0.571
0.614
A
B
23
Irvine Av. (NS)
Dover Dr. EW
0.722
0.634
C
B
24
Irvine Av. (NS)
Westcliff Dr. (EW)
0.567
0.767
A
C
25
Dover Dr. (NS)
Westcliff Dr. (EW)
0.377
0.475
A
A
26
Dover Dr. (NS)
Castaways Ln. (EW)
0.549
0.573
A
A
27
Dover Dr. (NS)
Coast Hw. EW
0.808
1.340
D
F
28
Ba side Dr. (NS)
Coast Hw. EW
0.686
1.001
B
F
29
MacArthur BI. (NS)
Jamboree Rd. (EW)
0.852
1.037
D
F
30
Jamboree Rd. NS
N. Bristol St. (EW)
0.612
0.602
B
B
31
Ba iew PI. (NS)
S. Bristol St. (EW)
0.397
0.468
A
A
33
Jamboree Rd. (NS)
Ba iew W . (EW)
0.390
0.521
A
A
34
Jamboree Rd. NS
University Dr. (EW)
0.685
0.690
B
B
36
Jamboree Rd. (NS)
Ford Rd. EW
0.686
0.651
B
B
39
Jamboree Rd. (NS)
Coast Hw. EW
0.684
0.740
B
C
40
Santa Cruz Dr. NS
San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW)
0.358
0.355
A
A
42
Newport Center Dr. NS
Coast Hw. EW
0.398
0.521
A
A
45
Avocado Av. NS
Coast Hw. EW
0.609
0.653
B
B
46
SR-73 NB Ramps (NS)
Bison Av. (EW)
0.311
0.372
A
A
I(o
•
•
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY
INTERSECTION
PEAK HOUR ICU
LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM
PM
AM
PM
47
SR-73 SB Ramps NS
Bison Av. EW
0.258
0.165
A
A
48
MacArthur BI. NS
Bison Av. EW
0.675
0.666
B
B
49
MacArthur BI. (NS)
Ford Rd. (EW)
0.709
0.900
C
D
51
MacArthur BI. (NS)
San Miguel Dr. EW
0.563
0.654
A
B
53
SR-73 NB Rams NS
Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW)
0.550
0.430
A
A
54
SR-73 SB Rams NS
Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW)
0.296
'0.406
A
A
551Spyglass
Hill Rd. (NS)
San Miguel Dr. EW
0.298
0.325
A
A
57
Goldenrod Av. NS
Coast Hw. (EW)
0.988
0.690
E
B
59
Marguerite Av. (NS)
Coast Hw. (EW)
0.828
0.822
D
D
60
Sp glass Hill Rd. (NS)
San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW)
0.442
0.348
A
A
61
Poppy Av. NS
Coast Hw. EW
0.618
0.658
B
B
62
Newport Coast Dr. NS
SR-73 NB Ramps (EW)
0.479
0.333
A
A
64
Newport Coast Dr. NS
San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW)
0.733
0.381
C
A
65
Newport Coast Dr. (NS) ICoast
Hw. (EW)
0.521 1
0.715
A
C
U:\UcJobs\00460\Excel\[excounticu.xls]Sheeti
Il
V
•
MAIL FOR &PAC MEMBERS
•
.a
•
•
•
17300 Redhill Avenue, Suite 210, Irvine, CA
July 11, 2002
City Council members
Planning Commission members
General Plan Advisory Committee members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Calif.
Re: Jamboree Road widening
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Eastbluff Homeowners Community Association has 52 member families whose
homes directly abut Jamboree Road, between Eastbluff Drive North (University Ave.)
and Eastbluff Drive South (Ford Road).
We are thus very cognizant of, and very
existing General Plan Circulation Element
8 lanes all the way south to Ford Road.
concerned about, the fact that the City's
calls for the widening of Jamboree Road to
We very much appreciate that the City Council, at the instigation of Councilmember
Adams, has allocated $30,000 in the upcoming budget to study Jamboree Road, as
well as the proposed "flyover" on -ramp from Northbound Jamboree to the Northbound
73 Freeway. Nevertheless, we feel we should go on the record with our position
regarding the possible Jamboree widening, as called for in the current General Plan.
