The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGPAC_2002_09_09G PAC 2002 09 09 NEWP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE . VISIONING PROCESS September 9, 2002 7:00-9:00 p.m. General Plan Advisory Committee MEETING #7 AGENDA Police Department Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive 7:00 I. Welcome and Introductions A. Agenda Overview B. Committee Communications 7:15 II. Approval of Minutes— August 26, 2002 7:20 III. Report Out and Discussion from June 10 Small Group Discussions A. Airport Business Area (Q.30) • B. City Funding Priorities (Q.48) 7:45 IV. Small Group Discussions A. Use of Tidelands (Q.34) B. Coastal Bluffs (Q.14) C. Zoning Capacity Reduction (Q.19) D. Revitalization Areas (Q.20, 53) E. Bike Trails Plan (Relevant portion of General Plan Circulation Element attached) PLEASE BRING YOUR COPY OF "PRELIMINARY STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS" 8:45 V. Future Agenda Items 8:50 VI. Next Steps (• 8:55 VII. Public Comments Mma d ft @@HURMI ft @mow o a o ° HkT qN9 ME Oasis Senior Center (5th and Marguerite in Corona del Mar) Bikeways Intent The City of Newport Beach favors the use of bicycles both for transportation, to mitigate traffic levels, and for recreation to promote health and fitness. Local Needs The needs of bicyclists will vary with the function of the trip and the speed of the rider. In addition, children riding bicycles for any purpose will have special needs in terms of safety. Those residents who use bicycles daily as their primary means of transportation are concerned with utilizing the most convenient and direct route available to reach their destination. Consequently, there is a general aversion to any significant out -of -direction travel. Inconveniently situated bikeways will not normally be used. Studies have shown one to three blocks out of the direction of travel is about the limit, depending upon the distance to be traveled. These bicyclists normally will select a route along a primary or a major highway. In contrast, the recreational rider might chose a route for its scenic interest such as a harbor view or for its open space character. Some recreational riders.prefer to ride on a bike trail separated from vehicular traffic. Thus, it is necessary to provide • bikeways for bicyclists along major transportation corridors as well as residential and scenic areas. • Fast cyclists ride at 12-25 miles per hour. They are usually experienced riders, and mix poorly with pedestrians, children, and recreational cyclists because of their speed. Slower cyclists ride at average speeds of 8-12 miles per hour. They mix well with child cyclists; only the slowest cyclists mix well with pedestrians, but poorly with motor vehicles. It is thus necessary to provide bikeways which separate faster cyclists from pedestrian travel and children, integrating bicycle travel more closely with vehicular traffic, and bikeways which separate slower cyclists from motor vehicle traffic. Children would be expected to utilize the latter routes. Regional Needs Several regional bikeways pass through the City of Newport Beach. These bikeways provide alternate circulation routes and access to areas of interest on a regional basis. Bikeways are an important component of the local recreation and transportation spectrum. Some potential sites have been identified as those which are appropriate for bikeways or have already been designated to be served by such a trail. The City can work closely with regional and other local governments to coordinate regional bikeway connections to local bikeways and to popular destinations for bicyclists which are located in the City. -24- Classification of Bikeways • Bikeway is the term to designate all facilities which provide for bicycle travel. The Master Plan of Bikeways include various types of facilities to provide for both transportation and recreation cyclists, faster and slower cyclists, and children. In order to serve varying needs, the City of Newport Beach provides the following types of facilities: 1. Bicycle Lane. A lane in the street, normally the parking lane,.or a separate lane, designated for the exclusive or semi -exclusive use of bicycles. Through travel by motor vehicles oi• pedestrians is not allowed, vehicle parking may or may not be allowed. Crossflow by motorists to gain access to driveways and parking facilities is allowed. Separation from the motor vehicle travel way is normally by a painted solid stripe. Bicycle lanes and bicycle routes together are also known as Class 3 bicycle trails. 2. Bicycle Route. A shared right-of-way for bicycle operation, whether or not it is specified by signs or markings. All main streets and highways by authority of the California Vehicle Code include bicycle routes as defined herein. Bicycle lanes and bicycle routes together are also known as Class 3 bicycle trails. 3. Bicycle Trail. A pathway designated for the use of bicycles which is physical- ly separated from motor vehicle traffic. Pedestrian.trafflc my or may not be ex- cluded. Bicycle trails are also known as Class 1 bicycle trails. • 4. Backbone Bikeway. Backbone bikeways are major through bikeways, as'shown on the Master Plan of Bikeways. They are primarily on major roads. Backbone bikeways may connect to regional trails, as shown in the Master Plan. n U 5. Secondary Bikeway. Secondary bikeways connect to backbone trails and serve cyclists and children riding to and from school. Secondary bikeways may also be a bicycle lane, route, or trail. Objective, Policies, and Programs To promote bicycling for transportation and recreation in and around Newport Beach. 