The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGPAC_2002_09_23G P/ NEWP(:?][ GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS is General Plan Advisory Committee MEETING #8 September 23, 2002 7:00-9:00 p.m. (Please be Prompt) 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— August 26, 2002 7.20 III. Presentation on Method for Telephone Survey • 7.40 IV. Report Out and Discussion from September 9 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 8:45 V. Future Agenda Items 8:50 VI. Next Steps 8:55 VII. Public Comments Please try to avoid use of cell phones during the meeting 40 Oasis Senior Center (5th and Marguerite in Corona del Mar) NEWP(MCH • 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 Evelyn Hart Phillip Bettencourt Ernest Hatchell Carol Boice Bob Hendrickson Karlene Bradley Tom Hyans John Corrough Mike Ishikawa Hoby Darling Mike Johnson Julie Delaney Todd Knipp Laura Dietz Donald Krotee Florence Felton Phillip Lugar Nancy Gardner Catherine O'Hara • Louise Greeley Carl Ossipoff Members Absent: 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 is Larry Root John Saunders Robert Shelton Alan Silcock Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo 1 F,,1-- I. Welcome and Introductions • Bob Shelton called the meeting to order. Carolyn Verheyen reminded everyone about the Community Congress scheduled for Saturday, November 16tn 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 June 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 areas. The group felt that although they had discussed these topics, they felt there had not been enough time for any conclusions. Ms. Verheyen agreed and reminded everyone that this Committee is not expected to resolve all issues, just to offer different points of view or alternative directions to consider. 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 10th 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 has office property in the airport area and told the • group one of the problems in that area is the high cost of land. He suggested the idea of building parking garages for auto dealers shared by multiple users; 7 DRAFT 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 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 "yes" to the question. Discussion: Nancy Gardner pointed out that although open space is not cost free, it can enhance property 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 K 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 "yes" 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 23rd 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. 51 DRAFT 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. 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 revitalization, 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 23`d meeting and perhaps • the Local Coastal Plan and Housing Element. VI. Next Steps 40 Sharon Wood pointed out that a new meeting schedule was distributed to all members. Next meeting September 23rd VII. Public Comments Chris Manka made a statement to the group asking to have Banning Ranch preserved as open space. 0 • 0 General Plan Advisory Committee September 9, 2002 - Group Discussions Use of Tidelands — Question 34 What should be the future of the tidelands and other public lands? John Corrough Larry Root Evelyn Hart Don Webb Tom Hyans Ron Yeo Coastal Bluffs — Question 14 How far should we go to protect coastal bluffs? Karlene Bradley Nancy Gardner Louise Greeley Mike Ishikawa Zoning Capacity Reduction — Question 19 What City area(s) should reduce zoning capacity? Florence Felton Bob Hendrickson Don Krotee Catherine O'Hara Jan Vandersloot Revitalization Areas — Question 20 What City area(s) need revitalization? & Question 53 Should the City continue to financially assist revitalization of older commercial areas? Roger Alford Carl Ossipoff Carol Boice John Saunders Julie Delaney Alan Silcock Ernest Hatchell Jenifer Wesoloski Bike Trails Plan Phil Bettencourt Mike Johnson Hoby Darling Jackie Sukiasian Laura Dietz Newport Beach City Council AGENDA ITEM 33 December 14, 1998 Council Meeting TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: TIM RILEY, FIRE AND MARINE CHIEF TONY MELUM, DEPUTY FIRE AND MARINE CHIEF DAVE KIFF, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: TIDELANDS ADMINISTRATION ISSUES RECOMMENDED ACTION: (1) Receive and file this report; and (2) Set January 25, 1999 as the date for a City Council Study Session on this matter. (3) Offer additional direction to staff as to information to be provided for the City Council prior to the February study session. SUMMARY: The State of California became the owner of tidelands on admission to the union in 1850. Tidelands are those lands that were or are below the line of mean high tide and they are subject to a public trust for navigation, commerce and fishing. Beginning in 1919, the State granted certain tidelands to the City (tideland grants). The tideland grants covered only tidelands within our corporate limits so City tidelands are, with few exceptions, limited to Lower Newport Bay. The tideland boundaries in Lower Newport Bay were, for the most part, established by judgments issued in a number of Superior Court lawsuits filed in the late 1920's and early 1930's. Tidelands may be used for any purposes consistent with the trust and, in cases such as Beacon Bay and the Balboa Bay Club property, may be used for residential purposes subject to certain conditions including a requirement that revenue be used for tideland purposes. The City has administered the tidelands through ordinances, leases and permits, including: • Tidelands Leases • Commercial Harbor Permits • Residential Pier Permits • OnshorelOffshore Mooring Permits Tidelands administration has been a priority of the City Council for many years. The City has, in response to increasing demands and pressures on the Upper Bay and Lower Bay, adopted ordinances and policies regulating charter boats, liveaboards, and marine sanitation. While this regulatory system has proven successful, the City is facing new environmental and regulatory challenges. In fact, several pending or proposed projects • Newport Beach City Council Agenda Item 33 Pane 2 • — from maintenance dredging to new regulations on pathogens in the Bay — may cause significant additional expense for the City. One issue to be resolved is the extent to which tidelands properties should fund costs incurred by the City in complying with new rules or implementing