This widening, if implemented, would not only be extremely expensive, but would:
• attract more traffic
• make it more difficult and more time-consuming for pedestrian crossings
• require the loss of most, if not all, of the roadside landscaping on both sides of
Jamboree
• require the reconstruction of virtually all the noise walls on both sides of
Jamboree
• possibly require the elimination of the recently constructed free right turn lane
at Eastbluff Drive South (that has been so beneficial to .the greater Eastbluff
Community)
• seriously impair the quality of life of homeowners and institutional users on
both sides of the highway
The Emmons Company
P.O. Box 19530, Irvine, CA 92623 (949)752-2225 Fax (949)798.0367
3
J
We therefore urge the City, as it undertakes it's General Plan Update, to seriously
• consider reclassifying Jamboree Road to it's existing width of 6 lanes, south of
University Drive.
We realize that State Law requires that a City General Plan Circulation Element
accommodate the traffic projected to be generated by it's Land Use Element; and we
also realize that office buildings, in particular, concentrate their traffic at the rush
hours, when highway capacity is critical.
We therefore also urge the City not to add any further office entitlement to the
Newport Center area; and to seriously consider converting any unused office
entitlement in that area to non -office uses, such as hotel, institutional or even
residential uses.
Because Jamboree Road also serves the City's Airport area, we further urge the City,
if it wants to increase the Land Use entitlements in that area, to do so with non -office
uses, as listed above, or with strictly industrial or warehousing uses.. -
Hopefully, such actions will enable the City to reclassify Jamboree Road to six lanes
south of University Drive; thereby retaining and enhancing the quality of life for a
large and important part of the City.
Thank you for your consideration of this extremely important matter.
• Sincerely,
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EASTBLUFF HOMEOWNERS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Barry Eato epsident
cc: Boards of Directors:
-Newport North Villas HOA
-Bayridge Park HOA
-One Ford Road HOA
-Belcourt Hill HOA
-Sea Island HOA
-Bluffs HOA
-Temple Bat Yahm
-Liberty Baptist Church
-St. Mark Presbyterian Church
-Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church
City Council Candidates
The Emmons Company
P.O. Box 19530, Irvine, CA 92623 (949)752.2225 Fax (949)798.0367
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING ,D�EPA�RTMEANT
. CITY O
CH
AM JUL 31 2002 PM
418191101111121112131a 1616
' 2232 Alta Vista Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
July 26, 2002
City Council Members
Planning Commission Members
General Plan Advisory Committee Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA
Re: Jamboree Road Widening
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My wife and I live in Eastbluff, and our property is adjacent to Jamboree Road. We have lived at
this address since 1980, and we participated in the discussions with the City regarding the
previous widening of Jamboree, which expanded the road from four to six lanes.
We wish to express our strong opposition to the proposed widening of Jamboree Road from six
to eight lanes. There is substantial evidence that the widening of Jamboree from four to six lanes
did result in dramatically increased pollution from vehicle emissions and in increased, noise
pollution. Further widening of Jamboree will only increase these problems, which have already
had negative consequences for the health of residents living close to Jamboree Road.
When we met with City officials in the 1980s to discuss the impact of the widening of Jamboree
from four to six lanes, we were assured that the environmental impact with respect to automobile
emissions and noise pollution would be negligible. Those City officials and the environmental
impact studies they commissioned were wrong. The pollution on plants in our backyard has
increased visibly since the widening of Jamboree, and the noise pollution is measurably greater, as
anyone living adjacent to the road can attest.
We accepted reluctantly the City's decision to widen Jamboree from four to six lanes, but we
want to make clear that we will oppose any decision to widen Jamboree further and efforts to
accommodate increased traffic. Our opposition is not just motivated by our desire to maintain the
quality of our everyday lives in Newport Beach, but by our desire to protect our health and the
health of our neighbors. We will take every legal recourse to prevent the widening of Jamboree,
and we will cite the inaccuracy of previous assurances that vehicle emissions' and noice pollution
•
would not increase significantly.
C-.
.0 ,,
• We also wish to point out that the impact will be felt not merely by the more than fifty families
living on the boundary of Jamboree Road and the Eastbluff residential community. Many other
houses are close enough to Jamboree to be affected by noise and particulate pollution. We will do
everything in our power to organize our neighbors to recognize and fight this new threat to their
health and well-being.
We appeal to your as our City officials to take seriously these increased health hazards, not only
from the proposed widening from six to eight lanes but also the existing health hazards caused by
the widening of Jamboree from four to six lanes in the 1980s. New enivornmental impact reports
are very much needed, and they must be reports that will include the substantial evidence available
from the residents of Eastbluff. We ask you to live up to your responsibility to the citizens of this
community by recognizing the existing health hazards and how they would be significantly
increased by the widening of Jamboree Road.