1. To provide a safe, convenient, and enjoyable system of bikeways that meets the needs of all bicyclists, including children and adults, fast and slow bicyclists, and functional and recreational cyclists. -25- 2. The City shall insure implementation of a bikeway system to encourage cycling is Bikeways. a alternative mode of transportation consistent with the Master Plan of Bikeways. 3. Bikeways shall be developed in recognition of the rights and safety of pedestrians. Programs: 1. The Master Plan of Bikeways (page 29 below) shall be implemented as follows: a. Bicycle lanes shall be included on all streets and highways desig- nated as backbone bikeways and considered on streets and highways designated as secondary bikeways in conjunction with street and highway improvements when feasible and consistent with the City's ability to do so. At major intersections, consideration shall be given to providing space and signal detection modifications for bicyclists to negotiate through and turning movements. b. Bikeways shown on the Master Plan of Bikeways shall be developed consistent with the City's ability to do so. C. Careful consideration shall be given to linkage of schools and • residences in the formulation of plans for individual bikeways. d. Appropriate bikeway improvements may be required as a condition of development approvals. e. The City will work with appropriate agencies for development of connecting bikeways. f. Bikeways shall be developed as bike trails when the opportunity exists and is feasible. g. Bikeways shall be developed to link recreational areas where feasible. I Bikeways shall be developed to take advantage of scenic views when feasible. 2. The City intends to promote bicycle use by commuters, shoppers, beach -goers, etc., to help minimize auto traffic, by providing bike lanes (see above) and by providing and encouraging businesses and employers to provide: -26- a. Secure bike parking, including bike lockers; • b. Clothes lockers and showers for employees. 3. School and other safety programs by the Newport Beach Police Department will be continued. 4. When construction or repairs necessitate lane closures, every effort will be made to provide room for cyclists as well as for motor vehicles. 5. When possible, bikeways and -walkways will be separated. IMPLEMENTATION Bikeway projects could•be financed using the City's General Fund or SB 821 Funds. SB 821 Funds are of state origin and are disbursed by the Orange County Transpor- tation Commission (OCTC). They are allocated for bikeway projects, including but not limited to signs, striping, staging areas, bridges, and bike lanes. Candidate projects must be part of an adopted plan. The funds are disbursed annually. 509o' of the County's funds are allocated on a population basis. The remaining 501yo are dis- cretionary funds granted after a prescribed nomination process and technical evalua- tion. • Citizens' Advisory Committee on Bikeways L The Citizens' Advisory Committee on Bikeways should be directed to: 1. Review planned expansions or changes to the City's bikeway network for ad- visory input to the Public Works Department and the City Council. 2. Research bikeway implementation, education, and safety techniques, maintain a record of bicycle accidents, and collect available literature on bicycle safety. 3. Report to the City Council annually on findings and progress in expanding the bikeway network. 4. Coordinate with bikeway committees in adjoining communities. 5. Develop public information materials as directed by the City Council. -27- • I mager pbn ® GOa'/E S'.EWAY ]EC68VIY YfEWAY � \u= ® KOO14.1pK V DRAFT NEWPIRC 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 is 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 Thorns • 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. 7 DRAFT • 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 approvable LCP. John Saunders asked that more discussion be allowed on the airport area and City revenue issues started at the June loth 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. r 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 9t' VII. Public Comments No public comments offered. n u M NEWP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE • VISIONING PROCESS CH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Roger Alford 1862 Tustin Newport Beach 92660 Phone: 949-645-3199 Work: 949-833-2815 Fax: 949-833-2876 E-Mail: roger hbla.com Dorothy Beek 620 W. Ocean Front Newport Beach, 92661-1112 Phone: 949-673-8744 Fax: 949-673-4991 E-Mail: beekd@aol.com • Phillip Bettencourt 10 Sugar Pine Road Newport Coast, 92657 Phone: 949-760-6061 Work: 949-720-0970 Fax: 949-721-9921 E-Mail: pbcourtaapacbell.net Carol Boice 2945 Catalpa Street Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-759-0809 E-Mail: wboice@)adelphia.net Karlene Bradley 9 Summerwind Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-548-3016 E-Mail: karlyjob((taol.com n U John Corrough 1004 South Bayfront Balboa Island, 92662 Phone: 949-673-8927 Work: 949-673-8077 E-Mail: jcorrouahCa aol.com Seth "Roby" Darling 443 1/2 Begonia Ave. Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-675-8132 Work: 714-755-8198 E-Mail: hoby.darling(d)lw.com Julie Delaney 1136 W. Balboa Blvd. #B Newport Beach, 92661 Phone: 949-723-8251 Work: 949-588-5060 x271 E-Mail: jpjad(a)aol.com Laura Dietz 325 Cameo Shores Road Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-721-8035 Fax: 949-721-1357 E-Mail: Ibekeart c aol.com Florence Felton 230 Lille Lane #201 Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-646-6192 Work: 949-553-5923 E-Mail: florence.felton0mindspring.com Or florence_m_felton@balboainsurance.com • Nancy Gardner 323 Jasmine Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-673-0706 Fax: 949-646-7093 E-Mail: gardnerngyaol.com Joseph Gleason Jr. 606 W. Balboa Blvd. #1 Newport Beach, 92661 Phone: 949-723-5068 Work: 949-225-9523 E-Mail: Iturner broadcom.com Louise Greeley 16 Swift Court Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-931-1475 Fax: 949-645-0065 E-Mail: louisesg(a pacbell.net • Evelyn Hart 49 Balboa Coves Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-645-9127 Fax: 949-645-9127 E-Mail: ohartline(o)aol.com Ernie Hatchell 19 La Rochelle 'Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-721-8739 E-Mail: ehatch aelpacbell.net Bob Hendrickson 1815 Newport Hills Drive East Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-759-1202 Work: 949-721-9747 E-Mail: rhpacrealjy0baol.corn • Tom H�fans 21719 Street Newport Beach, 92663 Phone 949-673-0333 Work: 949-673-3777 Fax: 949-673-0377 E-Mail: tomhyans pacbell.net Mike Ishikawa 438 Riverside Ave. Newport Beach Phone: 949-650-3996 Work: 949-293-1976 E-Mail: mnishikawa@adelphia.net David Janes 121 Harbor Island Road Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-675-0183 Fax: 949-673-9117 E-Mail: djanes pacbell.net George Jeffries 1039 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-759-0400 Fax: 949-644-6999 E-Mail: gjj4 cox.net Mike Johnson 5803 Seashore Drive Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-642-3125 Work: 949-250-6369 x127 Fax: 949-642-5369 E-Mail: delandmike(dearthlink.net Todd Knipp 3110 Clay St. Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-650-7068 Work: 949-644-3378 Fax: 949-650-3843 E-Mail: tknipp(acity newport-beach ca.us As of 6/5/02 • Donald Krotee 2916 Clay Street Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-646-6030 Work: 714-547-7621 Fax: 714-647-0193 E-Mail: dkrotee krotee.com Phillip Lugar P.O. Box 7246 Newport Beach, 92658 Phone: 949-675-4982 Work: 949-824-9460 E-Mail: plugar@uci.edu Catherine O'Hara 1937 Port Albans Place Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-640-7433 E-Mail: oharas5 pacbell.net • Carl Ossipoff 720 Bison Ave. Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-644-0469 Work: 818-569-7633 E-Mail: hiincyber yahoo.com Larry Root 1210 Polaris Dr. Newport Beach, 92660-5724 Phone: 949-548-9474 E-Mail: rootis@adelphia.net John Saunders 26202 Glen Canyon Laguna Hills, 92653 Phone: 949-643-2399 Work: 949-251-0444 Fax: 949-251-0888 E-Mail: iohn(o)londoncoin.com • Brett Shaves 1731 Port Hemley Circle Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-720-1922 Work: 949-644-8900 E-Mail: bshavesCalaol.com Robert Shelton 3719 Park Green Drive Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-760-0390 Fax: 949-760-1136 E-Mail: Shelwaid earthlink.net Ed Siebel 114 Apolena Avenue Balboa Island, 92662-1214 Phone: 949-673-7448 Work: 949-675-8736 Fax: 949-675-0461 E-Mail: aes(@cenr)rowest.com Alan Silcock 9 Balboa Coves Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-722-6421 Fax: 949-722-6450 E-Mail: balboaal@adelphia.net Jackie Sukiasian 1215 Baypointe Drive Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-759-3191 Work: 949-219-2643 Fax: 949-219-2657 E-Mail: iackie.sukiasian(&adam-us.com Jan Vandersloot 2221 E. 16t' Street Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-548-6326 Work: 714-848-0770 Fax: 714-848-6643 E-Mail: ionv3Ca0aol.com 3 As of 8/5/02 • Don Webb 1821 Mariners Drive Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-646-3133 E-Mail: don2webb earthlink.net Jennifer Wesoloski 307 Montero Ave. Balboa, 92661 Phone: 949-675-3929 Work: 949-644-3147 Fax: 949-673-0838 E-Mail: idwesoloski@cs.com Ron Yeo 604 Iris Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-644-7896 Work: 949-644-8111 Fax: 949-644-0449 E-Mail: ronyeo(cbearthlink.net 0 CITY STAFF: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Work: 949-644-3222 Fax: 949-644-3020 E-Mail: SWoodOd!y.newport-beach.ca.us Patty Temple, Planning Director Work: 949-644-3228 Fax: 949-644-3229 E-Mail: PTemple ciiy.newport-beach.ca.us Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Work: 949-644-3238 Fax: 949-644-3229 E-Mail: TCampbell(lcitv.newport-beach.ca.us Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Work: 949-644-3000 Fax: 949-644-3020 E-Mail: DebbieL(�Ocity.newport-beach.ca.us 4 As or 8/5/02 General Plan Advisory Committee • City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Committee: I am writing you to voice my opposition to further widening of Jamboree Road. Last April my husband and I attended a meeting at Harbor High School moderated by a representative of a consultant firm providing community feedback to your committee. Many issues were discussed. One subject was the widening of Jamboree Road. After the discussion, the moderator asked for a vote on the issue. The attendees were emphatic about wanting to protect the environmental quality of our residential community. Every vote was against the widening of Jamboree Road, and the moderator placed the results of our vote under traffic congestion/problems. At the end of our meeting she summarized our main concerns as 1)John Wayne Airport, 2)Back Bay, and 3)Traffic Problems. When we suggested that Jamboree Road was a major concern, she said that it would be included under the third category. But I feel that our genuine concern about this problem was not fully conveyed to your committee. Widening to eight lanes will compromise safety at two major intersections —the access to Eastbluff Drive from Ford Road and University Drive. During the school year hundreds of school children daily cross Jamboree Road. They walk or are driven