new programs. These and other questions caused the City Council to set a tidelands administration review as one of its goals for calendar year 1997. The City is not the only agency facing these questions. Several other jurisdictions in California also hold tidelands trust properties (like Long Beach and the County of Orange) and also face the challenge of deciding how to administer and fund new environmental programs. To assist the City Council with some of the issues facing the City's tidelands trust, this Agenda Item examines the manner in which the City and other agencies administer tidelands properties. It provides background on tidelands, filled tidelands, and adjacent nrnnortias atnnn with summaries of several of the current leases and permit systems r 1 U Agenda Item 33 Paae 3 Attachment A Tidelands Primer The City administers tidelands pursuant to grants from the State. Tidelands are subject to a "public trust" and must be used for trust purposes unless there Is legislation removing or modifying the limitations. The City has the power to regulate the use of tidelands through leases, permits, policies and ordinances that are consistent with the trust and/or relevant legislation. This "primer" on tidelands and related properties helps explain how the City and other entities manage the tidelands properties. The primer is presented in the following five sections: I — Trust Definitions //— Acceptable Uses of Trust Properties /if — City Administration of Trust Properties 1V — Tidelands Revenues and Expenses V — How Other Agencies Administer Tidelands and Marinas I — Trust Definitions TIDELANDS within the City of Newport Beach are the tide and submerged lands owned by the State of California and subject to a public trust. The tidelands consist primarily of the land bayward of the bulkhead and portions of bay beaches in the Lower Bay (coastward of the Upper Bay Bridge). Newport Beach tidelands also include large portions of our ocean beaches and land covered by the Pacific Ocean from the shoreline three miles out to sea. Some areas of tidelands have been filled in development. These FILLED TIDELANDS are also subject to the public trust and include the Balboa Bay Club parcel and Beacon Bay. In addition, land purchased with tidelands revenue becomes "trust property" as was the case with the "Westbay Park Site". Finally, the City is required to add some upland property to the tidelands trust to satisfy our obligations pursuant to SB 573. Another category of property associated with the water is known as UPLANDS. Uplands are city -owned parcels of land that abut tidelands or filled tidelands. Land designated as uplands includes a portion of Beacon Bay, the street ends on Lido Isle and other parcels. To some extent, City staff relies on a document known as the "Patterson Map," in deciding whether certain property is uplands or tidelands. R.L. Patterson, a former City Engineer, prepared the Patterson Map. The Patterson Map depicts tideland boundaries adjudicated by the Courts as well as the line of mean high tide as reflected in old surveys conducted prior to incorporation. The tidelands boundary has been established throughout most, but not all, of Newport Harbor. n LJ Agenda item 33 Page 4 • 1/—Acceptable Uses of Trust Properties As noted above, the City administers tidelands on behalf of the State of California. The State agency that administers tidelands is called the State Lands Commission. After January 4, 1999, the three -member Commission will consist of: --- Membership of the State Lands Commission --- • Lt. Governor Cruz M. Bustamante (D) • State Controller Kathleen Connell (D) • Governor Gray Davis' Director of Finance Pursuant to legislation known as the "Beacon Bay Bill", which was adopted in 1978, the Commission requires the City use granted tide and submerged lands for the following purposes: • Public Harbor —the City may establish, improve, and operate a public harbor on the tide and submerged lands; • Docks, Wharves, and More —the City may construct, maintain, and operate wharves, docks, piers, slips, quays, ways, and streets or other utilities necessary to promote commerce, fishing or navigation over the tide and submerged lands; • Beaches and Marinas — the City may establish, improve, and operate bathing beaches, public marinas, public aquatic playgrounds, and similar recreational facilities open to the public on the tidelands; and • Reserves and Open Space — the City may preserve, maintain, and enhance tidelands in • their natural state and to re-establish the natural state of developed tidelands so that they may be used for scientific study, open space, and wildlife habitat. The Beacon Bay Bill also required the City to set up "separate tidelands trust fund•or funds" and mandated that the City deposit all moneys received from the tidelands into the funds. The Commission oversees the City's administration of tidelands trust properties and the expenditure of the tidelands revenue. I// — City Administration of Tidelands Properties The State Legislature has adopted many statutes that relate to our administration of tidelands and, in some respects, the City is required to treats tidelands (and related revenue) differently than it treats other City income property. The City uses a system of leases and permits to manage tidelands and trust properties. The Commission is required to approve the form and content of all tideland leases. Recently, the Commission approved the new Balboa Bay Club lease and, before that, the residential leases for Beacon Bay parcels. The Commission generally requires the Trustee to negotiate leases on the basis of the current market value of the parcel. Failure of a trustee to receive consideration approximating the fair market value of leased tidelands could, under certain circumstances, be considered a violation of Section 6 of Article XVI of the State Constitution (the prohibition of gifts of public funds to private entities). Agenda Item 33 Page 5 The following is a summary of some of the State laws that may be applicable to our administration of tidelands and related provisions of the City Charter, Municipal Code, and Council Policies that govern the City's management of tidelands: State and City Regulations Regarding Tidelands Operations Chapter 74, City may lease tidelands for up to 50 years. Statutes of 1978 "...the city or its successors may grant franchises ... fora period not exceeding 50 years for wharves and other public uses and purposes