Sincerely,
qC. Rowe
�
�fyw 1�,-. � • �fJZI/-ems
Kristin H. Rowe
cc: Eastbluff Homeowners Community Association
c/o The
17300 P
Suite 21
Irvine, (
Attn.: S
is
•1
Subject: District 4 Issue
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 13:17:39 -0700
From: JB & EW Keating <keatin C?nacbetl.net>
To: Debbie <debbiel@ci ,newport-beach.ca.us>
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 NEWPORT BLVD.
Hello Debbie - Carol Boyce suggested I contact you directly to add an
issue to be discussed at the District 4 meeting on April 10th.
Unfortunately, I will be out of town and cannot present this issue
personally
The issue is the new freeway onramp that is planned for the Northbound
•traffic on Jamboree to exit onto the Westbound 73 freeway. This issue
should be included with the Expansion of Jamboree to 8-lanes issue that
is listed on the agenda as a possible issue for discussion.
Since there is already a 270 degree onramp providing access to the
westbound 73 freeway from Northbound Jamboree, there certainly is no
nal flyovers to provide a 90 degree
need to replace this with additio
onramp. If the San Diego Creek entrance to the Upper Newport Bay, is
further impacted by an additional flyover bridge, there will be
additional wildlife habitat reduction which will further endanger the
Upper Newport Bay and its tributaries. It's not needed, it's a bad idea
and it will further harm the Upper Newport Bay, the only relatively
intact wetland left in Southern California.
Thank you for adding this item to the list.
Jack Keating
Eastbluff Resident for 38 years.
F
Lektorich, Debbie
•From: Campbell, Tamara
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:15 AM
To: Lektorich, Debbie
Subject: FW: Raising speed limits & Ticketing slow drivers
-----Original Message -----
From: COrmskirk2@aol.com [mailto:COrmskirk2@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:57 AM
To: tcampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Subject: Raising speed limits & Ticketing slow drivers
Tamara: Can you believe it ? Yes ! There are actually some real live human
beings out here outside the cloisters of City Hall who actually have a real
life. Yes indeed -real drivers who don't want to see our roads clogged with
molasses and turned into museums.
Raise the speed limit to 65mph on Jamboree & MacArthur TODAY !!
Passive Aggressive Slow Drivers, Incompetents, Obstructionists , and those
dreaded dinosaurs- the worst -housewives driving SUVs on their cell phones
!!! All should be immediately ticketed and have their vehicles confiscated
for having the audacity of slowing the rest of us folks out here, trying to
get to work, making a living & contributing to the economy.
Why yessiree bob, some of those slow pokes completely ignore their
*rear-view mirrors -and get this- think they are the only ones on the road !
Newport Beach is remiss, - no criminally negligent - for permitting these
tortoises on its roads -guess we'll have to start a class action lawsuit to
get them all parked !
But, seriously Tamara, there is a real OTHER SIDE to all these complainers
who are afraid of their own shadow. Please -keep the trafic moving as quickly
as you can. Thank You Tamara.
0
Lektorich, Debbie
Campbell, Tamara
•From:
Sent:
Monday, July 29, 2002 11:15 AM
To:
Lektorich, Debbie
Subject:
FW: Mansionization
-----Original Message -----
From: COrmskirk2@aol.com [maiito:COrmskirk2@aol.comj
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:29 AM
To: tcampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Subject: Mansionization
Ah-the nimbys-not in my backyard !
The American Dream rests on this one ! Laws prevent blockage of views. That
being said, it is the right of any American to build as big a dream house on
his lot as his Banker will let him ! Please do not infringe on this right.
Once all these niggling little laws are made, it is so so hard to turm back
the clock. Have you ever tried to get speed bumps removed? The disaster on
Harbor View Drive is depressing sales values -who wants to beat up their car
every day ? Mansionization is good. It drives up comp values and increases
the value of my home. I love it. Do more ! Thank You. Chris Lyon
•
0
Lektorich, Debbie
•From: Campbell, Tamara
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:14 AM
To: Lektorich, Debbie
Subject: FW: "Short Cuts through residental neighbourhoods"
-----Original Message -----
From: COrmskirk2@aol.com [mailto:COrmskirk2@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:22 AM
To: tampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Subject: "Short Cuts through residental neighbourhoods"
Short cuts are mostly people living in the neighbourhood -this is our time we
are trying to save -life is short.
One gets the impression that some of these whiners will only be happy if
every road were torn up of turned into an anti-tank obstacle course. The
roads are there to used & driven on -that's their sole purpose.
