HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2002_10_07INII Ibllll IIIII IIIIII IRI9IIIII*NEW FILE*
G PAC_2002_10_07
NEWPCMCH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
VISIONING PROCESS
October 7, 2002
7:00-9:00 p.m.
General Plan Advisory Committee
MEETING #9
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— September 23, 2002
7:20 III. Presentation & Discussion of the Draft Housing Element
• A. Presentation and Q & A
B. Discussion of Affordable Housing (Q.9/24)
7:50 IV. Group Discussion
A. Emerging Strategic Directions (see summary matrix)
B. Use of Tidelands and Other Areas (Q.34) Continued
C. Revitalization Areas (Q.20, 53) Continued
•
8:45 V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
8:50 VI. Next Steps
A. Community Visioning Summit
B. Next GPAC Meeting at the Central Library, Oct. 21
8:55 VII. Public Comments
Oasis Senior Center
(5`h and Marguerite in Corona del Mar)
NEW
PP
GENERAL
(^
VISIONING PROCESS ` ' H
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
Larry Root
Dorothy Beek
Evelyn Hart
John Saunders
Phillip Bettencourt
Ernest Hatchell
Robert Shelton
Carol Boice
Bob Hendrickson
Ed Siebel
Karlene Bradley
Tom Hyans
Alan Silcock
John Corrough
Mike Ishikawa
Jan Vandersloot
Hoby Darling
David Janes
Don Webb
Julie Delaney
Mike Johnson
Jennifer Wesoloski
Laura Dietz
Donald Krotee
Ron Yeo
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
E
• 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 9, 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
community, including those people who don't normally participate including
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
rJ
• 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 mush 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 budgets. Nancy
3
DRAFT
• 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. He said the group felt this
11
. 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 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 was 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
5
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 7th, 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 16th 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 7th
• 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.
a
Thomas E. Hyans
217 Nineteenth Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663-4507
• Tel: (949) 673-0333
Fax: (949) 673-0377
September 23, 2002
GPAC Table -discussion Notes from September 9, 2002
Question #34; What should be the future of the tidelands and other public lands? [E.g.,
the Dunes, Newport (sic) Village (s/b Lido Marina at Lido Marina Village), and Marina
Park]?
Present at the discussion table: John Corrough, Larry Root, Ron Yeo, Evelyn Hart, Don
Webb, Tom Hyans (scribe).
Reference: Tom Hyans introduced a Staff Report from the City Council meeting of
December 14, 1998, as a source of information and background. The subject report is
Agenda Item #34, "Tidelands Administration Issues", from T.Riley, et al, and is attached
hereto. The report contains source of income detail and is explicit to the dollar on
revenues totaling $6,738,191 (1998), but becomes disappointingly qualitative on
• expenditures after noting that the costs associated with tidelands operations exceed the
amount of revenue collected. In the minutes of the March 8, 1999 Council Study Session,
reference is made to a report of expenditures of $12,000,000. Additional detail is
provided in annual budget documents, such as the 1996 and 2000 estimates here attached.
Further: It should be noted that on January 8, 2002, the City of Newport Beach
established a Harbor Commission to serve as an advisory body representing diverse
issues relating to Newport Harbor and its waterfront, including tidelands matters.
Discussion among those present:
■ 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 Fun an to the state tidelands agency,
as appropriate.
• Respectfully submitted
a li'
• ���, �/t-fog �,
TIDE & SUBMERGED LAND FUND
Estimated Funds Available
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance
Estimated Revenue for 2000-2001 - All Sources
Total Funds Available
Estimated Chargeable Expenditures
Fire & Marine
General Services
• Police
Public Works
Administrative Services
Capital Projects
Debt Services Expenditures
Total of All Proposed Expenditures
Estimated Ending Fund Balance
$0
$6,000,532
$6,024,623
1,351,363
3,798,893
375,994
46,114
1,077,000
236,372
$6,000,532
$12,910,359
($619091827)
IN
9
l ale /lqq 7
0P4-e klion
•
C1
TIDE & SUBMERGED LAND FUND
Estimated Funds Available
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance $67,451
Estimated Revenue for 1996-97 - All Sources $5,717,349
Total Funds Available $5,774,800
Estimated Chargeable Expenditures
Fire & Marine
$6,024,623
General Services
1,351,363
Police
3,798, 893 .
Public Works
375,994
Administrative Services
46,114
Capital Projects
541,400
Debt Services Expenditures
236,380
Total of All Proposed Expenditures $12,374,767
Estimated Ending Fund Balance ($61599,967)
3
•
Newport, -Beach City Council
AGENDA ITEM 33
December 14, 1998 Council Meeting
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL �t7
FROM: TIM RILEY, FIRE AND MARINE CHIEF Of2--
TONY MELUM, DEPUTY FIRE AND MARINE CHIEF
DAME 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
• Onshore/Offshore Mooring Permits
Tidelands administration has been a priority of the City Coi,incil.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
S
Agenda Item 33
Page 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
properties along with summaries of several of the current leases and permit systems
operated by the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
A —Tidelands Primer
B — Pending Environmental Projects
C — Issues for Council Consideration
D — Summary of Existing Tidelands Leases
•
0
Agenda Item 33
Page 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
/I — Acceptable Uses of Trust Properties
Ill — City Administration of Trust Properties
IV — 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.
0
Agenda Item 33
Paae 4
• 11— 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.
111— 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).
•
N
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 orits successors maygrant 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 orpark.... the City shall have the authority to
lease City -owned property, including fide 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, or maintain 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, piling, bulkhead, sea wall, reef, breakwater, or other structure in, upon or
over the waters of Newport Harbor or the Pactfic Ocean or any other water where the tide
• ebbs and flows within the City, or do any rifling, excavating or dredging in said waters or
ocean, without first obtaining a written 'Harbor Permit'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 pier located on private property, on a dedicated
channel, or County tide and submerged lands, shall pay to the City an 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 Cityheld 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 4J)
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.
•
t-)
Agenda Item 33
Page 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
summay 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 (I I 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 property 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:
•
ro
Agenda Item 33
Page 7
• A. Tidelands Revenues
SOURCE OF INCOME
TIDELANDS LEASES
• Bait Barge (Grayshocks')
• Balboa Bay Club
• Balboa Island Ferry (J.A. Beek)
• Balboa Yacht Basin
G�c.l'c.1.u5�
0
,oAf-ai
Wt le
r
$ 2,700
1,380,000
• 55,000
Apartments (3)
63,322
Garages (34)
40,800
Marina Slip Rental
1,095,000r--
Limited Term Rental of Slips
10,000
Restaurant (Galley Cafd)
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 (lp
$— 3,468,272
1^ r -Vz N (i tom) (o0L1, Gt�
PERMITS AND USE FEES:
• Annual Permits for Live-Aboards
• Annual Fees for Piers, Marinas
• Annual Fees for Moorings
• One -Time Pier/Harbor Permits
• Fees for Parking at Balboa Pier Lot
Subtotal (Permits/Use Fees)
OTHER REVENUE
• Payment from Orange County for Lifeguard Services
• Charges for Services
• Electricity
• Revenue Not Otherwise Classified
• Petroleum Sales
• Natural Gas Sales
• Interest Income
Subtotal (Other)
Total Tidelands Revenues
$ 3120
446:745
700,000 /
40,000
$ 1,225,000
$ 2,414,865
$ 21,554
25,000
7,000
1,500
675,000__
70,000
$ 55,000
$ 855,054
$ 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:
l • Fire and Marine. The Marine Division of the Fire and Marine Departmentls 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. .
11
Agenda Item 33
Pape 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 $6.5911f 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 OwneratEnd
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 Information from lho international Marina Instltuto (IMI)1096 Financial operations Benchmark Study.
19.
Agenda Item 33
Pape 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 —8' below sea level. When it exists in a 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 (est)
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 tip of Upper Bay
(the "Unit III Basin"). Earlier in the project, the dredging crew removed
issediment 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 multi -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 coliform
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
Agenda Item 33
Page 10
• Toxic Hot Spots Established in 1989, the State's Bay Protection and Toxic Clean-up Program
("BPTCP") 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
U
I�
Agenda Item 33
Page 11
•
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 City join other cities and counties across the state in moving
towards a system that emphasizes leases overpermits? 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 aN.empt 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?
•
16
E
•
I welands
5 - =r :`
--
F
NamedLeaze
I Lessee
I Premses
Ef/tt4ve
Expires
Tertn
tRenl3
LaH, Water
rdala s
AeSk
Lease End
m
RalCaladalgn
ACuslmenl
Re0ltlremenf
I
UPI
Afamlenar¢e
Im d
WIMw
liath>orldb;
S fl
;t Amemers4ege0 Manna
Alter2aRLe9�011,Posl201
149aK�RxBry[.rt9Ny
saragxc5 oyr a1s4agcae.;
ypprTS
'- ...
wfsw
-
-Zips
t,J_yT
Sa Fp2ytdrg,taxd
'e za
N.
SNaKetMy
vawae�.
T -
Fared
lessee-9ipl
-
- -
Y4pma,ba,te?aaGi5tsUsa
-
•
MKSIfH
.tzeKPO
Ld'd - .
-0K
stadaNatrepa7T
"
SJide�ksecay
-
.
2 Balva Gwinuvan Yadlt
quh
Bahia Comlbian Yasblqub
aawataP+altWa Bays'de0tre
SR/68
wm
36 us
516,56)
32a.>+`SbGd Yeah Nnax Amal•miq'd
d���sft Vas
SwNewo
WaIUOKY
T
Sdent
Lssire-
Gry
S Bahm&vEtgoub
13.t—A4.qMb
MASVeei.rsiawsaaMya
'6N1t6
tk{Ud0-
' zf+ps ..
51
-
wA
SSGbK6f
Wareiaod
_ = Y.
.. " ..
.. •
.
-
-
L
BaIbJ3 Bay quh (I.EA$E
< OPTION)
BBCPsopeM1y. blc
P�gKKxLvvLarWi�pvmvstx
WN1F5r+ay
6?596
6Y1GU1
sYm
S1A23,626
51125NN(Psse PVYla%
WA
510Ni]3 O-
Walaca
a—Wo1
PN6as[dmfl bads
SSNNkee
IaM
T
WA
WA
Ki6
$ ftBG'+O$@CEASE J
BBGPlopetN.lae
� �s'K`O'�='k
LBJR.+fj
ea0enJlpn
s$6ya15
50g1s
W5_
St IIFM4(0amRee)ax
S+ey®rsLazM
SSNaU&tPD..
LYaYesaa3
*"
Awlw,2a'
Lb to
GRspovabl -
dOp4pf
vee, etl Axiattss
ma vaax.
SSW1Mda :.:
Late,
-0K
yoodoldeo
k2E
"" -
-
4ieroeelblq
ts
Fm Teebo'aakPmaga
•
- ...
."
.. .
6 Balboa 1s Fear,
Bamaa lslad F,. llw
°'tvawfel°pEet,tt^WL"5t
16s9ca Pu )anlAialeAw
t1/tA16
9)3M13
2a, Yss
SSJ.702
3xtl6rmeReagn
Nme
Water
T
WA
SSCOKPo
PQate�an
Lessee
Md.
i earopa Pyv'pgJI9.Pplll
Balbod3'ednsuSPoxi
2ua-ilot'G�A' dpNd
W2FOR
IVA
s0
WA -
` fie_.
.:.'
SmaK6aPQ`
WNtta¢I
..
WA
i;a5aev'gtptl
-
-
-31AhIIit6AWnUi
IHnU
-
,ypn.
Gttj
- Mefmk
6 wba Pw GMEeayM
qy b/s Restawanls
BaOaa Ra
3'6l02
31M3T
Monik foMmN
$T0.13)
S1KMvnq.53xa Gmis
SaW
VaNtu Po.