and may lease the lands, or any part thereof, for terms not exceeding 50 years for purposes consistent with the trust .." City Charter §1402 City cannot sell waterfront property except to State or County. The City Council shall not sell or convey any waterfront or beach property, excepting to the State or County for use as a public beach or park.... the City shall have the authority to lease City -owned property, Including tide and submerged lands so long as the lease Is limited to the term permitted by state law." NBMC §17.22.020 Moorings require permits. "No person shall place, erect, construct, ormalntain moorings or buoys In the waters of Newport harbor over City -owned or controlled tidelands without first having obtained a permit therefor from the City Manager upon written application signed by the registered owner of the vessel to be moored, or by an agent so authorized in writing." NBMC §17.24.010 Any construction or maintenance of a structure in the Bay requires a Harbor Permit and and the payment of a fee to maintain the permit. Council Policy H-1 No person or agency shall build, maintain, extend or make structural alterations on any (Section 3A) building, pier, plfing, bulkhead, sea wall, reef, breakwater, or other structure In, upon or over the waters of Newport Harbor or the Pacific Ocean or any other water where the tide ebbs and Bows within the City, or do any filling, excavating or dredging in said waters or ocean, without first obtaining a written 'Harbor Permlt'to do so from the City. NBMC §17.33.030 All pier owners must pay an annual fee. Every owner of permit holder who maintains a pier, any part of which extends into the waters of Newport Harbor, including any plerlocated on private property, on a dedicated channel, or County tide and submerged lands, shall pay to the Cityan annual pier registration fee based upon a schedule established by resolution of the City Council." Council Policy The City must maximize the income potential of all City -held property. F-7 "In managing its property, the City will continually evaluate the potential of all City owned property to produce revenue. This may Include leasing unused land, renting vacant space, establishing concessions in recreation areas or other similar techniques." Council Policy H-1 The City cannot extend pier use fee to residential properties unless directed to do (Section Q so by the State. "The imposing of tidelands rental, of use, fees shall not be extended to include private residential pier and slips, constructed and used solely by the abutting uplands owner for recreational purposes, unless otherwise directed by State mandate. r1 L Agenda item 33 Pape 6 • in accordance with the above regulations, here is a summary of the City's lease, permit, and fee system: City's Methods of Administering Tidelands Tidelands The City currently leases tidelands and other properties to business entities Leases and Individuals on a case -by -case basis. Generally, the City will not enter into a tidelands lease with anyone but the upland property owner (see a summary of these leases in Attachment D). The leases have varied terms and rental payment requirements. The Fire and Marine Department (10 leases) and the City Manager's office (11 leases) co -administer tidelands leases. Commercial In 1979, the City began to issue permits to commercial entities that use Harbor Permits tidelands. The permit fee, renewed annually, is applied to any tidelands bayward of commercial properly that is not covered by a lease. The permit fee (established by appraisal in 1979 and 1989) is based upon the square footage of tidelands available to the upland owner times a cost per square foot per year (currently $.28 per square foot per year). There are 66 harbor permits with the commercial designation. The Fire and Marine Department administers all commercial harbor permits. Residential The City requires bayfront residential dock owners to pay a non-commercial Pier Fees pier fee annually on March 1. While Council Policy H-1 (Section 4J) precludes the City from charging tidelands rental or use fees, NBMC • §17.33,030 allows the City to charge an annual registration fee (currently $75 per year) for these permits. There are 1200 residential harbor permits. The Fire and Marine Department administers all residential harbor permits. Onshore/Offshore Prior to 1975, the City used mooring permits to cover the annual Mooring Permits administrative cost associated with monitoring the 1200 or so moorings in Harbor waterways. The mooring fee at that time was $1.20 per lineal foot per year. In 1975, a State Lands Commission audit determined that the City's rate was artificially low — as a result, the rate now $20/If per year (offshore moorings) and $10/If per year (onshore moorings). Both the Orange County Harbor Patrol and the NB Fire and Marine Department Administer mooring permits. There are 714 offshore mooring permits and 484 onshore mooring permits. IV — Tidelands Revenues and Expenses The Beacon Bay Bill requires the City to "establish a separate tidelands trust fund or funds in such a manner as may be approved by the State Lands Commission, and the city shall deposit in the fund or funds all money received directly from ... the granted tidelands in the city." According to the Bill, the City "may use revenues accruing from or out of the use of the granted tidelands ... for any or all of the purposes set forth in this act on public trust lands within the City of Newport Beach." The City has historically considered income from the following properties to be tidelands revenue: r Agenda Item 33 Page 7 A. Tidelands Revenues SOURCE OF INCOME EUDGETED REVENUES TIDELANDS LEASES • Bait Barge (Grayshocks') $ 2,700 • Balboa Bay Club 1,380,000 • Balboa Island Ferry (J.A. Beek) • 55,000 • Balboa Yacht Basin Apartments (3) 63,322 Garages (34) 40,800 Marina Slip Rental 1,095,000 Limited Term Rental of Slips 10,000 Restaurant (Galley Cafc) 28,000 Shipyard/Repair facilities (Basin Marine Shipyard)( 75,250 Yacht Sales (Heritage) 16,200 • Beacon Bay Residential Leases (CITY) 525,000 • City/County Dock (at Arches) 50.000 • Coin Telescopes (W.J. Carden) 2,000 • Pier Concession — Balboa (Ruby's) 70,000 • Pier Concession — Newport (Newport Seafood) $ 55,000 Subtotal (Leases) $ 3,468,272 PERMITS AND USE FEES: • Annual Permits for Live•Aboards $ 3,120 • Annual Fees for Piers, Marinas 446,745 • Annual Fees for Moorings 700,000 • One -Time Pier/Harbor Permits 40,000 • Fees for Parking at