Speed -traps & radar patrols really tick me off. They are just glorified
revenue collection scams & have little to do with safety. Ever watched those
motorcycle cops zoom around at 90 mph -just because they can ?
The CHP never patrolled PCH because there were very few problems. Now we
have a permanent tax -collector at the Sunshine Shack, ripping drivers off
just because its now Newport Territory, after incorporation of Newport Coast.
.Thank You.
•
E
Lektorich, Debbie
Campbell, Tamara
•From:
Sent:
Monday, July 29, 2002 11:14 AM
To:
Lektorich, Debbie
Subject:
FW: Rail & Buses
-----Original Message -----
From: COrmskirk2@aol.com [mailto:COrmskirk2@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:12 AM
To: tampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Subject: Rail & Buses
NO THANK YOU 1 all mass transit schemes lose money. They have to be
subsidized by us the taxpayer. This is theft of our income & immoral.
Tourists & out -of -towners will use subsidized transport & we end up footing
the bill. PLEASE, any hare -brained transport schemes should be private
enterprise & pay their own way. Thank You for not building rails & expanding
buses blocking our roads. Chris Lyon
•
Lektorich, Debbie
•From: Campbell, Tamara
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:15 AM
To: Lektorich, Debbie
Subject: FW: Airport Issue
-----Original Message -----
From: Bob Pastore[mailto:bobpastore@compuserve.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 7:24 PM
To: tcampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Subject: Airport Issue
Hello,
I am a 32 year resident of Corona del Mar. I am an airline pilot, with TWA
for 36 years, now merged with American Airlines. I retire in December at age
60. I had a sideline business at John Wayne Airport for 28 years. When I
sold in 1998 I was the oldest tenant on the airport. As you might guess, I
have seen a lot of change and airport issues are of interest to me.
That is why I am writing. I just received the "Step Up To The Future"
pamphlet in the mail. For the first time I have seen in print something
that I have been advocating for more than 15 years - create an international
.airport at Camp Pendleton. Although I am grossly oversimplifying the
matter - a Camp Pendleton airport is a "no-brainer." Every time I depart
SNA for points east, we parallel the northern perimeter of Camp Pendleton.
I look at it and wonder why people even bothered with El Toro when they had
the greatest opportunity right before them. For technical reasons alone, El
Toro would have been a disaster.
Sharing the development between San Diego and OC offers even greater
economies of scale. San Diego is in the same fix as John Wayne. Limited
runway, air traffic control restrictions and, most importantly, noise.
Create a regional airport authority just like the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey, carve out a small section of Pendleton land, build parallel
runways at least 3600 feet apart to comply with the new FAA guidelines for
parallel approaches and we'll have an airport that will serve the needs of
the southern portion of southern California well in to the future.
Bob Pastore
638 Cameo Highlands Drive
•
P,
u
July 30, 2002
To: General Plan Advisory Board Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Beach Blvd.
P. O. Box 1768
Newport,92658
From: Helen P. Holden
611 Lido Park Drive #7A
Newport Beach, 92663
pECEIVED eY
PLAN FI N.F ppC)PT E H
CITY 0
AM AUG 0 2 2002 PM
q�@i8 �10 i1l�liv�1�2i3i4�Bi6
As a person who has lived in Newport Beach for 32 years, and vacationed here many
more, I am pleased to learn of the GPAB efforts.
RE: PUBLIC VIEW CORRIDOR
I'd like to suggest a way to improve the views corridor in 40 high rise units in two
buildings overlooking the Lido Bridge. The eucalyptus trees in the Lido Island Park area
after the bridge are so tall they obstruct much of my own bay view even from the 71h floor.
If the Newport Beach building code only allows houses 35 feet high, why shouldn't trees
be pruned and thinned to 35 feet also. Palm trees, star pines, etc. are see through, however
eucalyptus are not? There are other areas of Newport Beach where this would apply.
I traveled in Morocco and was please to see their highways had trimmed and well pruned
eucalyptus. One thing for sure there can be fewer falling leaves.
The park maintenance crews are doing an excellent job of keeping up city parks.
The person who improved the planting at the corner of Newport Blvd. and Via Lido
should receive a gold star. Now visitors can read the sign on the wall.