by both adults and high school students to schools and recreational areas located in the Eastbluff area —Corona del Mar High School, Lady Queen of Angels School, Eastbluff Elementary School, The Girls and Boys Club, and Eastbluff City Park. At both of these intersections there have been fatalities and numerous accidents, many causing serious injuries. Widening the road will make it even more hazardous. Widening the road will add to the congestion at Ford Road and Eastbluff Drive. The right tam lane, . constructed recently for Eastbluff Drive, has considerably eased traffic congestion. Adding another lane coming down the hill will only cause more of a bottle neck getting to the left turn lanes on San Joaquin Hills Road and the narrowing of Jamboree as it heads to the Pacific Coast Highway. People must logically accept the fact that Jamboree leads to the ocean —a dead end —and all the traffic carried on it has to merge onto other busy streets. It makes sense to maintain the gradual merge that is now in place. The Traffic Engineers have done a good job of regulating the flow and only at peak times —early morning, middle of the afternoon, and evening commute --is Jamboree congested. Many times one can enter Jamboree from Bison Street and there is not a car in sight from either direction. Furthermore, I don't believe there is any other city road in a primarily residential area of Newport Beach that is larger than 6 lanes. One section of MacArthur Blvd has a short length of 8-lane roadway, but that section has extensive set -backs, something that would not be possible for the residential communities on both the west and east sides of Jamboree Road. The best way to maintain a strong tax base for our residential communities is to protect the safety and quality of life of our neighborhoods. This can best be accomplished by designating Jamboree Road as a six -lane thoroughfare in our new General Plan. Thank you for your consideration of my remarks. Yours truly, Nancy Jacobus 2915 Alta Vista Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 0 Melinda Seely • 2833 Carob Street Newport Beach„ CA 92660 949.644.0278 Fax: 949.759.1304 E-mail Nbseely@aol.com September 1, 2002 GPAC City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attn: Debbie SEP - b 2002 't'S I am writing to express my opposition to changing Jamboree Rd. to an 8 lane "freeway." As a resident of Eastbluff, this possibility is of great concern to me, my family and my neighbors. I am concerned about what may happen as a result of the changes that are occurring at John Wayne Airport (more gates have been added - more flights - more people - more traffic.)? In addition, The current restrictions are in place only through the year 2015. It is my understanding the new General Plan will be in effect for the next 25 years. If the caps are removed from the airport we will have a tremendous increase in traffic, air pollution and noise pollution adding to what already exists on a very busy street. It is difficult to peer into the future, but if it is necessary, I believe MacArthur Blvd. is much better able to take the additional widening. There is quite a large buffer zone beside the houses existing there. There is no buffer zone for the homes along Jamboree Rd. I appreciate the time and trouble the Committee is taking regarding the concerns of the City. Sincerely, n Melinda Seely 0 f � Zaw��,►� CA -►Pa t( REGARDING: Banning Ranch Planned Community District • Supplying documentation affecting Plan RECEIVED BY SUBJECT: To alert Planning Department and all Committ.pas the LANNING DEPARTMENY ITY OF t'IF nVa^ r:;, -;.j liabilities• it faces if it approves development AM AUG 2 7 2002 f M Note: Further documentation is available by appointment. 7i8�9ii011� i18iEi2i3icri5i6 James Orstad 11 Summerwind Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)548-5931 • b1 August 22, 2002 Stanley T. Nishimura, Executive Director California Building Standard Commission 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95833 Mr. Nishimura: May I request that you direct this letter to the persons or department responsible for the California 1997 Uniform Building Code involving seismic activity. Portions should be immediately corrected or amended. Old volcanoes and faults previously considered dead have sprung to life throughout the world. It has surprised the scientists and many now theorize these relics can no longer be considered inactive. Other forces were found to trigger activity as well. Lucile M. Jones of the U.S. Geological Survey released their report on Earthquake Epicenters. She stated that they affect sympathetic land disturbances within a 100 mile radius. Caltech Seismic Lab reported the existence of many unknown and unmapped deeply buried Thrust Faults (L.A. Times, Jan. 18/94, p. A11). The California U.B.C. states that holocene faults under Classification C need not be considered in construction. Are you still under the opinion that faults considered inactive require no set -backs? Our California coastline is riddled with old faults in its bluffs and hill - ,sides. Those areas are considered hazards, just waiting to happen. An example is the City of Newport Beach. A bluff area known as Banning Ranch has a web of old faults and is within the radius of five major epicenters and a Thrust Fault. Construction is also governed by the Alquist-Priolo Act which sometimes uses your U.B.C. as a guideline. Misdirection can cause many liability risks. Your immediate attention in bringing your codes to date will protect the safety and welfare of all involved in general planning. JLO:rs concerned axts4 0. citizen, o-�-- dice