Balboa Pier Lot $ 1,225,000 Subtotal (Permits/Use Fees) $ 2,414,865 OTHER REVENUE • Payment from Orange County for Lifeguard Services $ 21,554 • Charges for Services 25,000 • Electricity 7,000 • Revenue Not Otherwise Classified 1,500 • Petroleum Sales 675,000 • Natural Gas Sales 70,000 • Interest Income $ 55,000 Subtotal (Other) $ 855,054 Total Tidelands Revenues $ 6.738,191 B. Tidelands Expenditures The City budgets its Tidelands expenses by considering the costs of various City operations that relate to tidelands. Typically, the costs associated with tidelands operations exceed the amount of revenue collected from tidelands. The costs include: • Fire and Marine. The Marine Division of the Fire and Marine Department is funded with tidelands revenues and general fund revenues. The Marine Division's operations include ocean and beach safety (lifeguards), harbor permit and tidelands administration, beach parking, and other regulation of marine uses. • General Services. The General Services Department cleans and maintains the beaches and beach restrooms and collects refuse from tidelands -related concessions. • Police. The Police Department estimates that 15% of its calls and enforcement activities are related to tide and submerged lands. . 0 Agenda Item 33 Paae 8 • • Public Works. The Public Works Department's engineering and transportation services division designs and manages the construction of improvements on tide and submerged lands. • Other City operations. A portion of the City's capital improvement, administrative services, city management, liability insurance and other functions also involve activities relating to tidelands administration. Quantifying appropriate tideland expenses is challenging and there is statute or court case that provides guidance. The Commission staff regularly reviews the City's tideland expenditures. During a recent local review of expenses, City staff identified more than $12 million in expenditures that could be considered appropriate tidelands expenses. V— How Other Agencies Administer Tidelands and Marinas The best resource for determining how Newport Beach's leasing and permitting operations compare with other agencies is a 1997 study of rates and practices at 120 commercial marina conducted by the State Lands Commission as directed by Senate Bill 326 (Leslie, 1996). This Commercial Marina Report, still in draft form, shows that the majority of agencies have their commercial marinas under lease (with Newport Beach being the only exception known at this time). Here are some other information items from the Report and other studies' cited in the Report: • • Average occupancy in a marina facility is 83% •Average revenue per slip is $3,124 (1996) 35% of all marinas have waiting lists • Average number of parties on waiting list = 79 ,Average slip turnover rate is 4 years • Public marinas "consistently" had the lowest average dock rates for all boat lengths, but also had the least amount of total amenities. • Average monthly dock rate per lineal foot for the Pacific Region was $6.5917f in 1996. The Report notes that the value of most leases is set by appraisal and that terms vary from 20 to 66 years. Rent is typically set at from 20 to 32 percent of gross receipts. However, these rental rates are generally for tidelands that abut upland property owned by the public entity. For example, the Balboa Bay Club lease requires thirty-one percent (31 %) of gross income from marina operations to be paid to the City. The following are examples of key provisions of other public entity tidelands leases: Leasing Rent Lease improvement Agency Calculation Term Owner at End City of Alameda Flat Rent 25 years Lessor Port of Los Angeles 25% of Gross Receipts 20 years Lessor Monterey County to 7% of Gross Receipts 20 years Lessee City of Oceanside 30% of Gross Receipts 25-30 years Lessor City of San Diego 20-25% of Gross Receipts 25-31 years Lessor San Francisco CRA 5% of Gross Receipts 66 years Lessor ' Most Infonnatlon from the International Marina Institute (IMI)1996 Financial Operations Benchmark Study Agenda Item 33 Paoe 9 Attachment B Pending Environmental Projects In the coming months and years, a number of significant Bay -related activities will impact the City and its residents. These include: ---- Bay Environmental Projects ---- Eelgrass Restoration Eelgrass (zostera marina) is a kelp -like plant that grows in salt water at depths Plan of between —1' and —0' below sea level. When it exists Ina waterway, biologists believe that it both indicates a healthy ecosystem and contributes to the diverse biology. For example, the small foraging fish that live in the eelgrass serve as a food source for the California Least Tern and the California Brown Pelican. The US Army Corps of Engineers has prepared an Eelgrass Restoration Plan for the Bay. The Plan (now in draft form) proposes to transplant "bundles" of eelgrass from existing sites to about 5 to 15 acres in the Harbor. USACE expects implementation of the Plan by June of 2000. Estimated one-time cost will be $902,000 if 15 acres are restored. Based on current cost sharing allocations for USACE projects (65% Federal - 35% Local), the City (and possibly the County) will be obligated to fund 35% of this project. One Time Costs = $315,000 (est) Ongoing Costs = $20,000 lost) Maintenance Dredging The current $7.2 million dredging project (the "Unit III Project") is a once -in -a - decade attempt to remove about 1 million cubic yards of sediment from the Upper Bay. The focus of the Unit III project is on the sediment built up near where Jamboree Road crosses the San Diego Creek and the lip of Upper Bay (the "Unit III Basin"). Earlier in the project, the dredging crew removed sediment from the channel leading up to the Basin. City, County and State officials agree that all entities involved in the Upper Newport Bay need to develop a more comprehensive and ongoing approach to what they call maintenance dredging of the Bay. Maintenance dredging would occur every year or every other year and help avoid the need for a muiti-million dollar 10- year dredging effort. Costs are uncertain pending the recommendations of the USACE studies. One Time Costs = to be determined Ongoing Costs = to be determined Army Corps Studies In the past, local, State, and Federal officials have argued for a comprehensive plan that would provide a blueprint for the long-term restoration and preservation of the Bay. Two studies (both coordinated by the US Army Corps