Rand'an Pia
Le _.Bye
oty. oa_
6empla
Frc WuaMe
T
6dent
eeegade
I66
n-,aI0P9YMhLBa4rsI8eNl)
S2If1pF26fp aGeh
Lsmale�aatzxtsasrt Gas,
%L<)saK`9M4 ✓e
'itim
Sls9M0
--- � -
y%
-
Eesseeekaswsseatcs�..._-
xM
WA
mwAppp"-:_
wife,
_
�^
improvements
".
.
-
lnzpx50RpkF
WA�
%aa¢C
M1fdJltt
10 Baboa Yada Basm Oafa
( )
EAvaNHFladstlba Ganry
R
�tls Y°•�tl5a'S°
snap ta39Hanv
2/6I66
1=,=
10 Yssa35yea r
SZSS12
517,1 y .Syear
afjus:mcl(Oase1.5%d
b>�Xaba��
SSooKBt
G N
exle^or. Lessee
keeps Mletiorul
G av .
mmorade
ure l
PFe
WLaos
g eake
s
450KP-
SINNanianed
laM
U
Lupeet m
'.rapdr.a
Mtivm
bdxa
ax
�ls
fed
mmmencenlenr
[C 8a5oaYedp$asi6{aCceJ
OoaldaMAWme Ross,dba
Manuge�'aaa0mkers
Tasauareleeldake t
- 9MNaHn#'me 0n�G a
;.
ZN1B6
"":a
'Tr5?58rend+
q&aa5Y2
Sta,650
CWmiFsfa6etVaLe
e�
"SiNkBVPD
'[
lessee. 0aad
yargpag
-'. t9ad
SaeaL
1�d
GN
A+elvm
12 Safooa YadltMb
Balboa Yaditoub,lx
4p215ryareledIXlvd.vmp
pemm dCW at1a16aYnae
Y10/tl6
B2&99
tt,yars
Z611
aSYspaebdbad
b19»Nm •••••
awyaeeeY
"-"-
S KM
-GNaaessb
Lessee-'gootl
One
Year
lwu. -WVDL
LWM
LaM
U
erepaf
pteMseS.
aEer.cw Goon.
aaJrepa,r
GN
MO.
t5
I�
s
i iaeiands�Related
Lease's,
-_
=
(cont'd)=
-
City of Newport Beach
_-
' - "-_
•_ :'v _
p
Namo al4au
Lexspe
Prtvrvses
PAtt4ve
l E>➢.'res I
Term
199748
In%aWn
fnsmanm
Land, W.I-JTe
ands
Avdf.
L.FAd
Real
Rrnf WlCWaaon
At(jus4npnl
Regvhemenl
arMLaM.a
Upends or
Inspeclam
Afanienance
I mpsucmenf
I
WalelY
BaIM11
oberRestex?
Owners
Sla% '
13 Beaton Bay 72 lad- i..l L....
>2dACn9se%UHvpa Wyd wim
](t " 5DYears
• ...- ..-
... �'^e
51,0.51.311
25XIXnw -'—PM1x
GPI
WA lanV BON WA
•.
MA
910 O-ON bebh. - '
f4 K(trrcxfAleN'Iu5
G)+Itt511db
TraCtjACsa+t+sateisatPW
3clestmGi - iJnS'91
lwt95 S.tsnCIbE1451 Ss>. i5
-
65otC2W'M1Y' RyISatCs
IM'oSla�a.
Ee?see MdI1WFls
Cui�Fng li%MIeS,
..
,ISXMG'asPwey
1+ou
slhwaLi K Cana 'Ci1YUt1
R!Arkk iM1B'Kd
_
�a/1Pa lnSpCCtIAEFS
MQ?Jr:Lll�
'(,OSSeQMTS
aNerWnd
mainralnsedCeia
_
MnWlbgblpdHnt
is
G /Goan Oork
h b
soldb GobenMPmpeRy.
LLG GHP suWeasesb
Twlsvadta1P "Nevgat
11ptmst°t°uee°^a
7/1/50
6 10
wyts
50],589
Gyam GHPsps t(]S
65IWdbGHPgHarper
Wate,.
GHP pa
--
Hatba Mama LLC
LiWde
sHM1'v PW bvmmvm
Nane
T
b,,ad Hader
Sdmt
Atel.
...
..
t Vt Nt)fatlax
MaNw's beak
IB
Cobtiak${dFpS
6icaddacY.pbep'
s-yMeiegcs aalNc+palRr.
2aI ILt0oaRer, aen axalrgµ
it 01
WA
Yea<taYa#
'
RBersm•C',
� 01
'
^'l¢t5re 111a5t
' n n
'
mAmnaw
naaa
apwatGmssneo
t}am
4smmnkr
LanC(
u T
Sden4
59ent
M1+dam
Lesso#W}
tiYdfeO'YWII�
n
t>
GO Scput HW
_
Gulsmul Oouml olOC
NwMyaM Buaftgal t) WN
•••••
t2/12)
i'<oaetlF'
--
_
53I219 ftL
BaNea
3I15W
1
12.yrs
51
WA
WA
SIMN eI
Land
u
WA
seeeadierfeam]
Gly
Wff
_J0
='
HmgnIYiMMsn'renta
9ACMydtm:bm
8#I#atbaklayg -
N!A
WA
fWmLAelp4f'LLssefm
..
--
[e Sxmimh'�n
-'
--
dta•E@esva.
Wh
tL+le
i6ntl
tVk
Pa+se k&.am
fay
Meta
t9
Ilypy9yl livpa
Tay CxaySMk
C1umtlFneava
L192
WA
Tearte
u)Po
FW^ii'Yat Le>uma+
..
iW:eseaT
WA
IIaCEryl miW
Yhta
T
WA
WA
WA
Lltlaa.-
k3dp S Nimbi :ads,
i+do
MA+w,swltCpdwllv,6eaCks
P(epaid l6
.
a
tqA P�er
sNtWp '
-
'S2Cok01
u
E855 Owlhlalh%
Maaad
gd546IAU11l(y'
ASed6a/wr1
aavndLdaue
-0/1CJi5
biapp
25yrs
YadYZGBD.
FCkWWuVmuebasedex
H0P`Retwla
Fopasddaaeln
S
}
sllonl
gbwdaeod
ma�6doffi �'t ,'
S%90LVtt
apPasN
',
aveam'
staKpua
65hKPD
l3pb
po
Lei
stdMafdN
SIICAf
Kdf
au9tadiedand
-
yex�''"
21
MadeuNtk Mobie lbme
Petit
SBbdrcdual lessees
I+SMewl spaCetmaPylyaP
313r75
Y15g9
>s Yrs
5520,]t]
-�
Rtlnle FaUlmmd�xN
,
CPIURv'a
Gy Ww
Lessees am
e"a'Yxar
Nme
LaM
T.0
WA
pou naltls
matllea
KJI
s22
-
Ne..pedPlCr G>nxts'M
LBsueisHEGsooms
SVdesset?tGbGI SooSoo Party,
Bwne+l{eMaNerymNa
7111S]
siWag
JSYays1M1
SSIm
51uba.Tu�CPtfoauaexle.
GPfWiwAG
55bK01,
-
�"baNtdlbi
-
Clryp(msnod<
_.
---
Searo;toons.
stidGmusm-
�aylasx+s
Mai"'
War
T
w11iTa1dkH
SiaNmMtnt
-Aa i95see
tntra�as
tPmpYable
KdL
23
VolanM Atlwn Gbbr
IY
VdunMryApwn Gnlaof
20oiOia. Wwsesl '.
-
-
�
..
lesrtea Nlen'Na'Nib
-
.'
ples�teN'
p'tlaSCa
l(aQrNCplbal9
SouNgargeCwnly
Caannw3e DValt>IO
wws
WA
Y.ta V¢az
51
Isvema Werc5lmN
WA
52NK eDL S`AK
lab
..- ..
..
.cnmleab9woaY
U
WA
seMtes
same.
G b
Hunt
•Requires BBCsme seetLeau Optionplus
Gbpeda .issues Idmb0edin
Peoption
I
Big homes, small lots
• STORY BY SUSAN GILL VARDON AND ERIKA I. RITCHIE
PHOTOGRAPHY BY YGNACIO NANETTI
COASTAL CITIES TRY TO RETAIN BEACH TOWN CHARM WHILE
RISING LAND VALUES FEED A DESIRE FOR LARGER HOMES
For Joy Dickerson, the look of this
seaside community started to
change after she and many of her
neighbors lost their homes in the city's dev-
astating 1993 fire. Dickerson rebuilt her
one-story Skyline Drive house pretty much
square feet in one case — that dwarfed her
modest 2,000-square-foot home.
"When people came in and increased
their homes 50 percent or more, the whole
small-town atmosphere changed," said
Dickerson, a 35-year Laguna Beach resident
"MOST OF THOSE BEACH HOMES WERE DESIGNED AS SECOND HOMES,"
SAID NEWPORT BEACH MAYOR TOD RIDGEWAY. "NOW EVERYBODY WANTS
MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT HOMES."
way it was before the fire. But some
ghbors constructed new dream homes
from the ashes. They were big, two-story
houses — 5,000 square feet, even 18,000
and former president of the city's
Beautification Committee. "Putting those
houses on small lots was overwhelming."
Officials from San Clemente to Seal
Beach have attempted to tackle mansioniza-
tion — the practice of placing large houses on
lots that previously held smaller homes. Size
isn't the only issue. Officials say sleek design
and modern colors can also render a house
incompatible with the neighborhood.
In August, the Laguna Beach Planning
Commission recommended that the City
Council enact mansionization restrictions
including a 36-foot height ceiling for new
homes and limitations on bluff -top construc-
tion and where balconies can be placed.
This is, after all, a place where change is
suspect. It's a city known for tough building
codes, a subjective approval process for
residential and commercial development,
and officials who are adamant about retain -
52 ORANGE COUNTY HOME COVER STORY
n SMPI. ER LIFE was the overall motivation for Brian and Michelle Bencz, shown with their 15-month-old son, Caden, in building a r ndeo, bungalow -style home.
Bungalows are back
Michelle and Brian Bencz's home is featured in the newly released "Updating Classic
America: Bungalows," by M. Caren Connolly and Louis Wasserman (Taunton Press; $29.95).
The authors claim that the humble bungalow is making a comeback. With people seeking
homes with character, detail and comfort, the bungalow — with its architectural integrity and
fine craftsmanship — makes it the perfect choice, the authors write. "Bungalows" is the first
in a series of books that examine four traditional American home styles — bungalows, capes,
colonials and ranches. The book is available at local bookstores this month or visit
www.taunton.com.
C O V E R S TO R Y 0 C T 0 B E R 2 0 0 2 51
ing the charming village look.
Officials and residents have complained
bitterly about the boxy look -of blufftop
houses 5,000 square feet or larger — but
so about smaller remodels.
W.
"We certainly don't presume to tell peo-
ple how to live, but we also have the right
to say you must address the issue of scale
and neighborhood compatibility," said City
Councilwoman Toni Iseman. If (homeown-
ers) want to enjoy our town, they shouldn't
destroy it in the process."
Still, it's difficult to ask someone who
pays $1 million for a prime lot to limit
themselves to a 900-square-foot cottage,
say local architects and others.
"People want bigger houses," said
Laguna Beach architect Marshall Ininns,
who has designed homes of 7,000 square
feet and upwards from San Clemente to
Pacific Palisades. "They want theaters,
great family rooms for everybody to play
in, huge master closets and bathrooms,
dining rooms and bars. I think it's an
extension of how much wealth they have."
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Laguna Beach Realtor Michael Gosselin
is concerned about property rights.
Gosselin, who just moved into a Laguna
kleach Craftsman -style cottage he remod-
ed, figures he lost a "couple hundred
thousand dollars" in value when he
reduced his plans 600 square feet from the
original 3,000 square feet at the behest of
the city's design review board.