%674- � PA�
p
•
0
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Am AUG 0 G 2092 Pm
718191iulIiil i.lri la�16i8
i
0--qj Z i 6 2
M S ayn
1?f: f'ORRl1�}6-12J
U /^,-, In L, `d c r"�' �
641 OL.)
lao ct, Baal- ,,
VO-W
jaws
230 8'
14
Lektorich, Debbie
•From: Campbell, Tamara
From:
Monday, August 05, 2002 10:06 AM
To: Lektorich, Debbie
Subject: FW: Newport Beach step up to the future
HI Debbie - Here's another one for you to distribute at the next GPAC meeting. Thanks!
-----Original Message -----
From: MMclau8612@aol.com [mailto:MMclau8612@aol.com1
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 5:00 PM
To: tcampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Subject: Re: Newport Beach step up to the future
7/29/02
tcampbell@city.newport-beach.ca. us
Re: Newport Beach step up to the future. A progress report on the general
plan update August 2002.
You forgot to mention Affordable Housing for Seniors. A few years ago the
Irvine Company announced that they were going to build Affordable Housing for
Seniors. We have also been told that land on Jamboree and Bayvlew has been
•set aside for Affordable Housing for seniors.
Many of us have been living here for years to be close to our children and
grand children. We are being gouged with rental increases and now tenants are
being put on month to month, instead of a lease without an explanation.
Have you any idea why Park Newport is doing this? It would be nice to know
when the Irvine Company plans to break ground.
Mary J. McLaughlin
•
�6
Lektorich, Debbie
•From: Campbell, Tamara
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 8:23 AM
To: Lektorich, Debbie
Subject: FW: Do you want my input?
Hi Debbie - please send out to GPAC members. Thanks, Tamara
-----Original Message -----
From: Suzanne [ma!ito:suzanne@brats.com]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 5:11 PM
To: tampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Subject: Do you want my input?
I haven't been able to attend any of the meetings.
I live in West Newport. Newport Shores to be exact. The city website
crashes on L!nux. I take care of my mother and 2 elementary school
children.
What our neighborhood is in dire need of is activity areas. We need
fields for kids to play ball. The nearest flat grassy field is Newport
Elementary and that is 4 miles
away! Too far for kids to bike alone. We need a skate area where kids
.can safely play that is away from property and traffic. We need a
community garden for all ages.
I find it hard to park and drive onto the penninsula sometimes. It is
much easier for me to shop in Huntington or Costa Mesa. I would love a
separate or wider bike path. A few years ago an elementary student was
knocked off of his bike by a car. Our neighborhood is held hostage by
beachgoers. Our friends and family can rarely park in front of our
house. I am glen riisnusted with all of the trash that these tourists
leave behind.
Please email me
11
Lektorich, Debbie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
For GPAC Members.
Campbell, Tamara
Wednesday, August 07, 2002 11:43 AM
Lektorich, Debbie
FW: Mariners Mile/PCH proposed widening
-----Original Message -----
From: Jack Langson [mailto:JLangson@ibg-usa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 11:03 AM
To: tcampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Subject: Mariners Mile/PCH proposed widening
Dear Ms. Campbell,
On reading the August "Step Up to the Future" brochure findings, I
noticed that the findings to date call for both revitalization of the
Mariners Mile area and possible widening of Pacific Coast Highway
through the area. Do you think the area can attact more neighborhood
users with even more and faster traffic? It appears to me that we will
have to chose one objective or the other.
Thanks for seeking citizen input.
Jack Langson
02616 Bayshore Drive
Newport Beach
•
11
8-10-2002 2:28AM FROM DON GLASGOW 949 786 8576 P•2
Page L of 1
,' r
• Dear Homer & Sharon:
Last week I received a copy of the most recent General Plan Update Report dated August
2002. 1 read it over, with some personal reactions and thoughts. I decided at the time to keep
them within me. Now, I have a change of heart and I wanted to share them with just a limited
number of people.
First, 1 wish to complement everyone involved in this journey for the, professional manner in
which it has been communicated and,handled. I attended at least two live outreach meetings
and your opening meeting at Hoag Hospital. I felt the outreach meetings did not flow as well as
they might have or needed to. For sdme'reason, something seemed to be missing. Perhaps it
was the long agenda. Perhaps it was the time of day. Some say it was the facilitator. I just
don't know, but I did leave each one with a feeling of something important undertaken but not
finished. Hope you glean some worthiness from this. Anyway, great effort on the part of
everyone at the city.