of Engineers) are underway today that would contribute to that blueprint. The Upper Newport Bay Feasibility Study (now in _ phase) and the San Diego Creek Watershed Study (this Study's "Project Study Plan" Is now under review by the Corps) will both require significant City contributions of both staff time and resources. One Time Costs = to be determined Ongoing Costs = to be determined TMDLs The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Board") is In the process of adopting a series of measurements called "Total Maximum Daily Loads or "TMDLs" that would set limits on the amounts of nutrients (like nitrogen and phosphates), sediment, and pathogens (like fecal collform bacteria and other toxic materials) that can enter the Bay. The Regional Board has already set TMDLs for nutrients and sediment— It expects to set TMDLs for pathogens by late spring 1999. The pathogen TMDLs may dramatically change the way the City operates its storm drain system and other operations. Costs are uncertain pending finalization of TMDLs. One Time Costs = to be determined Ongoing Costs = to be determined 0 Agenda Item 33 Page 10 Toxic Hot Spots Established in 1989, the State's Bay Protection and Toxic Clean-up Program CBPTCP") directs regional water quality control boards to develop "Regional Hot Spot Toxic Clean -Up Plans." The Program defines toxic hot spots as areas where the sediment and/or the marine life contain high contamination of toxic substances like mercury, arsenic, copper, lead, zinc, PCPs, and other chemicals. In the Santa Ana Regional Board's draft Plan, the Board identified at least two areas of Lower Newport Bay —the Rhine Channel and a location near Channel Place Park near Newport Island — as "toxic hot spots." The Plan, as yet in draft form, suggests extensive (and expensive) remediation to the Rhine Channel given the Board's identification of the Rhine as the Board's "high" priority for repair. The Board estimates cleanup for the Rhine —where contractors dredge about 23,000 cubic yards of sediment and dispose of it "upland" —to be $10.5 million. The Board estimates that additional "site characterization" of the Rhine and producing the expected environmental documentation to complete the removal will cost $900,000 and $500,000 respectively, with only 1-10% of the cost recoverable from potential dischargers. One Time Cost = up to $10.5 million Replenishment Sand replenishment remains a costly activity for both the City and Its residents. of Sand The City spends approximately $35,000/year for beach replenishment on bay beaches and street ends, This goes to replace lost sand on beaches — particularly on Balboa Island —that typically see natural removal of sand. The City's source of renewable sand Is limited, so it replenishes areas with existing material found bayward of the public beaches. City staff believes that the City could more appropriately meet replenishment needs two to three times that current allocation. Ongoing Costs = $35,000$140,000 is Agenda Item 33 Page 99 Attachment C Issues for Council Consideration Goals of this Review . What does the Council want to achieve with its review of the City's Tidelands Administration? .,,More control over tidelands activities? ✓Equity between various uses— like moorings and residential piers? ✓Recovery of additional tidelands costs? .--More streamlined management of tidelands? Leases vs. Permits • Should the Cityjoin other cities and counties across the state In moving towards a system that emphasizes leases over permits? If so, at what date should this be accomplished? • Should there be a "boilerplate"lease that the City follows for each leased property, or should each be developed on a case -by -case basis? • Should the City's informal policy of not leasing tidelands to persons other than the uplands property owner be adopted formally as a Council policy? Monitoring and . What type of review should the City conduct to assure lease or permit inspections compliance — an annual Inspection? A semi-annual inspection? • Is the City properly organized to monitor its tidelands properties? Administrative and .In an attempt to complete the Patterson Map, should the City hire an expert in Legal Issues surveying (such as "Boundaries Unlimited") to research and opine on the boundaries of the City's tidelands and uplands properties? Budget Issues • How should the City determine what a tidelands -related expense might be? Should the City adopt a uniform policy describing the characteristics of such expenses? • Whether or not the City moves towards more leases, should the City begin recouping more of the environmental projects' costs from leases or permits? ✓ if so, how should the City recoup one-time versus ongoing maintenance expenses? .,'If not, what sources of revenues should the City use to pay for the environmental projects? 0 r ity i, 2 J a 5 q�mcHra,�.n •D Tidelands -Related Leases amity of Newport Beach _ •. = - , ' a faarneafasasa Lesee I Remms i ERocWa Ewes Tem 199T-0 Real Calabaon MAW. Insumrca I I Lanq Water t-gdaed, 1 a ndtaes.a!Uplasdsa' . AWd msp"Um. AJdnlenancO Lease End Imprw..I m on I Rem Adlustmam Regmemem Waf." EoOT I oOarRanewT Onnas Srad 'ne • , American 1.0 O Marine - Pnie!kamleyan Peatni . s'm an6weawvwapmr, . parve9 L=t aymal9w,wYea, �9ftOp5'. W, 25yrs'- - s1Gt giT'403\PevvLa -uua awaar•IW%d 0+'Lbpdamues•aaxa .' •,,gppwrsil+k 'N0. ":satl.Kaj(2.X WaleraM �� Av6ta rbsaW Lessee-• . rvd W ivrsm sefan4\'G4nc .. fwelalnle 5591CPo L - �:: oI( TJM1SYd GI (e�pdilf' . -22 -- - - Sakc(Gesa(D)rOpt _ _ .. . - 2 Baba ComWxn Yxla 9alu Comdxxn Yam Gub a9wa .a,16000aPa `Wm Wm 35ym $18W7 s9253verslwr'aue9x Arv4x•edm'a SLAW BVPO Wakr oM' T 5dant Lessee— C as Mb dyPrenW Cmss Pttegs o-x M rMA s 3 -9aoWFt'99sYJGub .Oalpoawrcy4ig.s d 2as"syea�Ww�maa'accr 911R5 14199 zlww ', $I - WA , •• �Ss�OKaS 51o9KPu, •WaMfAaQ : T � i.L<ssee � l.IelAm . .. .. . Lard: Balmy BaY CLA (LFA$E eeCPmpedy.blc Pmdes.bm,.mepwanevl fi(�iNt Syrs st 323A3B $1195,WI8ase PealeX W" S,Ow1BWO. WawaM T WA WA A.x otanoti) m�WeYwulywav Reppauem111wov MADIAua lava .5. 9aj• :(PROP05EosFJSE/" .. 89C M• ---_ Propmy.�sLLawmyos<mele• eaayppn aSO yearn '. `.AYM-'.- -:WA>_ 51.12f Alil lBssq Heald%�d•e/eals [Osn:SiosWBbPR•'Wdksaad':'.. i-.: Av,Serscaaileszee—ysep In �. y NnOn Fuf u,�wessCeiri)gn.ay OGtbn• Rei[baatlmalOaws w-mvsfssme. •: issa+Am9 Lit.