Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2002_12_0211111111111111111111111111111111,1111111111 *NEW FILE* G PAC 2002 12 02 0 • •, NEWP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE KCJ,_ VISIONING PROCESS December 2, 2002 7:00-9:30 p.m. General Plan Advisory Committee MEETING #12 AGENDA Police Department Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive 7:00 I. Welcome and Introductions A. Agenda Overview B. Committee Communications 7:05 II. Approval of Minutes October 21, 2002 & November 4, 2002 7:10 III. Discuss the Vision & Strategic Directions Report 8:50 IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items 8:55 V. Next Steps 9:00 VI. Public Comments NEWP • GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS TUCLH- General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, October 21, 2002, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Dorothy Beek Ernest Hatchell Carol Boice Bob Hendrickson Karlene Bradley Tom Hyans John Corrough Mike Ishikawa Hoby Darling David Janes Julie Delaney George Jeffries Laura Dietz Mike Johnson Florence Felton Todd Knipp Nancy Gardner Donald Krotee Joseph Gleason Phillip Lugar • Evelyn Hart Catherine O'Hara Members Absent: Roger Alford Robert Shelton Phillip Bettencourt Jan Vandersloot Louise Greeley Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patty Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator Members of the Public Present: Robin Frank Carol Hoffman Dolores Offing • Bernie Svalstad Carl Ossipoff Larry Root John Saunders Brett Shaves Ed Siebel Alan Silcock Jackie Sukiasian Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo 1 I. Welcome and Introductions • Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. David Janes announced the Vision Subcommittee would be meeting on Monday, October 28t' at 5:30 at City Hall. All written comments should be submitted to Mr. Janes by 4:00 that day. Joe Gleason provided copies of his comments regarding the draft vision statement and made them available to all GPAC members. Sharon Wood reviewed the survey information included in the agenda packet. It is what is called "top line" results for both the residential and business surveys. This preliminary information does not include any data regarding voter vs. non- voters, geographic areas, age, etc., those breakdowns will be presented at the November a meeting by Bryan Godbe. II. Approval of Minutes —October 7, 2002 The minutes of the October 7t' meeting were approved as submitted. III. Group Discussion on Selected Strategic Directions • Carolyn Verheyen informed the committee that we will no longer vote on issues, instead we will discuss the topic and frame the issues that may need further discussions at the Visioning Summit. A. Banning Ranch Banning Ranch was addressed in Questions 9 to 11 in the Resident Survey. Nancy Gardner pointed out that although she does not want the property developed, she found it odd that the question only gave the options of developing half or none of the property and not full development. Carl Ossipoff asked about the $250 per parcel amount. Sharon Wood said she arrived at the amount assuming half of the purchase price could be covered by grants and the City would finance the matching half through a bond. She used an appraisal on the Caltrans West parcel, information provided by the County and figured a 15- year bond at 4% interest on the 217 developable acres to come up with the estimate. Karlene Bradley thought presentations indicated that the entire purchase might be covered by grant funding. Ms. Wood stated the point of the question was to see if open space was important enough for the citizens that they would be willing to pay extra for it. John Corrough remarked that 78% didn't know what Banning Ranch was when first asked, after the location was described 68% knew where it was and of that number, 46% were willing to pay • for preserving open space. However, Don Webb pointed out that still isn't the 2/3 needed to pass a bond issue. Bob Hendrickson felt that people need to be aware of the cost to buy land like Banning Ranch, it could be around $200 2 million. Alan Silcock thought we should mention affordable housing as an • alternative use for the land on the matrix under GPAC since it had been discussed. Ron Yeo felt that this open space is regional and we could partner with others and not have all the cost burden on Newport Beach. Catherine O'Hara asked if the respondents had been made aware of our need for affordable housing and that this is one of the few places suitable for this housing. Laura Dietz asked if there were any figures available with respect to the environmental clean up that would be needed. Don Krotee asked about current entitlement for the area. Ms. Temple said the current General Plan has a variety of land uses including approximately 2,650 dwelling units, 450,000 square feet of industrial and office development, 50,000 square feet or 5 acres of neighborhood commercial, park land in addition to other open spaces including a 12 to 15 acre community park of similar nature to Bonita Creek Park, fire station and other community facilities. Ms. Bradley pointed out that in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan it refers to preserving sensitive areas and geological hazard areas, and it has been brought up that Banning Ranch is a geological hazard area. George Jeffries asked about the densities under the current entitlements as well as traffic impacts caused by development and how it may affect emergency vehicles. Ms. Wood pointed out that when the traffic and fiscal models are completed, scenarios could be tested to get answers to these questions. Tom Hyans asked if the traffic study would include the 19th • Street bridge. Mr. Webb pointed out that the City's Circulation Element includes un-built roads planned to serve the area which would help divert traffic off Coast Highway. Carol Boice asked how affordable housing costs are controlled and maintained. Phil Lugar asked