ames L. Orstad 11 Summerwind Ct., Newport Beach, CA 92663 CC: CA Dept. of Conservations, Div. Of Mines & Geology Newport Beach Planning Dept. 0 • ._ _ SUNDAY I ORANGE COUNTY :' o� .An elegy 91mus, • AUGUST 11, 2002 QUAIME& Gap in, State - notre nance `Wecan , Law- Leaves Buyersi orariythingwith the Lea at Risk house in this condition.' Hans Spitz, Yorba Linda - Home Buyer, Beware homeowner Fault Lines in Law Leave Homes on Shaky Ground Development: Land that has passed inspection can still prove unstable for homeowners. By EVAN HALPER 11ME5 SrAFF WRrrER When Ron Muranaka paid $564,000 for a stucco Colonial in Yorba Linda with dramatic views of the Chino Hills, he was vaguely aware that the area was earth- quake -prone. But so was the rest of California, he figured. Seven years later, his yard cracked apart. Then the driveway split. The living room walls sepa- rated and door frames warped. But all that paled next to what happened early one summer morning in 1999: With a roar, much of the backyard slid 40 feet down a cliff. Geologists hired by Muranaka and his wife, Dawn, reported grim news: The Whittier fault system, which their real estate agent had told them was miles from their house, actually ran right beneath it. The land was shifting con- stantly, trapping water beneath the foundation and undermining the property. "The dirt underneath us is to- tally unstable," said Dawn Mura- naka. "We're terrified." owners of at least two dozen other houses in Yorba Linda's Bryant Ranch'development are in the same predicament. Their plight illustrates the limitations of . the Alquist-Priolo Act, the 30- year-old state law intended to pre- vent construction atop active earthquake faults. When Bryant Ranch was being planned in the late 1970s, geolo- gists hired by the developers warned that an active fault line ran through parts of some neigh- borhoods. The developers hired new geologists, who declared the faults inactive. That allowed more homes to be squeezed onto the hillsides than otherwise would have been permitted It was all perfectly legal. Those familiar with the Al- quist-Priolo Act say its a common pattern: When one geologist says not to build, developers find an- other to tell them -to go right ahead I don't know why so many de- velopers work so hard to make the faults disappear, but they do," said 7. David Rogers, whose firm, Geolith in Pleasant Rill, has re• viewed hundreds of geological re- ports for Cal forma cities. Please see QUAKES, A22 • QUAIK—ES: Angry Homeowners Sue STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF WEST NEWPORT MESA Published in conjunction with by • The South Coast Geological Society's EXCERPT Paul Guptill, Casey Armstrang September 19-20, 1992 Feld Trip and Marc Egli INTRODUCTION A detailed geologic investigation was conducted an West Newport mesa in 1986 to evaluate the potential of, faulting on property planned for flture development. West Newport Beach is one of the few locations along the Newport -Inglewood structural zone where offsets in ?leis tccene sediments can be observed in outcrop._ During our field investigation we identified numerous near -surface faults in the mesa escarpment along road cuts and in trenches. The majority of these faults are normal faults _ with less than 6-inches of apparent dip separation in late Pleistocene sediments. Some faults were mapped, hove-ver; that'have-- - displacements as great as 2 to 3 feet. %he oil field is found to consist of two primary faults and numeeuus;41-Xf associated smaller faults such _as_the Banning fault.-VO Prominent faults are designated the North Branch o! the Newport -Inglewood fault and the North Branch Splay fault. A third fault, the South Branch, which has the largest apparent separation (1,500 feet) of all of the faults is located south of the study area as reported by Hunter and Allen (1957) and is the main branch of the zone. • The general tensional environment across the mesa is reflea�ied in the near surface apparent dip -slip separation observed in trenches and in the bluff exposures. The discontinuous nature of faults an the terrace surface and small normal displacements, predominantly down on the southwest toward the North Branch, indicate a broad zone of tgn5ion at the Surface in response To normal fault clip at depth. 1'6a following conclusions are mdda: o Two zones of faulting are present an the mesa; one spatially associated with the North Branch Splay fault and the other with the North Branch of the Newport -Inglewood zone. o The zone of faulting associated with the North Branch Splay consists of a broad zone (up to 500 feet) of subparallel, discontinuous, normal fault traces, typically with less than 6 inches of dip -slip separation within the Pleistocene marine sediments. FLUVIAL CHANNEL FALEOSOL PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HA(.