¢ ::Ofc � 4.Oef lemovaMa • • LI :. .imalavamenls'. Frawrseaadaupasm9d 6 Baboa lsbnd Fed, Balboa lyara FBM.Inc any veMe(erryedwem P,en4 (6aSeaP..)WAWaAm ,111188 9AN10 b.yrs 5`A T02 ]%dGPUPttaPu xero a9Mxet SSWKPo Water T GN can WA LnSee IJtlun (Wmlmnal vlspm b9oilS T "eaWoaPamps4b Paim ± ' -WA 0den a Manly WA V -MA ' Le 4—• CI Mbum • _ _ B BaOaa RdCwwsan Rubyi ResWranls Balm Pr+ Y&B2 I"? AbnmaAknN S10.137 SINMvin •55%dGots U. $5]CM BYPO• •land•mPwr T S Bens LLaaee—• GIy qM3 MT removable tid Pamps F.nwanm mn0m� m ,Ovemenu 9 _ '1)aWae yamBash(eeM1 Saam9fasamala 19�Pa1 paOaa Ya Wso M3, .'Fuser msRfOnve $16t0T SIMOO - aim so FdAhaneAWSfai ld Plarlba4Felasm pd. WA., � WARSaPP Watef T �dycan, -fJIA: Louse Gei.m - ,inelulb. InspKIWMs. Mad lL aaba GaseY 10 10 BalboaYamoasa(Casi) Qeaieea1BwA vWU tOYrs •3SY¢ar IMIMS SS12 51P 5"a"e IIKPod La U Ciymn 6bd. Lessee keeps inin C_ ReSbuml prva Opd Oms sdes St",daebne1 WuwT irarro va NM1Elum in'govemenls nn1l9v9>nMKOL Lease 1edn Wnanw ear ., OOlakvd'Jile.ngAOss,dW-'imswre teaduae.paceal • ••• •• tl; 9i4wYam9esln ' 'b3dd$jYs ':.:: '. : HJumiweufi -• .. ... `. :. ... 'T Le$see=— 01 ' `tt (ot6oil is Renm9e.Yatti[emken - ;ab 1+5�6dsalma enw.. Aa196. lima MgLkasroeeo� -514= GameF.AW&tL4abe Y^^' SAMNBYPD' Lead::: : 50er0 Par +.axl apaelMdtrAemul n1950 Nn =KADe., sl CNtaResam Lessee—•,aed• 12 12 eaaaa Yam CW W,aa Yam CIAI. p»snd NbYlM,Oaf+ae 5120188 8 am) tl.yoars 2611 30.SSYpve Naafadyea, erryuvnyewa Le wpm atlr. rerWmn. CityM1Wum IM.e gOnsAMaC M. aWre,a 1 Ci L Tidelands -Related Leases (cont'd) My of Newport Beach OdamEer141995 1 t �r«Ine ' Ea61a: I f99]-9a � Inna,on 4w�ce I e.alta. waa reewu# I anL � Leau aw Y' NamedLeau Letaea I Prenises 7dm Renl Calalman Red I I %a1YYmem �Repdeemed' a"YLerW.n Up+aMs a: Inspeceas Alanrenance anpr9remw I SON 13 Bed ew 721ndw "Ussms ]3 Wkaya°R Wtm 611194 7m 50yeam SI.05f.311 25%dne Sven Pnee GI WA Land Bob WA WA %M � ti '.' - 9i4f:aNla Beath` •: • � i(Siry Enl9rylfses � - ' ' TmxuNasbvaearasaDim ... If1101Q1 fi(,1i(96 tAonbtpMWyl, $QT.125 - '• • ', • . - : � xme S1da{taYAay. 11MN8L4i0K land Cmkes95 ImiRSula: , ' . • ' can Lessee maNuuts •b1a1(I iA9aem, Gry a.ws. EuaRng,Wwres, :.Cpvassai Su198adt ,.13%NGrms?etiess: pTAawna pbd nsped Wilt '-npar.em Fgypm2nG NJI . ,• . •L9neeawna Lesuewas C9unry. C..my Taafy�sat PGXamx6w,fy1 soub Gdden HJS Pmpary' crymaGM scstrau (as 651WaaGRR9Ywny WateraM GXP Ian 15 GM1Ca'vdYo9ck llC GXP suWeasesb Ba2<raejd<a+]tl FiaawSe TI115B WSOUS 00 ym $6T W9 wrva Rmlmue maaza Ilya LaM T inipM Xa0n Saem A4Vum XaWd Manna LLC 4idu4n 1.11017 f.. Manna'# Woks . .. SaWainoes,?afeX.,sgQPrs. •' .. " " - Cwtd' "' - •.. - : . :f8 'CortTates96pn 'dbaMJdck'Cydep Tal &Ym1YsG+SimeYCdR 11Y4151 3Y.k Ycs kYeaf SJ,.693 ,'. 10xdG�msRroeab --. Nme aswaeceLc L9nQT - ' U.T ' ene lOCY �'edkCyeaM' . _ - 17 CxX tWd Gil Saau1G .foc ryOpOM a"°t pa tr_ww 1v11ar vlS 12•yrs $1 WA IVA 41Y Bl {and -- U WA ue ea:sdkaul Gry kff • - '• • •• •. - 1• fsfn'untlMN96i:teM A Ceumbnae✓dei :f6 Fa.eerWa!aAeanaests ivMaµaaiaessam tlAIYNaUsbn4M WA • wA MmRpmm� SaeaW awllepe�n � WA • � Nme tend, x.T _ � WA penzesnaaenana aamllry Gay' Alerm 19 IWCm9s10vge Tay Grry`.in[A CNmtl(nVave •V.M WA Y...,.. ITTm (aVmtMn Mue aase4 a' WA tWW 1 MW -T WA IYA (YA Ilaun GN sI'l1d9w .p tktpW4!Skoa Ends. - L'z WCa.p nttf_ mw. W,:adfrd ave.tasee ' Li4g0 TSY�S' Prepagb L'ak YsMn,Vaiixbaudm acanasmsz a..f2a&e5 f560K&ttf9, WaknaM U.i ` S8 EX '., Inamaa{miyl .- Silent . IAefaie-" - .�lteediaLaW avY10tb9ak .411a:5:' - .: Yeaf2dlG, ST,earyr - �ppr Mpasawaea asuuca i55KPo Wed 3anoddd'^ ,.i xdf maiYe'tai4gdM. , 21 W1 phf' 10 Flana SSwMmtlual lessees kanawzp esmapatpan SMS v151W 25yrs 5526,]tT MIn�a Mfvelamyev wU'a xx L" T•U WA Gry pa la gpvas WsH�p1iR I ff Pah awryy. ea macaes " "i2 !'-:-_ (kMP9!#PlafGa San f'. -' EAWP!!sas, _ .:^ .' y�.tMWNeNotRC- 2(IRT .. _. fl 2 1 's L3 - :;: GAtMR+-0G �� "� ]fW%BE �..4 `-T .Lesipe.,5rus#•_.:Ci'maw?ins-:Cayos rtn:... #4N+15ia9y'[hgCn Y & .51:60a'me.CMlaaii?eYy: "•a+kdfr9n9aes_ <W1'Iy4'Yaws: Allan #taYhadd' .::irtu�nfins :rendatle.. ' 10A,' "' � ' � ' ' � ##taspfasiL •; Iplases L p • y ertpf119. . anpmv. - ' �. 23 Vduraary Arran Center Vowl"Ae00n Ceaterd 2ma Yna6NWseYWea w+a Go"mrny5emcas0daffta v25R5 WA Year b Year $1 ltiueoenenlenabb pusmsdnweaN WA 5ippxB15501t ICIM U WA GmxMnil Gay 1 l Snub Orag9. ry ww Rvma vmnieam9wney. PP Servasay .FBgmaSect, exemssedLease opum Pm be pabmerae Issues Menutied i 0a Op6 • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, September 23, 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 • Larry Root John Saunders Brett Shaves Robert Shelton Ed Siebel Alan Silcock Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo • 11 GENERAL PLAN AD&ORY COMMITTEE Monday, September 23, 2002 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS ;Laic) ?.26.27 c3 9- 7 2_ 9 3 g 3 C-o y awtr ; We � cv, GENERAL PLAN AAORY COMMITTEE Monday, September 23, 2002 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS n u is City of Newport Beach General Plan Survey Project September 23, 2002 Godbe Research & Analysis Background Founded In 1990 Leader Local Government Research - City SaWacdan Surveys - General Plan Surveys - Revenue Surveys Specialize In Complicated Methodologies - Quantitative - Qualitative Firm Philosophyt 'Sweating the Details' Newport Beach General Plan Survey Project • Resident General Planning Telephone Survey • Business General Planning Telephone Survey • • Telephone Survey Methodology Advantages — Excellent sampling frames available — Rapid deployment/cost effective — Prevents interviewerbias — Controls position bias Disadvantages — Respondents must have a pbone Participation rates declining (voice maillanswering machines/cell phones) Resident Survey • Voter Sample/Random Digit Dial Hybrid — Voter N=800 — RDD N=200 — Adult population 81% voters • Purpose for Hybrid — Provides accurate geographic distribution & geographic units of analysis (voter) — Includes non-voter resident opinions (RDD) Voter Sample Stratification N=800 Geographic • Uppa Wat NcwpM&Heithu(n•171) • LawuHry Del MnA(...