if the contamination issue at Banning Ranch had been investigated. Nancy Gardner asked if there were different cleanup requirements for park land as opposed to housing. Mike Johnson stated he thought he heard that Taylor Woodrow backed out due to the extreme cost involved in developing the area. B. Areas Suitable for Development Areas Suitable for Development was addressed in the resident survey Questions 12 though 18, and in the business survey Questions 11 through 17. Evelyn Hart thought the results were typical for this City with most people not wanting change, however she felt that if a good project was presented there could be support for it. Nancy Garnder asked if now that we have the Crystal Cove Promenade whether answers would change a year from now. Mr. Hyans pointed out that now there remains 200,000 square feet of entitlement for retail space in Fashion Island. He also stated that the property owners do not want additional retail space. Mr. Jeffries asked what happens to the existing entitlements in our General Plan Update. Ms. Wood said that the entitlements could remain the same, be taken away or increased. Mr. Hyans wanted to leave them as is. Ms. is Verheyen stated that is what most resident and business respondents said. Ms. Wood added that she thought that the respondents meant they wanted no change to what is currently on the ground and were not aware of what is 3 DRAFT currently in the General Plan. Mr. Silcock recommended no change in the existing General Plan to allow the property owners to keep their entitlements. Julie Delaney agreed and would support more retail space. David Janes agreed with Ms. Delaney. Newport Center was addressed in Questions 17 and 18. Carol Boice asked what the status was on the entitlements for Newport Center. Ms. Temple said that permits were just issued or about to be issued for the last office space and the only other significant project not yet built is a 100-room expansion to the Four Seasons Hotel. Joe Gleason thought this was enough and was against anything that would put one more employee in Newport Center. George Jeffries asked if there were plans to add more high -density apartments in Newport Center like the Colony. Ms. Boice said she thought the office buildings were the traffic generators and according to survey results, people do not want to expand MacArthur or Jamboree so adding more buildings would increase congestion in the area. John Saunders doesn't think that mixed use is suitable for Newport Center. The airport office area is addressed in the resident survey Questions 12 to 14 and the business survey in Questions 11 to 13. Nancy Gardner thought more attention should be given to the ratio between the building and the property • rather than just the height of the building. John Saunders stated that, especially in the airport area, regional development is an important consideration because a development that may be in a neighboring city still impacts us with traffic. George Jeffries feels that traffic congestion needs to be defined when addressing this issue, do people want to sit through 2, 3 cycles at major intersections or not. He also pointed out that in Irvine, developers go to their neighbors about transferring development rights instead of going for General Plan Amendments; this is something we should look at. He also suggested that revitalization is needed in the Campus -Birch area. C. Hotels Hotels and tourism were addressed by the resident survey Questions 20 to 23 and in the business survey Questions 19 to 23. Evelyn Hart asked for a summary of the hotels proposed in the City now. Ms. Wood said we don't have a formal application from the Sutherland Talla project which includes about 140 rooms at Marina Park. Ms. Temple added that a business hotel was approved seven years ago on the former Fletcher Jones site, but we have information that the project will not move forward. Ms. Wood added the Dunes. Ms. Hart and Mr. Hyans asked about Newport Coast hotels. Ms. Wood said they were time- shares. Ms. Temple added that the one in Sand Canyon doesn't look like it will go forward. Nancy Gardner asked if hotels were lucrative because additional traffic would be caused by the number of employees hotels require. Bob Hendrickson said he had seen studies on traffic impacts and they are much less than residential impacts. Laura Dietz said the real question is "do we need" rd more hotels. Alan Silcock thought Questions 20 & 21 were skewed because the • type of hotel was not included and feels more weight should be given to Question 22 where more information was provided. George Jeffries feels Question 21 only pointed out the positive aspects and did not get into any negatives about hotels, such as added traffic through JWA. He thinks the answers would have been different had these facts been shared. Jackie Sukiasian thought the best hotel would be small scale for weekend families vacationing at the beach, these people would not be using the airport. Carl Ossipoff thought the Ritz is more what people expect in Newport Beach, he also added that the money is in conventions and we are missing out on that business. Ms. Dietz suggested using the top floors of office buildings as hotel space. She also felt small "boutique" hotels would be something that might work here. Julie Delaney agreed with Mr. Ossipoff's comments, she added that she lives under the flight path of JWA but would not mind adding more flights to JWA because it would be easier traveling instead of having to travel to LAX. Regarding accommodating tourism, Nancy Gardner pointed out that we have no choice but to accommodate tourists, because we have public beaches. Mr. Ossipoff said we should take advantage of that fact, every year tourists come to Newport Beach and we should try to get as much money from them as possible, otherwise they will go to neighboring cities to spend their money. Mike Johnson said that because of property values, fewer rentals and more permanent residents are in • the area. The