He recalls a board member telling him that
he wasn't entitled to a walk-in closet because
it was too large and that he could move his
home office to the garage to save space.
In Newport Beach, officials are polling
residents about the mansionization issue
as part of the general plan update.
Elaine Linhoff, a resident of the Balboa
Peninsula since 1956, says she's sick of the
huge, three-story remodeled houses that
hug almost every square foot of the lot.
The city does not have a design
review process.
Linhoff and others say they are sad to
see the change in Corona del Mar, where
tiny beach cottages and bungalows are
being razed and remodeled into mini -man-
sions 4,500 square feet or larger.
t/ o D QW0109I1 OUP
Newport Beach Mayor Tod Ridgeway says
wants to find a way to better regulate size.
t he also wants to protect property rights.
"Most of those beach homes were
designed as second homes," Ridgeway said.
"Now everybody wants maximum square
footage because they are permanent homes."
A recent newsletter about the general
plan update prompted a flurry of calls.
"We heard from people who have
bought property as their nest egg with the
intention of building a large house or
duplex," said Sharon Wood, assistant city
manager. "They were concerned about
what we might do."
A common complaint among those who
have faced Laguna's design review board is
that the process is subjective, withboard
members expressing personal likes or
gripes about design or color.
Ininns is finishing up his own Laguna
Beach house — a French Country -style
remodel of a "termite -infested" cottage.
He was surprised to hear that the Oak
Street house was included on a recent city
bus tour looking at examples of mansion-
ization. Some city officials quipped that the
2,400-square-foot house looked like it
belonged in "Aliso Viejo or Laguna Niguel."
Contact Pardon at (949) 454-7356 or svar-
don®ocregister.com
C O V E R 5TORY 0 C T 0 B E R 2002 53
ell
100% Hardwood • 30 Years Experience
Lifetime Warranty • Come Tour Our Factory
Call for a FREE In -Home Design Estimate
95
As PER
Low As 5SQ.FT.
Installed
FREE SANDBLASTING
Newport Beach General Plan Update Visioning Phase
EMERGING STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
Newsletter
Neighborhood
Key Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival,
- Workshops and
Telephone Survey -
GPAC
Overall -Finding -
Questionnaire
Youth Council
1A
How would you
Beach town,
Beach town,
"Beach town" may connote too
1) Beach town (Slightly more than
characterize Newport
residential town,
residential town,
much of a party atmosphere.
residential town)
Beach's identity today?
tourist destination
tourist destination
2) Residential town
3) Tourist desfination (Significantly
less popular)
1B
And what would your
Beach town,
Beach town,
Beach town and residential town,
1) Beach town
preference be for
residential town
residential town,
primarily
2) Residential town
Newport Beach's future
tourist destination
identity?
3) Tourist destination
2
What is your vision for
(See draft vision
(See revised draft vision
(See revised draft vision statement)
Newport Beach in the
statement in Festival
statement)
year 2025?
Summary Report)
7
What are the
Categories:
Broad consensus on Newport Beach's
characteristics that
Community character,
numerous assets and overall quality of
distinguish Newport
Governance, Freeway
life
Beach as a special
access, Environment,
place?
Community design,
Community service,
Recreation
9
How should the City
1) Allow for
encourage and facilitate
development of
housing for those who
buildings that integrate
work here?
housing on the second
and higher floors of
retail commercial and
Newsletter
Neighborhood
#
Key Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival
Workshops and
Telephone Survey
GPAC
Overall Finding
Questionnaire
Youth Council
office structures
2) Require developers
to incorporate a min. %
of units that are
affordable for the work
force
3) Developers should
pay in -lieu fees for
housing construction
10
Does the City provide
Expressed satisfaction
Community members are satisfied
adequate services and
with services
facilities for seniors? If
not, what additional
services and facilities
are needed?
11
Does the City provide
Support is for
Expressed satisfaction
Youth: Support is for
Community members are generally
adequate services and
improving recreational
with services
improving recreational
satisfied
facilities for youth? If
opportunities,
opportunities, acquiring
not, what additional
acquiring parks and
parks and playing fields
services and facilities
playing fields for
for younger residents,
are needed?
younger residents, and
and increasing organized
increasing organized
recreation leagues.
recreation leagues.
12
Should the City
11 out of 18 said "yes."
198 out of 353 said
Split opinion between those who
continue to
no"
responded to the questionnaire and
accommodate job
those who responded via website.
growth when we are
By a small majority, respondents do
already job rich?
not think accommodating more jobs
in Newport Beach is a good idea.
And many others think that the City
can "accommodate" but should not
"promote" additional employment
Newport Beach General Plan Update — Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 2, 2002
Page 2
Newsletter
Neighborhood -
#
Key -Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival
Workshops and
Telephone Survey
GPAC
Overall Finding
Questionnaire
Youth Council
opportunities.
13
Should the City better
81% said yes
Water quality concerns
Members agree with the overall
The overwhelming consensus is that
utilize its harbors and
Primarily through
consensus. They think that if
our harbors and beaches must be
beaches as a visual,
pollution clean up and
harbors and beaches are
protected and revitalized. Majority
recreational and
revitalization of beach
improved as recreational
wants to protect these areas as
economic resource? If
areas
resources, then visual and
visual resources.
so, how?
economic benefits will follow.
Water quality must be improved;
Top issues: improved recreational
public access enhanced.
areas, water quality and pollution
clean up.
14
How far should we go to
The group agreed that there are
protect our coastal
specific coastal bluff areas that
bluffs?
are of geographic and cultural
significance and should be
Protected. (Primarily old Corona del
Mar, Sunset Ridge, Casta-ways, Banning
Ranch; also Calhans East and Sunset
View; between Morning Canyon and
Crystal Cove Park and in Buck Gully and
Morning Canyon).
Need to enhance code
enforcement, and create specific
plans to guide planning and
design in each area.
15
How should the City
Limit public and private
Limit public and private
Dist 7- Would like to
Recommends idenfifying existing
Preserve remaining public view
preserve its remaining
development in these
development in these
implement a "view equals
view corridors and offering
corridors and create more views
public view corridors,
areas. City should
areas
value" view preservation
redevelopment incentives to
wherever possible. Conduct an
for example, the
look into purchasing
law.
enhance and create additional
inventory of existing public view
Coastal Bluffs or views
these lands.
corridors and pedestrian view
corridors, and create a firm policy.
of or from other
opportunities. There is a need
prominent natural
for policy regarding public right
features?
to view versus private property
Newport Beach General Plan Update —Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 2, 2002
Page 3
Newsletter
Neighborhood
#
Key Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival
Workshops and
Telephone Survey
GPAC
Overall Finding
-
Questionnaire
Youth Council
rights.---
16
What should the City do
Dist 2 and 6-
to protect historic
1) Narrow the permitted
commercial and
uses in some commercial
residential villages?
areas
What should the City do
to protect areas that
2) Adopt design and
may not be historic by
development guidelines
definition, but give the
3) Establish a design
community a sense of
review process
identity and are
Dist 3 and 5- All of the
important points of
above and these also:
reference in the
Adopt more Specific
community, such as
Plans for areas, Reduce
"Cannery Village?"
the permitted size of
buildings in residential
neighborhoods
18
What City area(s) are
Primarily yes to
63% said no to
52% and 46% wanted
Open space at Banning Ranch.
Split opinion
suitable for additional
development in
increased
expansion at Newport
West Newport Industrial area:
development? (Fashion
Island, Newport Center,
Fashion Island,
Newport Center,
development at
Newport Center and
Center and Fashion
Island, respectfully.
convert back to residential, with
Other areas include Banning and the
Airport Office Area)
Airport Office Area
Fashion Island
63%said yes to
senior facilities.
Hoag Commercial Area
(256 and 264,
expansion in the
Mariners Mile: mixed uses,
acknowledging two components,
respectfully)
Airport Office Area.
water and business.
252-No to expansion
Airport Office area: allow non -
at Airport Office Area
airport, non -peak hour uses to
discourage airport expansion,
with LOS "D" as a goal.
Fashion Island and Newport
Center. LOS "D" as goal; prompt
mitigation.
19
What Cityarea(s)
Fashion Island (3),
Banning Ranch (30),
Issue is verycommunity-
Different Opinions
Newport Beach General Plan Update— Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 2, 2002
Page 4
#
Key Question
Website
Newsletter
Mailback
Questionnaire
Visioning Festival
Neighborhood
Workshops and
Youth -Council
Telephone Survey
GPAC
Overall Finding
should reduce zoning
Newport Center (3),
the Corona del Mar
sensitive and the quality of each
capacity?
and De Anza MHP (3).
Res. Area (22), Balboa
Village (16), and
Newport Heights (16).
project must be reviewed.
20
What City area(s) need
Same areas cited at
Balboa Village (48)
More discussion needed,
Most people believe these areas are
revitalization?
the Festival
Old Newport Blvd. (27)
Cannery Village (27)
Mariners Mile (32)
Central Balboa
Peninsula (23)
McFadden Square (18)
especially on meaning of
revitalization.
Possible 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
Airport area
in need of revitalization: Old Newport
Boulevard, Balboa Village, Central
Balboa Peninsula, Cannery Village,
McFadden Square and Mariners
Mile.
21
What City area(s) are
Lido Marina Village,
Cannery Village and
Attendees from the festival and those
suitable for mixed -use
Balboa Village
Central Balboa
who responded to the website agree:
development projects
Peninsula
Balboa Village, Cannery Village,
that integrate housing in
McFadden Square, and Lido Marina
the upper floors of
Village
commercial or office
buildings?
22
Do we have too much
22% said too much
of anything: housing,
rental housing,17%
rental, office buildings,
each said too much
etc.?
office and too much
housing
23
How do we protect our
66% said yes
1) Limit the size of new
existing residential
infill housing
neighborhoods?
2) Limit the size of
remodeled housing
24
1 See Question 9
Newport Beach General Plan Update —Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 2, 2002
Page 5
Newsletter
Neighborhood
#
Key Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival
Workshops and
Telephone Survey
GPAC
Overall Finding
Questionnaire
Youth -Council
26
Should excess and
Yes (120)
underutilized comme-
No (56)
rcial lands be converted
for residential or mixed -
use development?
27
Should the City place
Support for the
Expressed concerns
Limit the size of new
Major concern in Dist.
Many have expressed concerns
Mansionization and its effects is a
restrictions on
suggested solutions
about the impacts: lack
infill housing as a
5,6,7
about mansionization, although
distressing trend for many Newport
constructing larger
and lot merger
of privacy, natural
solution to
Youth: Limit the size of
some do not like the term.
Beach residents.
homes that change the
requirement
sunlight and views.
mansionization.
new infill housing as a
character of existing
Restrict the size of
solution to
neighborhoods
remodeled housing
mansionization
(mansionization)?
Restrict the size of
remodeled housing
29
Should there be more
No (63%)
No (133)
retail development in
Yes (37%)
Yes (88)
Fashion Island?
30
Which employment
Newport Center: 64%
Airport Office area
Split opinion
centers should be
said No
should be expanded
retained at the current
Airport office area:
(150), retained at
scale and which, if any,
60% said No
current scale (90)
should be expanded?
Newport Center
expanded (85),
retained (77)
Corp. Center retained
(91), expanded (74)
Mariner's Mile
expanded (107),
retained at current
scale (61)
31
Do we want any more
Nine out of 11 website
Seventy percent did
80% of those who
Split opinion
hotels?
respondents felt that
not think that additional
attended District 1's
Newport Beach General Plan Update —Visioning Phase
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 2, 2002
Page 6
MIG,Inc.
Ll
Newsletter
Neighborhood
#
Key Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival
Workshops and
Telephone Survey
GPAC
OveralhFinding
Questionnaire
Youth Council
this industry should
hotel development was
neighborhood workshop
expand.
a good idea.
supported this sentiment
when the discussion
focused on a proposed
hotel for the Marina park
site on the Peninsula.