Second, I was little let down that -greater importance seemed to be treated lightly with
regard to the needed redevelopment of our business districts. In fact, Corona del, Mar was not
even included on the revitalization list. That is not how I understood the reaction of the CdM
residents at the Oasis Community Outreach meeting. They seemed to conclude that they felt
very supportive of the Vision 2004 plan and it's need. Many in the audience commented about
the "crummy" look of the signs, buildings, plus a lack of crosswalks .for circulation. If the _
residents like our plan, and they want it, let's include this when these reports -are published. in
conclusion, I thought the over all tone of the report practically skipped over the business
districts and their importance to the vitality of this community. Let's do all we can to promote a
good balance between residents and businesses. This General Plan Update is the perfect
place to re set the scales .... lthink. I know that many Newport Beach Residents "bark" about
businesses. I also think, in their hearts,. that local businesses are a mighty important part of
their daily lives and they would like them to look and perform at thirbest. The Updated General
Plan needs to reflect this ... I think.
That Is my -reaction. I hope it is understandable to you. I hope theMsibility of our business
districts Is, In fact, included in the updated General Plan and, in fact, included in ,your next
newsletter. Mhout our local business villages, their commerce, and tax revenues, perhaps
Newport Beach would not be the perfect place in this nation to live? There is more to'a great
city than good weather, a great harbor, and wealthy residents. The perfect cities, around the
globe seem to include very vitalized, attractive, safe, and healthy business districts serving the
needs of it's residents, in attractive settings. Let's make this subject more visible and important
in future reports and the final plan?
Thanks for this opportunity to voice•my thoughts. I hope they resonate with you and help
elevate the need to reposition the subject of our business districts in the "top'three or five" in
future editions, and the final document. You may or may not agree with my comments, but I
feel as I do and had to share them with those I know well. Certainly, when I have attended two
of the community outreach meetings; I did everything i could to enlighten others about this
subject. I also left each meeting believing I and others had made our points well. Hope our
business districts are dealing with an honest oversight and not a filter. Hope too you
understand why I view these matters as outlined in this communication. I believe and hope you
do.
Donald Glasgow, Chairman .
• CdKBusiness.tmprovement District
3
E
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
AGENDAS AND MINUTES ARE NOW
POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE
WWW. CITY. N EWPORT-BEACH. CA. US
GO TO "CITY COUNCIL"
SELECT "AGENDAS & MINUTES"
SELECT "ALL AGENDAS, MINUTES & REPORTS"
SELECT "GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE"
d Preserve Task
Banning Ranch, located along the Santa Ana River and Pacific Coast Highway,
consists of 412 acres of wetlands and adjacent bluffs/mesa. Used for oil production for the
last 50 years, this property has escaped the residential development that is characteristic of
much of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. Today Banning Ranch remains the largest
piece of privately held open space in the West Newport Beach area. From the mesa on
Banning Ranch, one has a beautiful panoramic view that stretches from the Santa Ana
River to the Pacific Ocean. One can see Catalina Island, and enjoy cool ocean breezes.
Banning Ranch contains coastal sage scrub and is home to California gnatcatchers, and
other endangered species. Banning Ranch is also situated, and serves as a link, between
publicly owned open spaces on all sides. To the west of Banning Ranch (and also along the
Santa Ana River) are wetlands recently restored by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Immediately north from Banning Ranch (and up the Santa Ana River) is the Talbert
Nature Preserve, and further up the river is Fairview Park. On the East Side of Banning
Ranch is Sunset Ridge, a parcel of undeveloped property now owned by the city of Newport
Beach and dedicated to become park space. Finally, a parcel of undeveloped school district
property sits on the eastern border of Banning Ranch.
The owners of Banning Ranch are Armstrong Petroleum, and a group of investors
along with Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. have
known as Santiago Partners. The owners,
• proposed building 1750 homes, a shopping center and a hotel on the site. Although the
project is currently on hold, this massive development would result in the loss of open space
and endangered species habitat, as well as resulting in the degradation of the adjacent
wetlands recently restored by the Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, 50 years of oil
production have left the area contaminated, and building homes would not be the best use
for the land.
The Banning Ranch Park and Preserve Task Force is dedicated to preserving the
entire Banning Ranch as an open space and wildlife preserve. We are working towards the
purchase of the entire Banning Ranch, at price agreeable to both the owners and
conservation groups. The Banning Ranch could then be joined to the previously described
adjacent open spaces to create a "Greater Orange Coast River Park" which would
encompass approximately 1400 acres.