people who used to rent the houses don't want big hotels, they want something small and close to the beach. Ed Siebel asked if there were any figures regarding the trend on rentals. D. Revitalization Revitalization was not addressed directly in the survey. Ms. Verheyen pointed the group to Question 20 in the matrix for reference and added that the group should try to define "revitalization" before getting to far into the discussion. Joe Gleason suggested it means making something nicer without making it bigger. Carl Ossipoff agreed, and pointed to Mariner's Mile as an area needing revitalization. Mr. Gleason added making it nicer while still respecting historic places and the historic ambiance of the City. Dorothy Beek feels the Bay Club apartments are unattractive and would not want that to happen in other areas. Todd Knipp suggested we are still not getting any new and fresh ideas through this process and more time needs to be dedicated to brainstorming specific areas like Mariner's Mile in order to come up with these ideas. However, Mr. Gleason wanted to know if it was appropriate for GPAC to come up with the ideas or if private enterprise should and the City just approves or disapproves. Ms. Wood said it was a matter of philosophy and how we approach land use planning, do we wait for a developer to make a proposal or do we set some goals and give clues to private enterprise about what is acceptable to the City. Ron Yeo agreed • and pointed out one of the problems now is there is no vision, Mariner's Mile could develop a master plan with a vision of what we would like to see along the waterfront. John Corrough added that this has been done successfully in other 5 DRAFT communities, creating a public/private partnership along the water's edge and is working with developers to get the result we want on the waterfront. John Saunders wanted the airport area in the overall findings column under areas needing revitalization. Jennifer Wesoloski pointed out that in our visioning we haven't defined who we are planning for, are they our children, grandchildren, and what will their needs be. Defining this could be helpful during this process. Jackie Sukiasian pointed out that it is difficult to find restaurants and entertainment for people her age, it seems like businesses are not allowed to cater to the young people. Ms. Wood explained that in many cases commercial backs up against residential and that doesn't always work based on the complaints received. E. Larger Homes Larger homes were addressed in the resident survey by Question 2 and Question 27 in the matrix. George Jeffries pointed out that the problem with this question is it did not talk about specific areas. Ron Yeo agreed and stated that the bulk of the City is fine, it is the coastal areas that have problems and maybe the LCP will help. Ms. Wood suggested everyone refer to questions 3 and 4 from the residential survey because they get a little more specific regarding views and coastal bluffs. Mike Ishikawa feels the rules are adequate and suggested it is not • the size of the buildings that people object to, it is how the building looks and if it fits each village. Don Webb agreed that the problem is character, if a "box" was built next door you would not like it, but if the same square footage was built more attractive it would be accepted. Ed Siebel stated that this may have been an unintended consequence of R 11/2 zoning; it has forced architects on Balboa Island to use outdoor space more creatively. He also added in the older areas of the City, such as Corona del Mar and Balboa Island, height is also an issue. Julie Delaney suggested higher roof standards be allowed for buildings back from the coast to allow for ocean views. Jennifer Wesoloski pointed out that under current rules, in order to add on one room to her 1,000 square foot house, she would be required to tear down practically 1/2 of the historic home, she is not willing to do that but many people are. Mike Johnson said in West Newport that is not a bad thing, new construction is adding to the atmosphere, in many cases duplexes are being torn down and replaced with a single family homes. Don Krotee also stated that when the small group met to discuss this topic they felt this needed to be looked at neighborhood by neighborhood. David Janes added that our Vision Statement says we are going to encourage design principles and emphasize the characteristics that maintain the community's desire fore particular neighborhood or village. IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items • Nancy Gardner said that we get a lot out of small groups, and suggested the topics of Mariner's Mile, Lido Village, and the Airport Area for our next meeting. 0 Ms. Verheyen said we will be discussing the Vision Statement, a presentation by • the telephone survey consultant and if there was time we would break into small groups. Ron Yeo asked if the small groups could have plans of the area to do sketch overlays. John Saunders asked if we could have further discussions about entertainment for young people as Ms. Sukiasian brought up earlier. Karlene Bradley asked that a summary of what the survey consultant was going to cover .be provided in advance and then the committee could bring up questions which would shorten the time needed at the next meeting and allow for small discussion groups. Jennifer Wesoloski wanted to add culture to the discussion topics. David Janes suggested additional subcommittees may be helpful because it is difficult to get into topics in the short time allowed at our meetings. George Jeffries asked for a list of entitlements for the areas that will be discussed. V. Next Steps Ms. Wood told the group that the studies on traffic and fiscal & economics would not be available before the Visioning Summit and passed out a new schedule for completion of the surveys. The visioning process will end as scheduled and the survey information will be used in the next phase of the update process. • Next