Youth want to see fewer.
33
Should we continue to
76% said Yes
Approx. 70% said yes.
GPAC members have said they
Community members are more
promote and
Primarily for business
Encourage more
value tourism but prefer to
comfortable with "accommodating"
accommodate tourism?
travelers and hotel
frequent visits from
accommodate tourism rather
tourism, rather than "promoting" it.
visitors, followed by
hotel visitors and
than actively promote it.
summer renters and
business travelers and
The City should promote to hotel
daytimers
convention attendees
visitors and business travelers.
34
What should be the
78% said preserve as
Should be preserved
More discussion needed.
Most agree that tidelands and other
future of the tidelands
open space
as open space (139)
Proposal: develop to provide
public lands should be preserved as
and other public lands
Should be developed
public facilities to the extent that
open space. Some development for
(e.g., the Dunes,
to provide public
they can be supported with
public facilities may be supported.
Newport Village, and
facilities (59)
parking, etc.; use resources
Marina Park)?
more effectively to produce
revenue; ensure generated
revenues are used for the
tidelands.
36
Should the City be more
Yes by a four to one
The community highly values open
proactive in developing
margin
space and parks. Many want to see
open space or parks,
the City more proactive in acquiring
even if it means bond
these areas, even if it means bond
financing?
financing.
37
What types of
Improved bike lanes
Community shuttles
More public transit and
Dist 7-PCH widening
GPAC needs more information
The community would very much like
transportation
(particularly in the
PCH widening through
through Mariner's Mile
and discussion.
to see more public transit options in
Newport Beach General Plan Update —Visioning Phase
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 2, 2002
Page 7
MIG,Inc.
• 0
Newsletter
Neighborhood
#
Key Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival
Workshops and
Telephone Survey
GPAC
Overall Finding
Questionnaire
Youth Council
improvements should
heavily congested
Mariner's Mile
Dist. 6- better traffic
Grade separations and street
Newport Beach. Most want the City
be made in the City?
tourist areas), electric
engineering of roads and
widenings are controversial.
to encourage more walking and
cars, taxis and a light
signals, tunnellgrade
Concerns expressed about the
biking.
rail
separations and street
economic feasibility of transit.
PCH widening through
widening
Mariner's Mile
Dist. 7 - signal timing and
grade separated
intersections
42
How should we protect
Dist. 6-Supports the
our residential
enforcement of speed
neighborhoods from
limits and discouraged•
traffic impacts?
"through" traffic as ways
to ease the speeding.
Dist. 3- Wants the City to
disallow street widening,
improve transit options
and school
transportation, and
reduce growth and to
regionalize traffic
solutions.
43
How should we protect
Increase off -site
Dist. 5-Workshop
Solutions are site -specific and
A wide range of solutions is
our residential
parking areas, regulate
attendees discussed the
neighborhood -specific,
supported in general, but must be
neighborhoods from
businesses, and
lack of parking as a big
considered relative to specific sites
parking impacts from
reduce commercial
concern. Possible
and neighborhoods.
commercial customers
zoning.
solutions include: issuing
and beach users?
residential parking
permits, reducing
commercial areas and
regulating business
operations, installing
meters and increasing
off -site parking areas
45
1 What role should
Dist 4—voted
GPAC seems to support a land
City should have a land use strategy
Newport Beach play in
unanimously to focus the
use strategy to prevent
to prevent the expansion of John
Newport Beach General Plan Update —Visioning Phase
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 2, 2002
Page 8
MIG, Inc.
• 0 0
Newsletter
Neighborhood
#
Key -Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival
Workshops and
Telephone Survey
GPAC
Overall Finding
Questionnaire
Youth Council
the airport issues?
City on working with the
expansion.
Wayne Airport.
Federal Government.
City should have a land
use strategy to prevent
the expansion of John
Wayne Airport.
They also suggested an
international airport at
Camp Pendleton,
supporting extension of
the JWA Settlement
Agreement and providing
education.
Commerical/Airport
Office Area— City leaders
should keep community
members aware of their
"end game"
48
What should be the
-Infrastructure
-Improved
-Improved infrastructure
-Improved infrastructure maintenance
City's funding priorities?
maintenance,
infrastructure
maintenance
-Citywide improvements to roads,
- Parks and beaches,
maintenance
-Need to revitalize infrastructure
storm drains and sewers
- Public safe
safety
-Need to revitalize
in older commercial areas,
-Need to revitalize infrastructure in
infrastructure in older
including parking
older commercial areas
commercial areas
Improve public safety
-Acquisition and
Improve water quality
p q ty
-Acquisition and improvement of
open space and parks
improvement of open
space and parks
- Encourage businesses thru
-Water quality
non -cash incentives
-Water quality
Revenue -producing priorities are
-Public safety
necessary and education is
- City beautification and landscaping
needed to understand trade-offs.
-Improving schools and the welfare of
Newport Beach's current citizens
51
Should the City
67% said yes
Yes
City should encourage local
encourage growth of
Primarily through small
I
economic growth. There is a split
Newport Beach General Plan Update— Visioning Phase
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 2, 2002
Page 9
MIG, Inc.
0 0
#
Key Question
Vllebsite
Newsletter
Mailback
Questionnaire
Visioning Festival
Neighborhood
Workshops and
Youth Council
Telephone Survey
GPAC
Overall Finding
the local economy to
business development,
opinion about how the City should go
help pay for municipal
taxes. Fees and
about generating this growth: most
services and facilities?
licenses, and travel
want to encourage small business;
If so, how?
and tourism
others want to levy taxes, fees, and
licenses and promote tourism.
No
Bike trails
GPAC agrees that we need to
#
make the city more bike and
pedestrian friendly, with site -
specific solutions.
Newport Beach General Plan Update — Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 2, 2002
Page 10
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Year 2000 Housing Element is an update and revision of the 1992 Element, acid consists
of new technical data, revised goals, updated policies, and a series of programs and
implementing measures. The Element is designed to facilitate attainment of the City's
Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and to foster the availability of housing affordable to all
income levels to the extent possible given Newport Beach's constraints.
Newport Beach is committed to achieving its housing goals and continues to encourage the
development of additional housing units, wherever and whenever feasible. Since the 1992
Housing Element adoption, the City collected over $2,560,000 in affordable housing in -lieu
fees. Use of these fees and the subsequent construction of new affordable units is a high
priority of the City Council. To identify the most appropriate use of these funds and to
facilitate development of new affordable housing, the City Council established an Affordable
Housing Task Force to work with developers and landowners. The Task Force and staff
continually investigate and research potential affordable housing opportunities.
RHNA and Citv Responsibilit
The City has accepted, and is committed to meeting, its RHNA allocation of providing 476
housing units during the Housing Element planning period. Achieving the RHNA is expected
. through development of 3 specific sites: 1) Newport/Banning Ranch, 2) Avocado/MacArthur,
and 3) Bayview Landing. Additional opportunities also exist on infill sites as illustrated on
Figure 4 in the document.
With the annexation of Newport Coast, an additional commitment of providing 945 units is
also part of our Housing Plan. The RHNA allocation for Newport Coast was accepted by the
City through annexation negotiations with the County of Orange. The City will fulfill its
obligation by implementing plans for Newport Coast approved by Orange County, and
monitoring newly constructed affordable units that were permitted by the County prior to the
annexation.
Constraints and Opportunities
The City is constricted in its effort to provide new housing opportunities due to many factors
beyond its control. For example, the City is almost completely built out, with very little vacant
land available for new housing construction. Not only does this situation provide limited
opportunity for new construction but, because there are no new subdivisions anticipated,
there are very few opportunities to apply inclusionary housing requirements. Furthermore,
any remaining vacant parcels are extremely expensive due to the real estate market and the
demand for coastal properties. Still another constraint is that the City does not have a
Redevelopment Agency, which in turn means that Newport Beach does not have the
resource of housing set -aside funds, nor the power to assemble property through eminent
• domain.
Despite these constraints, the City will continue to research the most effective ways to spend
its $2.5 million dollars of in -lieu funds, and will continue to work with developers to construct
new affordable housing units at the Banning Ranch, Bayview Landing and
Avocado/MacArthur sites and to identify potential sites for infill or redevelopment with
affordable housing.
Focus of Housing Programs
Following are the housing programs that Newport Beach believes will be the most effective in
meeting the City's housing goals. These programs will be the focus of the City's housing
efforts duting'the period of this Housing Element,
1) Actively encourage the development of affordable housing on the above- mentioned
sites and will assist developers with the removal of site constraints.
2) Continue to research sites and developments that could include affordable housing,
including Newport Coast and other annexation areas and infill and redevelopment
opportunities.
3) Discuss the extension of affordability covenants with owners of existing affordable
apartments.
4) Offer incentives to developers of affordable housing, including density bonuses, fee
waivers, expedited permit processing and the use of in -lieu fees.
5) Participate with regional agencies (Orange County) to develop affordable housing
programs, including a joint powers agreement for a lease/purchase program, on a
regional basis.
r1
L'A
0
• Godbe Research & Analysis
October 2002
Preliminary Toplines 1.1jw
City of Newport Beach General Plan Survey
(RESIDENT SURVEY)
Hi, may I please speak to . Hi, my name is and I'm
Be
calling on behalf of the City of Newport ach. We're conducting a survey
concerning issues that are important to people in Newport Beach and I'd like to
ask you a few questions.
(IF NEEDED): This is a survey about important issues in the City of Newport
Beach and I'm not trying to sell anything.
(IF THE INDIVIDUAL ASKS WHY YOU ONLY WANT TO TALK TO THE
PERSON LISTED, OR ASKS IF THEY ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE INSTEAD
OF THE PERSON LISTED, THEN SAY:) I'm sorry, but for statistical purposes,
this survey must only be completed by this particular individual.
(IF THE INDIVIDUAL INDICATES THAT THEY ARE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
CITY, AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER OR SOMEHOW
• INVOLVED IN THE SURVEY STUDY, THANK THEM FOR THEIR TIME,
POLITELY EXPLAIN THAT THE FOCUS OF THIS SURVEY IS ON THE
PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF CITY GENERAL PLAN ISSUES, AND
TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW.)
CONVENTIONAL ROUNDING RULES (.B OR ABOVE IS ROUNDED UP TO THE NEXT WHOLE NUMBER, AND A OR
BELOW IS ROUNDED DOWN TO THE PREVIOUS NUMBER) APPLY TO THE PERCENTAGES ON THE
FOLLOWING PAGES. AS A RESULT, THE PERCENTAGES BELOW MAY NOT ADD UP TO 100 PERCENT.
1. To begin, how many years have you lived in Newport Beach?
0-4 Years-------------------------------------------27%
5-9 Years-------------------------------------------18%
10-14 Years ---------------------------------------- 10%
More than 14 Years ------------------------------ 45%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------------------------- 0%
2. Next, I'd like to ask you some questions about planning regulations in the
City. In general', do you think that the City's regulations to restrain the size of
new or remodeled homes are too strong, not strong enough, or just right?
TooStrong --------------------- — — ----------------- 13%
Not Strong Enough ------------------------------- 27%
• Just right -------------------------------------------- 41%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA------ —------- —------- —20%
City of Newport Beach -Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
October 2002 Page 1
Currently the City is reviewing the regulations that relate to the protection of •
views for residents and properties within Newport Beach.
3. Are current City regulations regarding: that interfere with views
too strong, not strong enough, or just right in protecting the views for Newport
Beach residents?