(j(� BZV�• SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTION. WEST NEWPORT MESA ROAD CUT • The mesa is underlain by predominantly Pleistocene shallow -marine and tidal -flat and fluviomarina deposits that have been incised locally by several stream channels. The marina and tidal deposits typically consist of well -sorted fine-grained sands, silts and clays. To Whom It May Concern: �k you for the, recent update re: ,the general plan for Newport Beach We are 33,year,residents.of Corona Del Mar and are very interested in -the future of our community and, city, We believe any planning re growth should include the following priorities: Clean beaches and ocean. It is imperative that all of Southern Calif. recognize that any plans for existing and future development include infrastructure that will guarrantee that all waste from storm drainage and run-off will be treated as sewage before being allowed to be dumped into the ocean. Our ocean is a prime resource and must not be destroyed by the very developers who are profiting from building on its shores. Newport Beach must lead the way for all of Orange County, at least. Current water treatment by the Orange County Treatment facility must be adequately funded and upgraded to protect the coast. The current mansionization of Corona Del Mar must be properly regulated. Although it is reasonable that property owners would like a return on their investment and should have the right to renovate and upgrade, particularly with the older beach houses, it is also reasonable that any renovation shoulld conform to the character of the village. It is obvious, simply by driving around the community, that several developers are buying out the older properties, leveling the homes and building three story condos where a small house and a garage apartment existed before. And to add insult to injury, the builders are using the same plans with little or no variation of exterior design. If not stopped soon, one particular builder will soon have quaint "Olde Corona Del Mar". as the realtors like to call it looking like Irvine, or heaven forbid, Newport Coast.... We must contain the mansionization and Irvinenization of Corona Del Mar. It is only logical that Newport Beach needs to allow business and commercial growth. Unless the residents are ready to pay huge property taxes to support the kind of city they want, they will have to allow business to come in. However, the development doesn't necessary have to be only along Pacific Coast Highway or on the�,peninsula. It.can certainly be allowed near the airport. It is quite reasonable to expect development in North Newport, sandwiched inbetween Costa Mesa and Irvine business co munities. If the traffic is not generated by Newport Beach, businessgs, it will certainly be by the two cities that share the area. T you for the opportunity to participate in the process. Mr. & Mrs. Edward Romeo 1209 Outrigger Drive, Corona Del Mar, Ca 92625 F RECEIVED BY PLANNING op DE PARTMEN7 ..�}�l:ht AM AUG 2 G 2002 PM 7181911Oil 11121118151 ,516 MandayAnRnSt19,1002 AmeOea Wine- EOMPAROMEO Page: 1 • Hello Everyone, • I would like to make a comment in favor of re -designating Banning Ranch as Open Space. All of us are aware that creating and maintaining open space has its costs, but please realize how much the value of a community can increase because of its open space. Especially now as we see more and more development in Orange county, our remaining open spaces are that much more valuable. Open space is one of the components that attract residents and visitors Makj a. ►-n areas � i alikei Thiele community more desirable andKeases 5 property values. Preserving Banning Ranch will be worth it! -7 � � f' `'� � ma's M�-�►�' �Fii�A1?-iM�l ,/�-rtr�r e ofzr t�'M' e • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, September 9, 2002 Roger Alford Dorothy Beek Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Karlene Bradley John Corrough Seth Darling Julie Delaney Laura Dietz Florence Felton Nancy Gardner • Joseph Gleason Jr. Louise Greeley Evelyn Hart Ernie Hatchell Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa David Janes George Jeffries - Mike Johnson Todd Knipp Donald Krotee Philip Lugar Catherine O'Hara • Carl Ossipoff 1 • Larry Root John Saunders Brett Shaves Robert Shelton Ed Siebel Alan Silcock Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo 0 GENERAL PLAN ADAORY COMMITTEE Monday, September 9, 2002 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS 1 crhzAS MA�IIo�* s0sl MEAl)aJ VIEW try `o iij Mf-s&- Ckf;snnanka CO A4661, corn GENERAL PLAN ADQSORY COMMITTEE Monday, September 9, 2002 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS • • 0 NEWN&CH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, September 9, 2002, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Karlene Bradley John Corrough Hoby Darling Julie Delaney Laura Dietz Florence Felton Nancy Gardner Louise Greeley Members Absent: Evelyn Hart Ernest Hatchell Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa Mike Johnson Todd Knipp Donald Krotee Phillip Lugar Catherine O'Hara Carl Ossipoff Dorothy Beek George Jeffries Joseph Gleason Brett Shaves David Janes Ed Siebel Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator Members of the Public Present: Carol Hoffman Chris Manka Bernie Svalstad Larry Root John Saunders Robert Shelton Alan Silcock Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo I. Welcome and Introductions • Bob Shelton called the meeting to order. Carolyn Verheyen reminded everyone about the Community Congress scheduled for Saturday, November 16th Correspondence for members was available on the front table. II. Approval of Minutes —August 26, 2002 Minutes of the August 26, 2002 meeting were approved as submitted. III. Report Out and Discussion from Tune 10 Small Group Discussions Carolyn Verheyen reviewed the issues previously discussed by the group. Topics include: the overall vision; the city's identity; harbors & beaches; preserving view corridors; commercial & residential villages; vacant & underdeveloped land; areas suitable for future development; mansionization; tourism; tidelands; transportation improvements; parking & traffic impacts from tourism; land use around JWA; city funding priorities; and local economy growth. Results of discussions are included in the Strategic Directions document along with input • from the public in these topics, they Verheyen agreed resolve all