A local grass roots effort, Banning Ranch Park and Preserve Task Force was
formed in 1999. Our work includes educating the public and local officials about Banning
Ranch, and securing funds for the eventual purchase of Banning Ranch. We have initiated
dialogue with the owners, who have indicated they would consider selling the property if
the right offer were made. We will spend the next few years building a strong public
consensus for purchasing the property (which will cost several million dollars), and
demonstrating that the best use for Banning Ranch is to become an open space and wildlife
preserve along a Southern California coast that is rapidly seeing development on almost all
privately held property.
The Banning Ranch Park and Preserve task force meets on the third Wednesday of
the month, at 7:30 PM. For meeting location and other questions, call Terry Welsh at 949-
• 549-5636, or email at: savebanningranch@yahoo.com
• GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, August 26, 2002
�c, Roger Alford
Dorothy Beek
Phillip Bettencourt
Carol Boice
Karlene Bradley
John Corrough
y- Seth Darling
Julie Delaney
Laura Dietz
Florence Felton
• Nancy Gardner
Joseph Gleason Jr.
Louise Greeley
Evelyn Hart
a- Ernie Hatchell
V- Bob Hendrickson
Tom Hyans
Mike Ishikawa
�L David Janes
George Jeffries
Mike Johnson
e- Todd Knipp
Donald Krotee
Philip Lugar
p�-Catherine O'Hara
• Carl Ossipoff
1
. Larry Root
John Saunders
)L Brett Shaves
Robert Shelton
Ed Siebel
Alan Silcock
Jackie Sukiasian
Jan Vandersloot
Don Webb
V- Jennifer Wesoloski
Ron Yeo
Lj
•
2
1�
GENERAL PLAN ADV%ORY COMMITTEE
Monday, August 26, 2002
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E
E-MAIL ADDRESS
`ibtaM
f�eCA q��oa
►n�+-t .stead . c
eta - cot, (o
7, eq
4 .
zZz � r(0
c'? c
631 'U'aJ 4,2 z62-
-f er��'1►� weis� 6��1o�M4r(,
�a
asco s
to o ick c4Z2a,( 9266 3
a 30 t cyt- (h4� ewe
(�� fcaSSa�.CcSn
co
We-sAr �-e,-u� -+ �U- \ bc,
\ L 9,Qm
FrIt
GENERAL PLAN ADV%ORY COMMITTEE
Monday, August 26, 2002
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
GENERAL PLAN ADV%ORY COMMITTEE
Monday, August 26, 2002
AUUKLbblF 1UNL L-MAIL AUUKLbb
NEWP(MCH
• GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
VISIONING PROCESS
General Plan Advisory Committee
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday,
August 26, 2002, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Dorothy Beek
Louise Greeley
John Saunders
Phillip Bettencourt
Evelyn Hart
Robert Shelton
Carol Boice
Tom Hyans
Ed Siebel
Karlene Bradley
Mike Ishikawa
Alan Silcock
Julie Delaney
George Jeffries
Jackie Sukiasian
Laura Dietz
Mike Johnson
Jan Vandersloot
Florence Felton
Phillip Lugar
Don Webb
Nancy Gardner
Carl Ossipoff
Ron Yeo
Joseph Gleason
Larry Root
Members Absent:
•
Roger Alford
Bob Hendrickson
Catherine O'Hara
John Corrough
David Janes
Brett Shaves
Hoby Darling
Todd Knipp
Jennifer Wesoloski
Ernest Hatchell
Donald Krotee
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Patrick Alford, Senior Planner
Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator
Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads Consultant
John Kain, Urban Crossroads Consultant
Members of the Public Present:
Leonard Anderson Dick Nichols Chad Vasconcellos
Paul Arms Bernie Svalstad Terry Welsh
Coralee Newman Marilyn Thoms
11
I. Welcome and Introductions
• Bob Shelton called the meeting to order.
George Jeffries asked for clarification on the Brown Act regarding
communications with other members outside regular meetings. Sharon Wood
explained that a group consisting of 19 would be considered a quorum and is not
allowed to meet without publicly posting an agenda allowing the public an
opportunity to participate. However, this Committee was formed by the City
Council to consider many different views and make this a very public process;
meeting outside the regular Committee meetings would be defeating the
purpose. Mr. Jeffries asked how committee members could request subjects for
the agenda. Ms. Wood advised that a request could be made to staff or requests
could be made at a meeting. Staff will add "future agenda items" on agendas.
(See Next Steps for further discussion on this topic.)
II. Approval of Minutes —July 22, 2002
Jan Vandersloot and John Saunders noted they were present at the July 22"d
meeting, however the minutes listed them absent because they had not signed
in. Committee members were reminded to sign in at each meeting. Minutes of
• the July 22, 2002 meeting were approved with these attendance corrections.