RANDOMIZE
Too Not Strong
Strong Just rt h Enough DRINA
( )A. Buildings--- -- ---- ---------9%---42%--- 32%--17%
( )B. Plants and Trees -----__.__..__13%---- 49%-- 23%---15%
( )C. Business Signs -------------9%----- 50%--- 27%----15%
4. The coastal act requires the City to protect the coastal bluffs of Newport
Beach while property owners in the City wish to have control of development
on their own property. Which should be a greater priority for the City —
increasing protection of the Coastal Bluffs or protecting the rights of owners of
Coastal Bluffs?
Increase protection of Coastal Bluffs --- 56%
Protect the rights of Owners of
Coastal Bluffs-------------------------------------38%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA------------ 7%
5. Switching gears a bit: Do you think.the City should do more to accommodate
people who visit Newport Beach's coast and harbor.
Specifically, should the City: to accommodate visitors?
RANDOMIZE
Yes No OWNA
( )A. Build more restrooms------------ --- 48%--- 43%----8%
()B. Provide a Shuttle Bus Service ----51%---- 45%-----4%
()C. Provide more parking — — — ----- 50% ---- 47%---3%
( )D. Have more retail stores and
restaurants -------- —----------- — ---- 21 % ---- 74%----- 5%
City of Newport Beach -Resident Survey Godbe Research S Analysts
October 2002 PaDo 2
• 6. Now let's talk about traffic in Newport Beach. How would you rate the level of
traffic congestion on the roads that you regularly use in the City? Would you
say that they are very congested, somewhat congested, or not at all
congested when you travel on them?
Very congested-----------------------------------27%
Somewhat congested --------------------------- 67%
Not at all congested — ---------------------------- 14% (SKIP TO08)
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------------------- 2%
•
7. Think of the main roads you typically use in the City when you travel. Would
you prefer to widen these roads to reduce traffic congestion in the future or
leave them as is and experience more traffic congestion lasting longer than it
does now.
Widen------------------------------------------------ 30%
Leave as is ----------------------------------------- 62%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------------------- 7%
8. Next, I'm going to read you several types of improvements that can be made
to the traffic circulation system in the City. For each one, please tell me
whether you would support or oppose the improvement.
Here is the (first/next) one: ? Would you support or oppose this
improvement to the traffic circulation system?
RANDOMIZE
Supuort Oppose DKINA
( )A. Widening Pacific Coast
Highway through Mariner's Mile--37% ---- 57%----- 7%
( )B. Building an overpass at
Macarthur and Jamboree -------- 39% ---- 52% ---- 10%
( )C. Building an underpass at Jamboree
and Pacific Coast Highway------34% ---- 60%----- 6%
( )D. Widen Jamboree Road ------- — ---- 24% ---- 71% ----- 5%
( )E. Widen Macarthur Blvd -------------- 26% ---- 68% ----- 6%
( )F. Traffic calming measures in your
neighborhood, like- speed
humps---------------------------------37% ---- 60%----- 3%
City of Newport Beach -Resident Survey Godbe Research 8 Analysis
October 2g02 Page 3
Next, I'd like to get your opinions about how certain areas, in the City should
evolve or develop in the future.
9. The first area is Banning Ranch. Are you familiar with Banning Ranch?
Yes------_______20% (Skip toQ11)
No-- -- — 78% (Ask Q10)
(DON'T READ) DK/NA-----________---- __--- 2% (Ask Q10)
10. Banning Ranch is the large property off of Pacific Coast Highway next to the
Santa Ana River currently used for oil drilling. Do you recognize the area that
has just been described?
Yes ---------- ----------- -------------- ------- -- 68% (Ask Q11)
No ----- —------------------ —------------------------- 30% (Skip toQ12)
(DON'T READ) DK/NA---------------3% (Skip toQ12)
11. Ok, now I'd like to� read you two options for the development of Banning
Ranch. Please choose the option that you think is most appropriate for the
area.
RANDOMIZE •
() Option One — would allow for half of the land at Banning Ranch
to be developed for residential and some light industrial uses
with the remaining half of the land reserved as open
space. ---------------- ---44%
() Option Two — would preserve the entire Banning Ranch area
as open space. This option would require a local tax
increase of 250, dollars per parcel per year for 15 years along
with state matching funds to pay for the entire area to be
preserved. ----_____________._.__------------------ --_ --- 46%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA------- —--------- ------ =--------=-----10%
12.The next area is the business area near the John Wayne Airport. Are you
familiar with this area?
Yes --- ---- .—_._ _______________ _ _._ 94% (ask Q13)
No— -_—_ ---- =----- -- (Skip toQ15)
(DON'T READ) DK/NA-------- —------------------ 1 % (Skip toQ15)
r1
U
CltyotNewport Beach -Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysts
October2002 Page 4
• 13. I'm going to provide you with six different options for the future of the airport
area, and I'd like to know whether you would support or oppose each option.
Here is the (first/next) one: (READ ITEM). Would you support
or oppose this option for the future of the airport area? (GET ANSWER,
THEN ASK): Would that be definitely (support/oppose) or probably
(supporUoppose) this option?
RANDOMIZE (DON'T
Def. Prob. Prob. Def. READ)
Support Support Oppose Oppose DK/N
( )A. No change ----------------------------- 44% ---- 21% ---- 16% ---- 15% ---- 5%
( )B. New low-rise office buildings .-----33%---- 33%---- 13% ---- 18% ---- 3%
( )C. New high-rise office buildings ----- 20% ---- 20% ---- 18%---- 40% ---- 3%
( )D. More retail stores --------------------- 22%---- 25%---- 18% ---- 31 % ----4%
( )E. More car dealerships ----------------- 7% ----- 14%---- 20%---- 54% ----4%
( )F. More industrial uses ----------------- 15% ---- 19%---- 21 %----41 % ----5%
•
•
14. Do you think that it is acceptable to have more traffic congestion in the airport
area than in other parts of the City?
Yes---------------------------------------------------64%
No----------------------------------------------------- 31%
(DON'T KNOW) DK/NA----------------- —-------- 5%
15.The next area is the Fashion Island shopping mall. Are you familiar with this
area?
Yes-----------------------------------------------96% (ask Q16)
No -------------------------------------------------- 3% (Skip to Q17)
(DON'T READ) DK/NA----------------- — ---- 1 % (Skip to Q17)
16.Thinking of the future of Fashion Island, would you support or oppose the
amount of retail space: ? (GET ANSWER, THEN ASK):
Would that be definitely (support/oppose) or probably (support/oppose) this
option? -
RANDOMIZE
Def.
Prob.
Support
Support
( )A. Remaining as it is, with little or no
change ------------ —------ —------ ---46% ----
24%----
( )B. Increasing slightly so that existing
department stores can expand-38%----
29%----
( )C. Increasing moderately to attract
new stores to the area ------------ 34% ----
28%----
(DON'T
Prob. Def. READ)
Oppose Oppose DK/NA
15%---- 12% ---3%
11 %----19% ----2%
15%---- 22% ----2%
Cdy or Newport Beach -Resident Survey
October2002
Godbe Research & Analysts
Page 6
17.The next area is the Newport Center office area. Are you familiar with this
area?
Yes(ask Q18)
No - -----------------26% (Skip to Q19)
(DON'T READ) DK/NA— ----- 3% (Skip to Q19)
18.Thinking of the future Newport Center, would you support or oppose the size
and amount of buildings: ? (GET ANSWER, THEN ASK):
Would that.be definitely (support/oppose) or probably (support/oppose) this
option?
RANDOMIZE (DON'T
Def. Prob. Prob. Def. READ)
Support Supt3ort Oppose oppose DK/NA
( )A. Remaining as they are, with little or no
change ------------- ------------- ---48% ---- 23%---11 %---14% ----4%
( )B. Increasing to allow existing
companies to grow, like Pacific
Life ---- ------------ -----------31%--- 26%-14%--24%---5%
( )C. Increasing to attract new
businesses to the area — ---------- 27% ---- 21 %---17%---31 % ---4%
( )D. Increasing to allow for •
residential -and mixed use
buildings to be developed — ----- 26%---19%---- 15%--36% --4%
19.Ok, now I'd like to read you the opinions of two -Newport Beach residents.
Please choose the opinion that is closest to your own.
RANDOMIZE
Smith thinks that encouraging economic development
in the City is in the best interest of residents. By allowing
for -more hotels, office space and retail, it will generate
revenue to pay for improved maintenance and operations,
improved service provision, and a variety of City projects.
-------------- -----------------------___-----._..33%
Jones thinks that encouraging economic development
in the City.is not in the best interest of residents,
because it will lead to more buildings, bigger buildings,
more traffic, congestion, and -will change the character
of the City ------------- —------------ ------------- ------ 57%
Neither [DON'T READ] ---- --------------- --------- ---------4%
Both [DON'T READ] -------------------------------------------- ---3%
DK / NA [DON'T READ]-------------------------3% •
City o/Newport Beach �Resldenl Sumay
Oclober2002
Godhe Research 6 Analysts
Page 6
r1
U
•
20. Next I'd like to ask you about hotels in Newport Beach. In general, do you
support or oppose developing new hotels in the City, or do you not have an
opinion?
Support------------------------------------------ 27 %
Oppose------------------------------------------ 52 %
No Opinion-------------------------------------20%
(DON'T READ) Refused ------------------ — - 1%
21. Let me be more specific. Do you favor or oppose developing new hotels in the
City of Newport Beach to support: ?
RANDOMIZE
Favor Oppose DK/NA
( )A. Local stores and restaurants ------ 45% ----
50%-----
5%
( )B. Business conferences -------------- 41 % ----
54%-----
4%
( )C. Tax revenue for the City ------------ 42% ----
53%-----
5%
()D. Tourism --------------------------------- 40% ----
55% -----
5%
22.Assuming that any new hotels will be built in the future, what type of hotel
buildings do you think are appropriate for Newport Beach? Are
appropriate or inappropriate for future development.
DO NOT RANDOMIZE
Appropriate Inappropriate DKINA
( )A. Large Hotels with conference facilities,
like the Four Seasons------------43% ---- 52%----- 5%
( )B. Medium-sized extended stay business
hotels, like Courtyard Marriot --- 44% ---- 50% ----- 5%
( )C. Smaller -sized Inns with no buildings
over three stories ------------------ 61% ---- 34%----- 5%
City of Newport Beach -Resident Survey
October2002
Godbe Research S Analysis
Page 7
(DO NOT ASK Q23 IF ITEMS A, B, C & D IN Q21=2) •
23. Next, I'm going .to list several areas of Newport Beach. For each area, please
tell me if you would support or oppose locating a new hotel in the area. Here
is the (first/next) area: Would'you support or oppose locating a
new hotel in this area?
RANDOMIZE
[RESPONSES BY THOSE THAT ANSWERED THE QUESTION]
Support m DKNA
( )A. Airport Area ------------73%----23%---4%
()B. Mariner's Mile ----- —------------------ 32% ---- 60%---- 9%
()C. Marina Park on the Balboa
Pennisula--_-- --------- -- --- 28% ---- 66%---- 6%
()D. Lido Marina Village on the Balboa
Pennisula [IF NEEDED], -This is the
waterfront shopping area across the
the street from the Lido
Theatre--
( )E. Newport Dunes ----------------------- 44% ---- 49% ----- 7%
()F. Newport Center----__—__—_-_---54%---- 38%----- 9%
[ASSUMING THOSE THAT OPPOSED ALL GROUPS IN Q21 ANSWERED OPPOSE IN Q231
—---663j--g
( $)AprtArea
•
�O.
MaMile�__%
()C. Marina Park on the Balboa
Pennisula---------------------- —---- 24% ---- 71 %----
5%
(')D. Lido Marina Village on the Balboa
Pennisula [IF NEEDED] -This is the
waterfront shopping area across the
the street from the Lido
Theatre •--------------------------28% --- 68%-----•4%
( )E. Newport Dunes --- ----------- ------38%--- 56% ----
6%
()F. Newport Center ------------ ------46%---46%---
8%
24.Would you *support or oppose the City developing portions of the publicly
owned waterfront property at Newport Dunes and Marina Park for visitor
serving uses such as'hotels, restaurants, inns and recreation? [GET
ANSWER THAN ASK] Would that be strongly (support/oppose),or somewhat
(support/oppose)?