(n•ISe) • Caon•a) 1970, • Upper Brypaaimm(n•114) • N.Ay adumin`Sul(.72) (n.16U . Newlr,ww.eaaw(nn) Gender Age Household characteristics 2 • • RDD Weighting • N=200 • Compare to census data after interviewing • Weight with voter and census, data Business Sample Stratification • N=175 • Sample from City • Gross Revenue • Number of Employees • Industry Classification Project Schedule • Resident Survey — Data Collection— Sept 24 to Oct 8 — Data Processing — Oct 8 to Oct 11 • Business Survey — Data Collection— Sept 30 to Oct I — Data Processing — Oct 14 to Oct 17 • Analysis & Report — Oct 17 to Nov 7 3 • • NEWPCM GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, September 23, 2002, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Louise Greeley Dorothy Beek Evelyn Hart Phillip Bettencourt Ernest Hatchell Carol Boice Bob Hendrickson Karlene Bradley Tom Hyans John Corrough Mike Ishikawa Hoby Darling David Janes Julie Delaney Mike Johnson Laura Dietz Donald Krotee Florence Felton Phillip Lugar Nancy Gardner Brett Shaves Members Absent: Joseph Gleason Catherine O'Hara George Jeffries Carl Ossipoff Todd Knipp Jackie Sukiasian Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator Bryan Godbe, Godbe Research & Analysis Members of the Public Present: Allan Beek Karen Hanners MaryAnn Mercer Coralee Newman Bernie Svalstad Larry Root John Saunders Robert Shelton Ed Siebel Alan Silcock Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo 1 I. Welcome and Introductions • Bob Shelton called the meeting to order, thanked everyone for being prompt to the meeting and reminded everyone to avoid use of cell phones during the meeting. Alan Silcock provided flyers and invited everyone to a Candidate forum scheduled for Wednesday, September 25th at City Council Chambers with all 11 candidates for City Council. II. Approval of Minutes —September 91 2002 Julie Delaney pointed out a correction in the minutes —last sentence of page 5, delete the word "revitalization" and replace with "the hotel project". Minutes of the September 9, 2002 meeting were approved with this correction. III. Presentation on Method for Telephone Survey Sharon Wood introducted Bryan Godbe of Godbe Research and Analysis who will be conducting the telephone survey. Mr. Godbe explained there will be two parts to the survey —residents and businesses. He explained that the survey will be a combination of registered voters and random digit dial for non -voters. The • goal with this type survey is to get participation from all sections of the including those who don't normally including community, people participate renters and young people. In Newport Beach 81% of the adult population are voters. The random digit dial method will be used to survey non -voters only; calls made to registered voters will be terminated soon after determining their voter status. 1,000 residential surveys will be completed, 800 voters and 200 non -voters. The City is being sectioned into six areas for the purposes of the survey. In each area a certain number of surveys will be required. The map of these areas was passed around the room at the meeting (it is available for viewing at Sharon Wood's office for members not present at the meeting). The hours of the residential survey will vary by day, Saturday calls are made approximately 9:30 a.m. to mid afternoon, Sundays mid afternoon to evening, Monday through Thursday approximately 5:00 to 9 or 9:30 p.m., Friday calls are made, only if necessary, in the evenings —Friday is the hardest day to reach people at home. The business surveys will be conducted during business hours Monday through Friday, the businesses surveyed will be selected from Business License data. The project schedule is: Residential data collection — September 24 to October 8; residential data processing — October 8 to October 11; business data collection — September 30 to October 11; business data processing — October 14 to October 17; Analysis and report October 17 to November 7. The final report will include cross-references by geographic areas, gender, age and household characteristics; it will not include names of individuals surveyed. • Several questions were asked during the presentation. Mike Johnson asked what 2 the rejection rate is on telephone surveys; Mr. Godbe indicated that in order to get 800 completed surveys approximately 8,000 calls will be required. Jan • Vandersloot asked what would happen if voice mail or an answering machine picked up the call; Mr. Godbe indicated that four attempts will be made to connect with a live person, messages are not left on answering machines. David Janes asked about the structure of the questions; Sharon Wood explained the questions were developed from the topics suggested by both GPAC and GPUC members. Bob Shelton asked if the survey included "push questions"; Mr. Godbe explained that technique was primarily used in sales, however the survey does include some follow-up questions. IV. Report Out and Discussion from September 9 Small Group Discussions Carolyn Verheyen outlined the rules for the discussions: each topic will get 12 minutes, at the end of each discussion a vote will be taken to determine if the majority agree or disagree with the findings of the small groups. A. Use of Tidelands Tom Hyans was the spokesperson for this group at the last meeting. He • prepared and distributed a handout to Mr. Shelton and the members of his group. He read the bullet points to the full committee: • Tidelands should be developed to the extent possible to provide public facilities while preserving the maximum of natural assets and environmentally unique features. • There should be a more effective management of tidelands areas by the city so that utilization of those resources is balanced by user -supplied revenue and results in a self-sufficient, self -preserving resource. • There are special tidelands areas which must be preserved as open space, the upper bay (estuary), for example, or preserved as navigable waters (the lower bay), among others. • The rationale for increased revenues from tidelands or other public lands should include that revenues derived therefrom must first be returned to the specific tidelands resource with excess accruing to the General Fund and to the state tidelands agency, as appropriate. Evelyn Hart said their group had asked for information regarding current revenue and expenditures and would still like to get that information. She said an important part of the group's recommendations was there should be more accountability for tidelands funds. Mr. Hyans said he reviewed the 1996 and 2000 budgets and found that the Fire/Marine and General Services Departments • had charged the tidelands fund the exact dollar amount for both years. Nancy 3 Gardner asked for tidelands to be defined. Don Webb advised that his definition • of tidelands are those lands that fall below the elevation of the Mean High Tide line and were covered by the ebb and flow of the tides. Bob Hendrickson asked what the benefit to the City is if the land is owned by the