issues, consider. these areas. The group felt that although they had discussed felt there had not been enough time for any conclusions. Ms. and reminded everyone that this Committee is not expected to just to offer different points of view or alternative directions to A. Airport Business Area — Question 18 What City area(s) are suitable for additional development? Catherine O'Hara was the spokesperson for the group that met on June 10t' to discuss this question. Ms. O'Hara reviewed the group's discussion, she noted that due to the time limits they were only able to focus on a few areas in the city. The group felt the airport area currently was underutilized and would like to see non -airport, non -peak hour traffic and non -airport expansion enhancement uses. The group felt that adding basic office space may encourage airport uses. A couple ideas they discussed were an upscale auto mall including ancillary businesses and a multiplex cinema center. When discussing the Fashion Island/Newport Center area their primary concern was traffic and making Level of Service (LOS) D the goal. Discussion: John Saunders group one of the problems • the idea of building parking has office property in the airport area and told the in that area is the high cost of land. He suggested garages for auto dealers shared by multiple users; 2 however that type project would need to be subsidized by the City. Phil • Bettencourt thought there should be discussion regarding the consequences if LOS D was required by public policy, that level of service might require unacceptable road improvements and would impact neighborhoods. Ms. O'Hara said the group had discussed this issue and LOS D was the level accepted by other cities, however some areas are recognized as not being able to meet that level and are identified and excluded from the requirement. This level was considered a goal. Evelyn Hart felt the group's report opened up minds to some new ideas. Mr. Saunders shared that he had on three occasions spent time in the airport area during peak hours and found traffic levels acceptable with the exception of Campus and Bristol, which is impacted by the highway system. B. City Funding Priorities — Question 48 What should be the City's funding priorities? & Question 51 Should the City encourage growth of the local economy to help pay for municipal services and facilities? If so, how?) Roger Alford was the spokesperson for the group that met on June loth to discuss these questions. Mr. Alford reviewed his group's discussion, which focused on expense versus revenue. The priorities selected by the group were: maintenance of infrastructure, revitalization/parking, public safety, water quality and non -cash enhancement to encourage businesses. Revenue producing • priorities are necessary and education of the public is required so they understand the tradeoffs when making decisions for the future. Question 51 was not discussed in depth, however the group answered `eyes" to the question. Discussion: Nancy Gardner pointed out that although open space is not cost free, it. can enhance properly values and has environmental benefits. John Saunders clarified that the group was not against open space, just that the public needed to be educated about the costs involved and any tradeoffs associated with decisions they might make regarding open space. He also clarified that the group discussed the Dunes Hotel project, however was not in favor of the project, they discussed the fact that there would have been economic benefits to that project and that wasn't an issue considered by the public. Catherine O'Hara felt this topic needed much more discussion and felt the list was incomplete, for instance no discussion about cultural arts. Ms. Verheyen pointed out that the group was fairly consistent with what has been collected from the public, those topics were: infrastructure, revitalizing infrastructure, open space and parks, water quality, and public safety. Mike Ishikawa pointed out that we haven't discussed specific tradeoffs. Ms. Verheyen reminded everyone again that we are still in the visioning stage, so we need to keep discussions very broad based and discuss general directions not specifics yet. John Corrough pointed out there was discussion about earmarking revenues to offset specific costs, the focus seems to point to new acquisitions rather than how revenues are earmarked for • existing beaches, tidelands, etc. Phil Bettencourt also suggested that in order to 3 get constructive policy choices from the public, specific questions need to be • asked indicating costs or tradeoffs. In general the public wants open space, however when it has come to a vote, the bond issue failed. Tom Hyans was concerned about having these discussions included in a product from the committee without complete discussions. He felt there had not been discussions about the current cost of public safety and possible alternatives where we could get the same service at a lower cost. Ms. Verheyen explained that discussions will be included in the Strategic Directions document and brought back to GPAC for comments then to the Community Congress for more input and back to GPAC before the document is completed. Carol Boice was concerned about the group's statement regarding office buildings. Mr. Alford restated their opinion that office buildings in the airport area would enhance the caliber of local business and cause residential property values to at least be maintained or increase. Catherine O'Hara stated that the group she was part of did not come to the same conclusion and had come up with other ideas for that area. Jan Vandersloot had an