Strongly Support ---------------- -- 21%
Somewhat Support --- --- _--------- ------ 20%
Somewhat Oppose ------ -------------------- 13%
Strongly Oppose-------------------------- 41 % •
(DON'T READ) 5%
City of Newport Beach -Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Ccloher2002 Page 8
• 25. Lastly, I would like to ask you about the future of El Toro. Do you support or
oppose the construction of an airport at El Toro: ? (GET
ANSWER, THEN ASK): Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or
somewhat (support/oppose) this action?
Strongly Support ------------------------------ 56%
Somewhat Support-------------------------- 12%
Somewhat Oppose---------------------------- 7%
Strongly Oppose----------------------------- 20%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 6%
26. If you knew that flights from a future El Toro Airport would not fly over any
part of Newport Beach including Newport coast, would you be more or less
likely to support construction of a new airport at El Toro? (GET ANSWER, IF
'MORE' OR 'LESS' THEN ASK:) Would that be much (more/less) likely or
somewhat (more/less) likely to support construction of an airport at El Toro?
Much more likely to support ---------------58%
• Somewhat more likely to support-------- 14%
Somewhat less likely to support---------- 5%
Much less likely to support---------------- 15%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 8%
Now for a few background questions for comparison purposes.
A. Do you currently have children under the age of 18 living in your home?
Yes------------------------------------------ 27%
No------------------------------------------- 72%
(DON'T READ) Refused ----------------- 1 %
B. Do you own or rent your home?
Own----------------------------------------- 73%
Rent----------------------------------------- 2 6 %
(DON'T READ) Refused ----------------- 1%
Cay of Newport Beach -Resident Survey Godbe Research B Analysis
Oclober20u2 Page 9
C. Which of the following would you say best describes your employment •
status? Would you say you are employed full time, employed part time, self-
employed, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you not currently
employed right now? (PROMPT FOR ONE RESPONSE ONLY)
Employed full-time --- —--------- 39%
Employed part-time------__--7%
Self-employed--------------19%
Student --------- --------------------- 4 %
Homemaker ----- ---- ------------ 7 %
Retired ------- --------------- 21 %
Not employed ---- ---------------- 2%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA----1 %
D. Lastly, I'm going to. read several income categories. Please stop me when I
reach the category the matches your annual household income?
$40,000 or under -------------------- — ---- 7%
$40,000-$60,000--------------------10%
$60,000-$80,000---------------_----12%
$80,0004100,000------------13%
$100,0004150,000—---- —------ -----16%
$150,000-$200,000-------------- -------9% •
$200,000 or more-- -------- ---- --- 16%
(DON'T READ) Refused------ -- --17%
Thank you so much for participating! This survey was conducted for the City of
Newport Beach.
E. Respondent's Sex:
F. Age:
Male-- --------- --------------- —----- ------ 4 9 %
Female --- =---------- —----------------- ---51 %
INFO FROM VOTER FILE — NOT ASKED OF RESPONDENT
18-29 years ------ --- -------- ------------ --14%
30-39 years —--- ----- ------- —---- -------------20%
40-49 years----------- ------------------17%
50-64 years---------__w___---__--_---_—...--24%
65+ years —----_----_---_------___-_._--._20%
Not coded---- -- ---- ------.__- —5%
•
City of Newport Beach-Resldanf Survey Godba Research & Anaysls
Ocfober2002 Page 10
• G. Party:
Democrat-------------------------------------------- 25%
Republican-----------------------------------------63%
Other------------------------- —------------------------ 3 %
DTS---------------------------------------------- —----- 9%
H. Hsld. Party Type:
Democrat(1) --------------------------------------- 11%
Democrat (2+)---------------------------------------6%
Republican(1) ------------------------------------- 30%
Republican(2+) ----------------------------------- 26%
Other(1)----------------------------- —--------- — --- 10%
Other(2)----------------------------------------------- 2%
Democrat & Republican --------------------------- 7%
Democrat & Other ------------------- — ------------- 3%
Mixed--------------------------------------------------- 6%
I. Zip code:
. J. Precinct Number:
PHONE
DATE OF INTERVIEW
INTERVIEWER:
NUMBER:
VALIDATED BY
City of Newport Beach -Resident Survey
October 2002
Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 11
• Godbe Research & Analysis
October 2002
Preliminary Toplines
City of Newport Beach General Plan Survey
(BUSINESS SURVEY)
Hello, may I please speak to
(IF NAMED CONTACT IS NOT AVAILABLE, THEN ASK): Ok, then may I please
speak with the general manager or a member of the senior management?
Hello, my name is and I'm calling on behalf of the City of Newport
Beach. We're conducting a survey concerning issues of importance to Newport
Beach businesses and we'd like to get your opinions, it should just take a few
minutes of your time.
(IF NEEDED) This is a survey only and I am not selling anything.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
CONVENTIONAL ROUNDING RULES (.5 OR ABOVE IS ROUNDED UP TO THE NEXT WHOLE NUMBER, AND A OR
BELOW IS ROUNDED DOWN TO THE PREVIOUS NUMBER) APPLY TO THE PERCENTAGES ON THE
FOLLOWING PAGES. AS A RESULT, THE PERCENTAGES BELOW MAY NOT ADD UP TO 100 PERCENT.
• (INTERVIEWER FILL IN BELOW — DON'T ASK AS QUESTION)
•
I. Respondent is person named on the sample sheet:
Yes------------------------ ------------------- 74%
No--------------------------------------------- 26%
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
1. To begin, how long has your business been located in Newport Beach?
0-4 Years-------------------------------------------26%
5-9 Years -------------- ----------------------------- 19%
10-14 Years ---------------------------------------- 18%
More than 14 Years ------------------------------ 37%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------------------------- 1%
City of Newport Beach —GP Business Survey Godbe Research & Anatysis
October 2002 Page 7
2. Next, I'm going, to read.a list of attributes for Newport Beach. For each one,
please tell me if you think that attribute is 'extremely important', 'very
important, 'somewhat important', or'not too important' in having your
business located in Newport Beach.
Here's the (first/next), one: (READ ITEM AND ASK:) Is this
attribute extremely important, very important,
somewhat important, or not too
important?
RANDOMIZE
(DON'T
Extremely
Very Somewhat Not too READ)
ImpartsImpartan Importan
Important Importan DKJNA
( )A. Physical beauty of Newport
Beach --- —------------- -=—------- ------ 23%----
46%----20%---- 10%----1 %
( )B. The Waterfront and harbor -------- —17%-=--
31 %--19% ---- 31 %----_ l %
( )C. The Water quality in the City -------- 20%----
31%-----21%----27%----- l%
()D. The location within Orange County
and Southern California ----------- 26%----
48%----- 18%----- 7%----1%
( )E. A good business address - --------- 28%----
42%----14%---- 15%--1%
()F, Proximity to John Wayne Airport---12%----
27%----- 29% ---- 31 %----- I %
)G. Amount of traffic passing by your
business --- ---------16%--29%----19%-34%-1%
()H. Overall purchasing power of
the community ----- ----------------- 30%----
35%----- 15%----18%-- 2%
3. Next, I'd like to ask you some questions about business regulations in the
City. In general, how difficult is it to open orstart a business in Newport
Beach, very difficult, somewhat difficult, or not difficult at all?
Very difficult ---------- ------------------- ----- ----10%
Somewhat difficult---------------__-_____-_---27%
Not difficult at all ----- --__---- W--W_______-_44%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA-- -- 18%
4, How difficult is it to operate a Business in Newport Beach, very difficult,
somewhat difficult, or not difficult at all?
Very difficult-------- --- --------- —---- ---5%
Somewhat difficult--------_________ ..._ 31 %
Not difficult at all.-----57%
;(DON'T READ) DK/NA--------------- --__-..--_6%p
r
•
I�
U
•
MyofNewport Beach —GP Business Survey Godba Research 6 Analysts
0cfober2002 Pago 2
•
F
5. How difficult are the City's regulations regarding changes or expansions to
your business property, very difficult, somewhat difficult, or not difficult at all?
Very difficult ---------------------------------------- 16%
Somewhat difficult-------------------------------- 28%
Not difficult at all----------------------------------33%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA -------------------------- 23%
6. Are current City regulations regarding signs too strong, not strong enough, or
just right for Newport Beach's business environment?
Too Strong - — --------------------------------------- 19%
Not Strong enough-------------------------------10%
Just right ---------- — -------------------- — ---------- 51%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA -------------------------- 20%
7. Switching gears a bit: Do you think the City should do more to accommodate
people who visit Newport Beach's coast and harbor? Specifically, should the
City: to accommodate visitors?
RANDOMIZE
Yes No DK/NA
( )A. Build more restrooms--------------- 51% ---- 39%----- 9%
( )B. Provide a Shuttle Bus Service ---- 62% ---- 31% ----- 6%
( )C. Provide more parking ------- — ------ 74% ---- 23% ----- 2%
( )D. Have more retail stores and
restaurants --------------------------- 30% ---- 61 %----- 9%
8. Now let's talk about traffic in Newport Beach. How would you rate the level of
traffic congestion on the roads that you regularly use in the City? Would you
say that they are very congested, somewhat congested, or not at all
congested when you travel on them?
Very congested-----------------------------------33%
Somewhat congested ---------- — -------------- 57%
Not at all congested ---------------------- —-------- 9%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA---------------------------- 1%
City of Newport Beach —GP Business Survey
Oclober2o02
Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 3
9.Think of the main roads you typically, use in the City when you travel. Would •
you prefer to widen these roads to reduce traffic congestion in the future or
leave them as is and, experience more traffic congestion lasting longer than it
does now.
Widen----------- —--------------------- -------------- 33%
Leaveas is ------------------------- ---------------- 59%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA—---- _------- -------- _-7%
10. Next, I'm going to read you several types of improvements that can be made
to the traffic circulation system in the City. For each one, please tell me
whether you would support or oppose the improvement.
Here is the (first/next) one: ? Would you support or oppose this
improvement to the traffic circulation system?
RANDOMIZE
suppo Oppose DKINA
( )A. Widening Pacific Coast
Highway through Mariner's Mile-45%---47%--9%
( )B. Building an overpass at
Macarthur and Jamboree-------52% --41 %----- 7%
( )C. Building an underpass at Jamboree
and Pacific Coast Highway ----41 % --- 51 %-- 8%
()D. Widen Jamboree Road ----------33%---- 62%----- 5%
()E. Widen Macarthur Blvd-----.-..__34% --- 60%----- 6%
()F. Traffic calming measures in your
neighborhood, like speed
humps ----- --------- —---------------- 29% ---- 66% --- =- 5%
Next, I'd like to get your opinions about how certain areas in the City should
evolve or develop in the future.
11. The first area is the business area near the John Wayne Airport. Are you
familiar with this area?
Yes =____— ----- -----_________ _ ________._----- 90% (ask Q12)
-------- 10% (Skip toQ14)
(DON'T READ) DK/NA-------------- —------------ 0% (Skip toQ14)
•
City of Newport Beach —GP Business Survey Godbe Research & Analysts
Ocfober2002 Page 4
. 12. I'm going to provide you with six different options for the future of the airport
area, and I'd like to know whether you would support or oppose each option.
Here is the (first/next) one: (READ ITEM). Would you support
or oppose this option for the future of the airport area? (GET ANSWER,
THEN ASK): Would that be definitely (support/oppose) or probably
(support/oppose) this option?