State. Ms. Wood advised the group the most critical sites for General Plan land uses purposes are Marinapark and the Dunes. She stated if the City holds the land in trust, we receive rent payments and get tax benefits if the area is developed. The County is the leaseholder of the Dunes so they get the rent payments, however the City receives tax revenues generated there. Ms. Verheyen asked for a vote and a majority raised their hands in support of the group's findings. Mike Johnson wanted to make sure that what the group was agreeing with included Ms. Hart's comments regarding accountability in these areas. Roger Alford expressed that he did not think the Committee had enough information at this time to vote on the issue. Nancy Gardner disagreed with the first bullet point regarding development of the tidelands. Jan Vandersloot agreed with Ms. Gardner regarding the development phrase, tidelands should be preserved. Phil Bettencourt felt the materials should have been distributed ahead of time to the full committee. John Corrough pointed out that the Harbor Element of the General Plan covers tidelands and a lot of work had gone into that document. All GPAC members received a copy of this document and should review it for future discussions. Ms. Verheyen suggested we forward this topic for future research and discussions since the group was unable to come to an agreement. • B. Coastal Bluffs Nancy Gardner was the spokesperson for this group, their basic message was coastal bluffs should be protected. Laura Dietz suggested that we may be limited in how far we can go to protect these areas. Louise Greeley realized after the last meeting that a couple areas were missing from their list, CalTrans East (Hoag Lower Campus) and Sunset View. Phil. Bettencourt has some experience with Banning Ranch and says there are no areas there that qualify as coastal bluffs. Jan Vandersloot disagreed and feels the Coastal Act defines coastal bluffs. Don Webb asked if a slope has been graded is it considered a bluff? Mike Johnson is concerned about the fact that many of these areas are seismically unstable and we have not addressed that issue and if there were to be any development it would have a large impact. Karlene Bradley moved for the group to vote on the first statement from this group, "The group determined that there are specific coastal bluff areas in the city that are of geographic and cultural significance and should be protected." On that motion, the group unanimously agreed. C. Zoning Capacity Reduction Don Krotee was the spokesperson for that group. He stated he had purposely • made very general comments at the last meeting, just responding "yes" to the 51. question. He said the group felt this issue was very community sensitive and the • quality of each project had to be reviewed. Bob Hendrickson agreed with the qualitative issue, he said the group discussed the airport area and that area could be either downsized or upsized based on the project and that can't be determined in the visionary process. Jan Vandersloot asked for a definition of zoning capacity reduction, does it pertain to land use density, mansionization, etc.? Mr. Krotee said they looked at the general idea and felt zoning should be more community oriented and consider neighborhoods. Ms. Verheyen asked for a show of hands for support of the group's findings, a majority raised their hands, 2 opposed, 3 asked to have the topic postponed. D. Revitalization Areas Ms. Verheyen announced that Carl Ossipoff was spokesperson for this group; however he was not able to attend this meeting. Evelyn Hart asked why Marina Park was separated out and if it referred only to the mobile home park, because the City does not have enough public parks and could not understand why the group would want to give up the park and tennis courts. John Saunders said the group discussed the area as a good site for a hotel as a revenue source. Ms. Wood said the list of areas came from the public at the Visioning Festival. Julie Delaney and Jennifer Wesoloski specifically asked the group about the hotel project because they live near the site. John Corrough asked for the definition of • revitalization, is it beautification, design program, comprehensive plan including parking? Nancy Gardner asked what revitalization would mean for Banning Ranch. Louise Greeley said her idea of revitalization would be to plant trees. Mr. Saunders said they discussed many things including changing commercial areas to residential or mixed use, encouraging new buildings, adding parks, etc. He also suggested hiring an ombudsman to assist with disputes and trying to ease some of the building rules. Carol Boice felt if we voted on this issue we would be ignoring the vision festival and strategic directions information. The group felt more discussion was needed on this topic before moving forward. E. Bike Trails Mike Johnson was the spokesperson for the group. He stated their group agreed the problem areas for bikes are Mariner's Mile and Corona del Mar. They would like to find ways to get people out of cars and onto bicycles. Julie Delaney asked if bikes included rollerbladers? Also, if it was possible to widen the boardwalk and recommended installing restroom facilities at the end of the peninsula. Ms. Wood advised that would require a permit from the Coastal Commission and was unsure if they would allow widening of the path. She also advised that, in LA County beach cities separated trails do not solve the problems. Jennifer Wesoloski suggested signs and education similar to Austin Texas where signs are posted throughout the city stating "Share our Roads". Ms. Verheyen asked for a vote and some hands were raised. A majority supported improving bike and pedestrian facilities throughout the City. V. Future Agenda Items Ms. Wood advised that at our next meeting on October 7tn, Doug Svensson would be back with more information on the Economic and Fiscal Impact Report. VI. Next Steps Ms. Verheyen reminded everyone to mark your calendars for November 16tn for the Visioning Summit — new name for Community Congress. There will be two sessions: 10:00 a.m. to noon and 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. A signup sheet will be available at the next meeting to make sure GPAC members are in attendance at both sessions. Next meeting October 7tn VII. Public Comments MaryAnn Mercer asked the group to leave Banning Ranch as is, she stated that development would not be appropriate for the area. 0