objection to the group's answer to question 51, he questioned what type of growth. Mr. Saunders explained their opinion was `eyes" to good growth. IV. Small Group Discussions . Ms. Verheyen told the group that tonight's discussion topics were suggested by GPAC members and staff. When the small group discussions were finished, Mr. Shelton asked each group to present the "headlines" from their discussions and then at the September 2P meeting there will be time allotted for more discussion. A. Use of Tidelands — Question 34 What should be the future of the tidelands and other public lands? Tom Hyans was the spokes person for this group. The headlines from this group are: develop and provide public facilities to the extent that they can be supported with parking, etc.; more effective utilization of resources that produce revenue; insure generated revenues are used for the tidelands. Mr. Hyans referred to a staff report dated December 14, 1998 regarding Tidelands Administration Issues which listed all the tidelands revenue sources. B. Coastal Bluffs — Question 14 How far should we go to protect coastal bluffs? Nancy Gardner was the spokesperson from this group and provided the following notes. "The group determined that there are specific coastal bluff areas in the • city that are of geographic and cultural significance and should be protected. ki The primary areas are the bluffs of old Corona del Mar, Banning Ranch, Sunset • Ridge, and Castaways. There is less public investment but still importance in the coastal bluffs between Morning Canyon and Crystal Cove State Park and in the canyons of Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. Two of the primary areas, Banning Ranch and Sunset Ridge have no construction at this point. Should there be construction in these areas, which the group does not support, there must be major setbacks from the bluffs so that natural erosive processes can take place (and any construction must not add to natural erosive processes). In the areas where there has already been construction, care must be given when additional construction takes place to not allow additional encroachment or disarrangement of the bluffs and to protect view corridors. To the choice of "do nothing, private property rights should not be reduced," we felt the wording was unfortunate. By setting standards and adhering to them, the entire community benefits and property values are enhanced. We felt that a major problem in all areas including the bluffs is that there is not enough enforcement of codes. It is our suggestion that the various villages and communities in the City adopt "specific plans" that delineate the architectural character of their area and which would be used in conjunction with building codes, etc. to guide planning and design in each area in an effort to prevent the sacrifice of the community to the whims of the individual." C. Zoning Capacity Reduction — Question 19 What City area(s) should • reduce zoning capacity? Don Krotee was the spokesperson for this group. The group agreed that in the broadest and most general terms, the answer is yes to the issue of reducing zoning capacity in the City. n D. Revitalization Areas — Question 20 What City area(s) need revitalization? & Question 53 Should the City continue to financially assist revitalization of older commercial areas? Carl Ossipoff was the spokesperson for this group. Regarding Question 53, the group wanted to know what assistance the City currently provides --financial, resources, etc. Next they discussed encouragement of redevelopment vs. new build. They also recommended streamlining approval process for revitalization and assisting beautification for neighborhoods (i.e. undergrounding utilities). They also recommended changing the 15-year sign revitalization law, however Sharon Wood pointed out this was a State law. When discussing areas for revitalization, the group recommended the following areas: Old Newport Blvd., Balboa Village, Central Balboa Peninsula, West Newport, Banning Ranch, Hoag area commercial, Industrial area near Costa Mesa, Mariner's Mile, and the Airport area. The group was split on Marina Park-6 supported the hotel project, 1 preferred a park or hotel and 1 wanted to wait for more traffic information. 5 E. Bike Trails Plan Mike Johnson was the spokesperson for this group. The group had the following suggestions: exclude bikes from the boardwalk 36th Street to the end of the peninsula using a "black ball" type system; requiring bicyclists to walk their bikes in pedestrian congested areas similar to Huntington Beach; adding bicycle racks on the beach. They identified Mariner's Mile and Corona del Mar as problem areas for bicyclists and suggested removing parking along the south side of Coast Highway in Mariner's Mile and building a parking structure near Avon, along with building a boardwalk on the bayside for pedestrians. In the CdM area, they didn't know what the answer is; however, adding bike lanes might help similar to Irvine. V. Future Agenda Items After polling the group it was agreed future meetings would be scheduled 2-1/2 hours (7 to 9:30 p.m.) to allow for the volume of work still to be done by the committee. If the extra time is not needed we will adjourn early. A presentation regarding the Telephone Survey and further discussions on the small group topics will be scheduled for the September 23rd meeting and perhaps • the Local Coastal Plan and Housing Element. VI. Next Steps Sharon Wood pointed out that a new meeting schedule was distributed to all members. Next meeting September VII. Public Comments Chris Manka made a sta preserved as open space. 0