RANDOMIZE (DON'T
Def. Prob. Prob. Def. READ)
Support Support Oppose Oppose DK/NA
( )A. No change -- — — ----- — --------- — - 31% ---- 23% ---- 29%---- 13% ---- 5%
( )13. New low-rise office buildings ------ 30%---- 38%---- 14% ---- 18% ---- 1%
()C. New high-rise office buildings ----- 22% ---- 26% ---- 19%---- 32% ---- 2%
( )D. More retail stores -------- — ----------- 23% ---- 40% ---- 17% ---- 17% ---- 3%
( )E. More car dealerships ----------------- 6%----12%---- 24%---- 55% ----3%
( )F. More industrial uses --------- — ------ 17% ---- 24% ---- 17%---- 40% ---- 4%
13. Do you think that it is acceptable to have more traffic congestion in the airport
area than in other parts of the City?
Yes--------------------------------------------------- 68%
No----------------------------------------------------- 31 %
(DON'T KNOW) DK/NA --------------------------- I %
14.The next area is the Fashion Island shopping mall. Are you familiar with this
area?
Yes ----------------------------------------------- 91 % (ask Q15)
No -------------------------------------------------- 8% (Skip to Q16)
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 1% (Skip to Q16)
15.Thinking of the future of Fashion Island, would you support or oppose the
amount of retail space: ? (GET ANSWER, THEN ASK):
Would that be definitely (support/oppose) or probably (support/oppose) this
option?
RANDOMIZE
(DON'T
Def.
Prob.
Prob. Def.
READ)
Support
Support
Oppose Oppose
OWNA
( )A. Remaining as it is, with little or no
change -------- —---------------------- 31 % ----
30%----
23% ---- 11 % ----5%
( )B. Increasing slightly so that existing
department stores can expand-31 % ----
35% ----
14% ---- 15% ----
5%.
( )C. Increasing moderately to attract
• new stores to the area ------------ 37%---31%----
13%---- 16% ----3%
City of Newport Beach —GP Business Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Ocloher 2002 Page 5
16.The next area is the Newport Center office area. Are you familiar with this .
area?
Yes ----------- ---------------------------------- 67% (ask Q17)
No ----------------- -----32% (Skip to Q18)
(DON'T READ) DK/NA — 1 % (Skip to Q18)
17.Thinking of the future Newport Center, would you support or oppose the size
and amount of buildings: ? (GET ANSWER, THEN ASK):
Would that be definitely (support/oppose) or probably (support/oppose) this
option?
RANDOMIZE
(DON'T
Def. Prob. Prob. Def.
READ)
Support Support Oppose Oobose
DK/NA
( )A. Remaining.as they are, with little
or no change --- ------ ---------------- 38% --- 30%---- 21 %-----9%----- 2%
()B. Increasing to allow existing
companies to grow, like Pacific
Life ------- -------- --------------33%---- 28%-13%----23%-3%
( )C. Increasing to attract new
businesses to the area----------30% ---- 33%---14% --- 22%
---1
( )D. Increasing to allow for
residential and mixed use
buildings to�be developed -= ----- 29% ---- 27%---- 14% ---- 28% ---- 2%
18. Ok, now I'd like to read you the opinions of two Newport Beach residents.
Please choose the opinion that is closest to your own.
RANDOMIZE
Smith thinks that encouraging economic development
in the City is in the best interest of residents. By allowing
for more hotels, office space and retail, it will generate
revenue to pay for improved maintenance and operations,
improved service provision, and a variety of City projects.
------- — ----- ------------------- --- - --------------45%
Jones thinks that encouraging economic development
in the City is not.in the best interest of residents,
because it will lead to more buildings, bigger buildings,
more traffic congestion, and will change the character
of the city
Neither [DON'T READ] ------___.____w�_________._____5%
Both [DON'T READ]
DK MA [DON'T READ] ---------------- —------------------------ 3%
City o/Newpori Beach —GP Business Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Oeiober 2002 Page 8
is
•
19. Next I'd like to ask you about hotels in Newport Beach. In general, do you
support or oppose developing new hotels in the City, or do you not have an
opinion?
Support---------------------- —--------- —------- 41 %
Oppose------------------ ---------------------- 3 0 %
No Opinion-------------------------------------27%
(DON'T READ) Refused ------------ — ------- 1%
20. Let me be more specific. Do you favor or oppose developing new hotels in the
City of Newport Beach to support: ?
RANDOMIZE
Favor Oppose DK/NA
( )A. Local stores and restaurants ------ 54% ---- 40%----- 6%
( )B. Business conferences --- ---------- 59%---35%---- 6%
( )C. Tax revenue for the City ------------ 57% ---- 34%----- 9%
()D. Tourism--------------------------------61%----36%-----3%
21. Assuming that any new hotels will be built in the future, what type of hotel
buildings do you think are appropriate for Newport Beach? Are
appropriate or inappropriate for future development.
DO NOT RANDOMIZE
Appropriate Inappropriate DK/NA
( )A. Large Hotels with conference facilities,
like the Four Seasons ---------- —54%---- 42%----- 4%
()B. Medium-sized extended stay business
hotels, like Courtyard Marriot --- 47% ---- 47% ----- 6%
()C. Smaller -sized Inns with no buildings
over three stories------------------49% ---- 47%----- 4%
City of Newport Beach —GP Business Survey
Oclober2002
Godbe Research 6 Analysis
Page 7
22. Next, I'm going to list several areas of Newport Beach. For each area, please •
tell me if you would support or oppose locating a new hotel in the area. Here
is the (first/next) area: Would you support or oppose locating a
new hotel in this area?
RANDOMIZE
Support Qum PKINA
( )A. Airport Area _—_____74% —
24%----- 2%
()B. Mariner's Mile---------_------37%---53%----
10%
()C. Marina Park on the Balboa
Pennisula--------------------- ------- 35% ----
59%----- 6%
()D. Lido Marina Village on the Balboa
Pennisula [IF NEEDED] -This is the
waterfront -shopping area across the
the street from the Lido
Theatre ---- --------------- -------38% ----
57%----- 6%
()E. Newport Dunes ------______-56%----
37%---7%
( )F. Newport Center----------- ------ —58% ----
30%---11 %
23. Would you support or oppose the City developing portions of the publicly •
owned waterfront property at Newport Dunes and Marina Park for visitor
serving uses such as hotels, restaurants, inns and recreation? [GET
ANSWER THAN ASK] Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or somewhat
(support/oppose)?
Strongly Support ----- --------- __---- _-__-29%
Somewhat Support -- ------ _------ _---- _ 27%
Somewhat Oppose--------------------- 11 %
Strongly Oppose---------------------------- 30%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 3%
24.1 would like to ask you about the future of El Toro. Do you support or oppose
the constriction of an airport at El Toro: ? (GET ANSWER,
THEN ASK): Would'that be strongly (support/oppose) or somewhat
(support/oppose) this action?
Strongly Support -------------=---------- ---38%
Somewhat Support ---------- — -------------- 17%
Somewhat Oppose------- — 10%
Strongly Oppose ---- ---- ------- _.-_.------- 27%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA--------------------- 7% •
CiryolNewport Beach —GP Bustnass Survey
Oclober20°2
Godbe Research & Analysts
Page 8
25.If you knew that flights from a future El Toro Airport would not fly over any
part of Newport Beach including Newport coast, would you be more or less
likely to support construction of a new airport at El Toro? (GET ANSWER, IF
'MORE' OR'LESS' THEN ASK:) Would that be much (more/less) likely or
somewhat (more/less) likely to support construction of an airport at El Toro?
Strongly Support --- —-------- —--------------- 39%
Somewhat Support-------------------------- 18%
Somewhat Oppose-------------------------- 11 %
Strongly Oppose-------------------------- 24%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 8%
Lastly, I'd like to ask you about employee recruitment at your current business
location.
26. How difficult is it for your business to hire qualified employees, very difficult,
somewhat difficult, or not difficult at all?
Very difficult ---------------------------------------- 18%
Somewhat difficult-------------------------------- 33%
Not difficult at all ---------------------- — ---------- 42%
• (DON'T READ) DK/NA--------------- —----------- 6%
0
27. Would you agree that the availability of affordable housing in Newport Beach,
affects your business' ability to recruit qualified employees? (GET ANSWER,
IF 'Agree' OR 'Disagree' THEN ASK:) Would that be definitely
(agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree) that the availability of
affordable housing in the City affects your business' ability to recruit qualified
employees?
Definitely agree-------------------------------33%
Somewhat agree ---------------------------- 18%
Somewhat disagree ------------------------ 18%
Definitely disagree--------------------------- 24%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 7%
City of Newport Beach —GP Business Survey
October 2002
Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 9
Now for a few background questions for comparison purposes. •
A. What is your position at your firm?
Owner / Principal / Partner----------47%
General Manager/ CEO-------------24%
Department Manager--------------6%
Vice President-------------------3%
Managing Supervisor/Supervisor -15%
Other (Please specify)------------4%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA-----------1 %
B. Are you currently a resident of Newport Beach?
Yes -- --------- ---____.___.-------__-47%
No------------------------------------------- 52%
(DON'T READ) Refused -------------- —1%
C. What percentage of your employees live in Newport Beach?
0 to 25 percent ------------- —------- ---- 54%
26 to 50 percent ---- —---- .—__._._.____ 11 % •
51 to 75 percent-------------- ------ 4%
76 to 100 percent-----____--- -------- 9%
(DON'T READ) DK/Refused---------- 22%
Thank you so much for participating! This survey was conducted for the City of
Newport Beach.
D. Respondent's Sex:
Male-- _._.__--- ----- —--------- -----56%
Female ---------- —-------------- —----- --44%
INFO FROM SAMPLE FILE — NOT ASKED OF RESPONDENT
E, Number of Employees:
0 to 2 employees ------------- —---- ---.__.._—_.. 29%
$ to 10 employees--- -------_ ---- - ----, 30%
11 to 50 employees -------- ----- — ---- ----- 14%
Over 50 employees -------- —-------------------- ----- 4%
Not coded------------------ 23%
•
Cify ofNewport Beach —GP Business Survey Godbe Research & Analysts
Oefobor2002 Page 10
c.
• G. Industry Code (SIC)
Number---------------------------------------------
Not coded--------------------------------------------999
•
11
H. Zip code:
PHONE
DATE OF INTERVIEW
INTERVIEWER:
NUMBER:
Qfy of Ne^.
Oofober26
VALIDATED BY
• GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, October 7, 2002
4a,
Roger Alford
Dorothy Beek1!�4QrZZ
Phillip Bettencourt
f"4-
Carol Boice
,
Karlene Bradley
John Corrough
Seth Darling
Julie Delaney
G. I
Laura Dietz
Florence Felton
Nancy Gardner
J
Gleason Jr.
Joseph
Louise Greeley
p ,
Evelyn Hart
Ernie Hatchell
Bob Hendrickson
Tom Hyans
f
Mike Ishikawa
David Janes
George Jeffries
C
Mike Johnson
Todd Knipp
Donald Krotee
�6
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 AD&ORY COMMITTEE
Monday, October 7, 2002
PUBLI.0 SIGN -IN'
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
a30nf A. is
/Y�2,r-i'ce � qo vs% Cw
ve-
C
fir;��(�s .cCA—
GENERAL PLAN ADAORY COMMITTEE
Monday, October 7, 2002
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
GENERAL PLAN ADV%ORY COMMITTEE
Monday, October 7, 2002
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
NEWPIWCH
• GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
VISIONING PROCESS
General Plan Advisory Committee
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday,
October 7, 2002, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Ernest Hatchell
John Saunders
Dorothy Beek
Bob Hendrickson
Robert Shelton
Carol Boice
Tom Hyans
Ed Siebel
Karlene Bradley
Mike Ishikawa
Alan Silcock
John Corrough
David Janes
Jackie Sukiasian
Hoby Darling
George Jeffries
Jan Vandersloot
Julie Delaney
Mike Johnson
Don Webb
Laura Dietz
Todd Knipp
Jennifer Wesoloski
Nancy Gardner
Phillip Lugar
Ron Yeo
Joseph Gleason
Catherine O'Hara
Louise Greeley
Carl Ossipoff
•
Members Absent:
Phillip Bettencourt Donald Krotee
Florence Felton Larry Root
Evelyn Hart Brett Shaves
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator
Members of the Public Present:
Marice White
Dave Sutherland
Stephanie Barger
1. Welcome and Introductions
• Bob Shelton called the meeting to order and asked Carolyn Verheyen to review
the agenda. Tom Hyans asked why the Fiscal and Economic report was not on
1
the agenda. Sharon Wood explained that staff had received a draft of the report
• and found that it was missing data and needed more work before bringing it to
the Committee.