III. Traffic Modeling Presentation
John Kain and Carleton Waters from Urban Crossroads were asked to make a
presentation to the committee. They explained that traffic modeling is very
complex and is not an exact science. In determining current conditions, data is
collected mid -week (Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday) during "shoulder
seasons" (spring and fall), using that data they look at traffic conditions during
peak hours (7 to 9 in the morning and 4 to 6 in the afternoon). The consultants
are not charged with collecting new data, they will be using data collected by
City staff and have several ways to detect problems with those counts. The
packet distributed with the agenda packet shows the data collected so far. This
study will encompass traffic counts, land uses, as well as socio economic data.
The relationship between these factors will assist when forecasting future traffic
trends. The model will include traffic generation data associated with different
land uses which will be very useful in the General Plan Update process, as well
as in the future when considering land use decisions in the City. The final report
will include existing conditions, traffic forecast for the existing General Plan build -
out, and traffic forecasts for the years 2025 and 2007.
lA
IV. Banning Ranch Open Space Potential
• Terry Welsh, Chairperson of the Banning Ranch Park and Preserve Task force
and Paul Arms, Sierra Club, were invited to talk to the Committee about their
vision for Banning Ranch. The Banning Ranch Task Force has been meeting
since 1999 and their goal is to have the area preserved as a public wilderness
park (similar to Fairview Park) and be included as part of the Orange Coast River
Park for future generations to enjoy. Currently only 50 acres (12%) of the area
is within the Newport Beach city limits, however the entire area is in the City's
sphere of influence. Mr. Arms and Mr. Welsh are convinced there are sufficient
funds available at the State and Federal level for land acquisition, as well as an
opportunity to use funds from an upcoming water bond. The value of the
property has not been determined. Mr. Welsh urged members of the Committee
to add language in the revised General Plan to insure Banning Ranch remains
open space.
•
After this presentation Mr. Shelton asked for a restatement of what GPAC's role
might be in determining what happens to Banning Ranch. Ms. Wood explained
that if, for example, the community indicates they would like Banning Ranch to
remain as open space, the Committee could recommend language in the Vision
Statement and Strategic Directions which could translate into a General Plan
policy for the area.
V. Discussion of Strategic Directions
No time was left for this agenda item.
VI. Next Steps
Since there was no time left for any small group discussions at this meeting, the
September 9th meeting will include more time for that exercise. Ms. Wood asked
the group for additional agenda items for discussion at future meetings. Evelyn
Hart suggested a discussion on Las Arenas Park, however a more general topic
was agreed upon —use of tidelands. Ron Yeo asked for a presentation regarding
the relationship/timing between the Local Coastal Plan and the General Plan.
Bob Shelton asked for a review of the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Phillip Bettencourt asked for a presentation regarding what the Coastal
Commission staff requires to be included in an approvabie LCP. John Saunders
asked that more discussion be allowed on the airport area and City revenue
issues started at the June 10`h meeting, since time had been cut short at that
meeting. Laura Dietz asked to hear from the telephone survey consultant. All
other suggestions for future agenda topics can be e-mailed to staff.
3
Mr. Jeffries attended the GPUC meeting earlier in the evening where discussion
of the upcoming telephone survey took place and he wanted to share some
information with this Committee. Mr. Jeffries feels GPAC should have a role in
the selection of questions for the poll. He was also concerned about the
distribution of the Newsletter might influence the poll. Ms. Wood explained that
it is not GPAC's role to oversee the questions that will be used in the survey.
The City Council formed GPUC to design and carryout the visioning process, and
they formed GPAC to take all the information from the visioning process and
convert it into a Vision Statement and a Strategic Directions document. In the
future GPAC will be asked to advise the Planning Commission and City Council on
General Plan policy issues. A GPUC Sub -Committee was assigned to oversee the
telephone survey questions. The Sub -Committee consists of Steve Bromberg,
Shant Agajanian, Allan Beek, and Barry Eaton. The following staff and
consultants are working with them, Sharon Wood, Patty Temple, Carolyn
Verheyen, the telephone survey consultant and Woodie Tescher, the consultant
assigned to help with the General Plan Update. The questions for the survey are
different from the questions used at the Vision Festival, Mailback Survey and
Neighborhood Workshops. Also decided at the earlier meeting, GPUC voted to
use a hybrid survey sample method, which will consist of 70% registered voters,
and 30% residents who have not registered.
Next meeting September 9tn
VII. Public Comments
No public comments offered.
•
GI