II. Approval of Minutes —September 23, 2002
Mr. Shelton had a question regarding the statement at the bottom of page 3,
"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 budgets." Mr. Hyans clarified the statement
and the last word of the sentence was changed from "budgets" to "years." Mike
Ishikawa pointed out an error on page 5, section D, Ms. Verheyen announced
that Carl Ossipoff was spokesperson for this group; however he was UNable to
attend this meeting." Tom Hyans also pointed out a typo on page 3, section A,
third bullet point, "mush" should be "must." Mr. Hyans commented that he did
not like the way the minutes are prepared, pointing out that paragraphs include
a lot of discussion regarding issues and then conclude with a vote. He feels this
is not appropriate for a document that will be used as an historical document.
Mr. Shelton felt that the minutes will not be used as the historical record of this
committee, what will be used is the document(s) prepared by the Committee and
presented to the City Council for approval. Mr. Hyans disagreed and said that
• when the general plan update gets to Council the minutes may be referenced,
and he could be asked why he didn't speak up earlier in the process and that is
what he is doing now. Nancy Gardner thought the minutes correctly reflected
the discussion and vote on the coastal bluffs issue. However, Mr. Hyans pointed
out the paragraph on the bike trails issue where the committee discussed
widening the boardwalk, installing restrooms and educational signage and then
concluded with a majority voting to support improving bike and pedestrian
facilities throughout the City. He feels the implication is that the committee
voted to approve widening the boardwalk and installation of restrooms at the
wedge. Ms. Wood disagreed with the interpretation of that section. Mr. Shelton
acknowledged Mr. Hyans' point and asked Ms. Verheyen, Ms. Wood and Debbie
to be careful when preparing the minutes not to overstate conclusions. He also
stated that anyone who finds major fault with the minutes can file a separate
statement taking issue with the interpretation in the minutes and that statement
will become part of the record as well. Jan Vandersloot pointed out under
Section C the answer from this group was "yes" to the question of Zoning
Capacity Reduction and this was not reflected in the minutes. The minutes were
approved with the corrections discussed, Tom Hyans opposed.
III. Presentation & Discussion of the Draft Housing Element
• Before starting the presentation, Joe Gleason requested that this type
information be sent farther in advance of the meeting to allow the committee
2
members to review the document prior to the meeting. Sharon Wood agreed
• and advised that this would be a review only, no action would be taken at this
meeting; however in the future we would try to give the committee more time to
review large documents. Ms. Wood advised that the housing element is the only
element of the general plan that State law has a schedule for updates, while
other elements are supposed to be kept "up to date." The housing element is
required to be updated every 5 years. There are very specific requirements in
State law and housing element guidelines from the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for this element. Once certified, the housing
element provides protection from lawsuits that may be filed against the city.
One area the Committee discussed at great length was the underdeveloped
residential sites listed in the element. The section lists Banning Ranch,
Avocado/MacArthur and Bayview Landing as potential sites for construction of
the housing units the city is required to plan for in the next 5 years. The city's
options are limited when looking at locations for new housing units. Ms. Wood
explained the great savior for affordable housing would be Banning Ranch, there
is a real tradeoff here, because that's a site that a number of people have said
they would like to see preserved as open space, but if we do that there aren't
many opportunities to provide the required affordable housing.
IV. Group Discussions
• In preparation for the Visioning Summit, Ms. Verheyen prepared a matrix of the
53 questions for the Committee with results from the website, newsletter
mailback questionnaire, Visioning Festival, Neighborhood Workshops, telephone
survey, GPAC discussions and then an Overall Finding. To test this document
Ms. Verheyen selected several questions for discussion. Carol Boice pointed out
a couple of corrections previously discussed: Question 37 should reflect District
4 was against grade separations in the city except for around the airport area
and Question 42 should include Districts 4 under Neighborhood Workshops.
ouestion 12 - Should the city continue to accommodate job growth
when we're already job rich? Nancy Gardner felt there should be a definition
of the type of jobs we are talking about in this question; service jobs or jobs
enabling employees to afford to live in the city. Mike Johnson pointed out that
the economic study discussed employees spend money during lunch hours and
after work adding to sales tax revenues. Carol Boice wanted to consider traffic
impacts in the answer. John Corrough asked for the definition of job rich. Ms.
Wood explained it is a planning term referring to an area with more jobs than
housing units. Mr. Corrough did not agree with the wording of the question.
David Janes said we need to answer the question by asking how job growth
would facilitate or impact our vision for the city 20-25 years in the future. Ms.
Wood told the group that the fiscal consultant will be providing additional
• information regarding land uses and then the group would see the benefits of
different uses. She pointed out that regional planners like to see cities/regions in
3
balance between jobs and housing. Roger Alford brought up the benefits of
businesses like Conexant who, if allowed to expand, would bring in high paying
•
engineering jobs that would be more beneficial to the city than large businesses
with lower paying positions. John Saunders pointed out that we have a yes or
no question that can't possibly be answered that way. He felt if an employer
comes in with attractive jobs, has little or no impact on traffic or other negative
impacts, the group would be in favor of them; however if an employer brings in
jobs with traffic impacts and other negative factors we would not support them.
Catherine O'Hara asked if we should recommend a ratio in terms of jobs and
housing as well as defining the types of jobs. She also had concern about
creating new jobs today, however we are looking at a 20-year plan and is
concerned about closing the doors now when the economy could change. Jan
Vandersloot wanted to specifically include the word "traffic" as one of the
negative impacts in the group's response to this question. Joe Gleason feels that
the city does not need to accommodate or promote any more job growth
considering it is already job rich. George Jefferies pointed out one of the
problems caused by "job rich" Orange County is the amount of traffic daily
caused by people coming into Orange County from areas with fewer jobs. He
also pointed out there are a great number of service workers who come to
homes weekly in this area providing pool service, gardening, etc. Hoby Darling
pointed out that the group needs to think about what will happen if large
businesses, like Conexant, leave the area because the city will not support them.
•
Not only are their employees affected, but jobs in the legal community, for
example, would be affected also. Laura Dietz said she could not support any
message to the business community that says we will not allow any expansion.
Ms. Wood reminded the group that these questions were intended to be very
general at this point and the statements being discussed are not going to be the
language used in the policy in the general plan; that is the next step when all the
information from the studies is available. Ms. Verheyen called a stop to the
discussion based on the fact that committee members were not in agreement on
this issue yet. She proposed reviewing the minutes and coming up with two or
three statements for approval at the next meeting.
Question 13 — Should the City better utilize its harbors and beaches as
a visual, recreational and economic resource? If so, how? Mr. Hyans
asked for a definition of revitalize. Karlene Bradley moved to accept the
statement under the Overall Finding as the GPAC position. A majority agreed.
Question 19 — What City area(s) should reduce zoning capacity?
Karlene Bradley moved that the group accept the statement under GPAC. Jan
Vandersloot pointed out that in this process we shouldn't be analyzing each
project and suggested looking at the areas brought up in the Visioning Festival
and website to see if reduced zoning should be considered in.those areas. Ms.
Wood thought that was too much specificity for this committee at this time and
• recommended a language change to the statement "the issue is very community
ld
sensitive and each area must be reviewed." Ms. Bradley amended her motion to
• reflect that change. A majority supported this language.
Question 21 — What City area(s) are suitable for mixed -use
development projects that integrate housing in the upper floors of
commercial or office buildings? John Saunders thought this concept should
be encouraged wherever projects make sense instead of limited to certain areas;
however felt that there might be areas near the airport that should be
considered. George Jeffries agreed and thought the airport area should be
added to the statement. John Corrough suggested listing those areas suggested
at the Visioning Festival and website responses and add that we are prepared to
look at any appropriate sites. Karlene Bradley did not want to list any sites and
wanted to use the general language "where it is appropriate." Ms. Verheyen
pointed out that the matrix listed the areas brought up by members of the public
who responded at the Visioning Festival and website. Ms. Bradley motioned to
accept language stating we are in favor of mixed -use and wish to examine the
possibilities in any appropriate sites. The majority agreed with this language,
Julie Delaney opposed.
Question 26 — Should excess and underutilized commercial lands be
converted for residential or mixed -use development? John Saunders had
concerns with the word "converted" which suggests the city could just come in
• and convert a property. Bob Hendrickson agreed and asked to have the word
changed to rezoned. Catherine O'Hara asked if this was already allowed and if it
is, why is the question necessary. Ms. Wood explained it is not just allowed; a
general plan amendment is required when a property owner requests rezoning.
Karlene Bradley motioned to approve "Excess and underutilized commercial lands
shall be considered for rezoning for residential and mixed -use developments."
The committee voted to approve this language.
Question 48 — What should be the City's funding priorities? Alan Silcock
wanted to remove the word "improve" before infrastructure maintenance in the
GPAC and Overall Finding columns. He also felt a note should be added that the
list of priorities are not in ranking order. Jan Vandersloot pointed out that the
GPAC column does not include acquisition and improvement of open space and
parks and would like it to be added. Another member asked to strike the word
"improve" before public safety. Tom Hyans asked about the statement regarding
revenue producing priorities and asked for language regarding current expenses.
John Saunders agreed and said he would support adding a separate statement
regarding current expenses. Karlene Bradley suggested "improve fiscal
responsibility." Jennifer Wesoloski pointed out that the question asked about
funding priorities and looking at accountability should be included somewhere
else. Catherine O'Hara asked if we use the word improve does it imply it is not
good now? Ms. Verheyen asked the group for approval of adding "insure fiscal
• responsibility and accountability." The committee voted 21 in favor and 5
opposed. David Janes felt the statement on this question is very convoluted, the
5
question asks specifically for funding priorities. Ms. Verheyen asked if this
• statement should be moved to a different place on the matrix since we had
received a vote of approval. Ms. Bradley moved GPAC's response to this
question be the list under Overall Finding with a note that these priorities are not
in order of importance. Nancy Gardner thought that we were not going to list
schools in this category. Laura Dietz said she knew of a city that was using
general fund money to help support their school system. Mike Johnson said
Beverly Hills subsidizes their school district because they recognize the
importance of good schools to the residents. Bob Shelton pointed out that our
current Vision Statement references the importance of having a good school
system. .
11
Bike Trails — Bob Shelton felt the group was happy about the language on this
topic. No one disagreed with his assessment.
V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
Ms. Verheyen told the group that at our next meeting we should have the top
line survey results at our next meeting, we should discuss the Vision Statement
and continue with the strategic directions discussions. At the November 4t'
meeting we should have more detailed survey results and look at another version
of the Vision Statement as proposed by the Subcommittee.
VI. Next Steps
The Visioning Summit is scheduled for November 16th. A signup sheet was sent
around the room to make sure GPAC members are at both sessions.
Next meeting October Zip.
VII. Public Comments
Dave Sutherland presented an idea to the group about a trolley or light rail
system that would have parking at Banning Ranch and run down the Peninsula,
Coast Highway to Corona del Mar, and a third line up to John Wayne Airport. He
fells that this would reduce noise, pollution and traffic.
Stephanie Barger wanted to commend the committee for their efforts and
support Banning Ranch and open space.
0