meeting November 4t'. VI. Public Comments No public comments offered. • 7 is NEWP(:?] GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, November 4, 2002, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Nancy Gardner Dorothy Beek Joseph Gleason Phillip Bettencourt Louise Greeley Carol Boice Bob Hendrickson Karlene Bradley Tom Hyans John Corrough Mike Ishikawa Hoby Darling George Jeffries Julie Delaney Phillip Lugar Laura Dietz Carl Ossipoff Florence Felton Larry Root Members Absent: Evelyn Hart Donald Krotee Ernest Hatchell Catherine O'Hara David Janes Brett Shaves Mike Johnson Jackie Sukiasian Todd Knipp Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patty Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator Members of the Public Present: Carol Hoffman • Dolores Offing Dick Nichols John Saunders Robert Shelton Ed Siebel Alan Silcock Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo B .N I. Welcome and Introductions • Bob Shelton called the meeting to order. The minutes from the previous meeting were not complete at the time of this meeting and will be presented at the next meeting. However, Carolyn Verheyen noted that she did incorporate comments from the last meeting into the matrix. II. Q and A with Bryan Godbe of GRA (Survey Consultant) Bryan Godbe and Josh Williams of Godbe Research and Analysis were present to answer any questions regarding the telephone survey and results. George Jeffries had presented a written response regarding the survey and Joe Gleason asked for a response to the points raised in the document. Mr. Godbe pointed out that they conducted a "quantitative" survey limited to 12 minutes and to get the results Mr. Jeffries would have liked to see, a "qualitative" survey would have had to be done. The qualitative survey is usually done during community forums and summits where hours are set aside and "why" questions can be asked and answered. The quantitative survey does not afford the ability to probe into the questions. If the survey had taken any longer, it would have been difficult to get people to agree to participate. Mr. Godbe also felt that the questions in the • survey were unbiased. Mr. Williams added that in order to conduct a 12 minute survey, options must be kept short, clear and simple otherwise you start loosing people. Ms. Wood added that the General Plan Update Committee wanted to keep the survey short so people would be willing to participate, and there were complaints about how long the survey took, so to add more questions or try to go into more depth would have reduced the amount of participation and increased the number of complaints. Carl Ossipoff (and Todd Knipp by e-mail) were concerned that 72% of the survey participants did not have children living at home under 18. Mr. Williams stated they wanted to make sure the data was representative of gender, geography and age to represent the 2000 census data. Newport Beach is slightly older than a typical California city, but he was not surprised to see this result. Mr. Godbe also pointed out that these days it is not surprising that someone would not say they had children living at home when they really don't know where this call is coming from, so there is a natural under- reporting. Also, after checking the ages, which can be confirmed through voter records, they felt comfortable with the representation. Dorothy Beek asked if they were predicting that the age distribution will be approximately the same 25 years from now. Mr. Williams said no, they were trying to represent Newport Beach as it is now. Mr. Williams said he looked at the data from the 2000 census and felt comfortable with the numbers based on what he saw. Tom Hyans brought up what he thought was the most obvious question that exemplifies what Mr. Jeffries was talking about —the question regarding Banning Ranch • development. If the question stated $10 a year, the answer would have been grossly different; the structuring of the question is what Mr. Jeffries was talking about. Ms. Wood stated that she based the estimate on the assumption that 2 F.,l 50% would be funded through grants and then did research with the County, • used appraisal information of CalTrans West site and applied an average per acre cost to only the usable acreage, then asked the Administrative Services Department to spread that total over a 15 year bond issue, she tried to be realistic —not scary. Mr. Williams said the objective is to ask about the most likely scenario, without giving a number the person answering doesn't have any idea what you are talking about and they would be asking the interviewer. John Saunders said he agreed that how the questions are asked can influence the answers, however he felt the process was as fair as you could make it. Karlene Bradley thought there should have been a question about Banning Ranch without any financial involvement from the citizens. Mike Ishikawa pointed out to offer something for free, of course everyone will want it, with the questions there were options and information provided, the questions about Banning Ranch provided both, it may not be the answers everyone wanted but it is up to us to come to our own conclusions based on the information we are getting. Jan Vandersloot agreed with Ms. Bradley and thought the question should have been about keeping Banning Ranch as open space without tying it to a tax increase for Newport Beach. Mr. Williams pointed out that the way the question was set up forced people to make a decision and make a priority. Mr. Jeffries pointed out that his motives for questioning the survey were to be constructive and he hoped to enhance the quality of the process. Bob Shelton found it difficult to extract • what the bottom line is with respect to the attitude toward hotels, by residents and businesses. Mr. Williams found that both residents and businesses were generally not supportive of new hotels. The confusion comes from starting off with a very general question and then pushing specifics; in some areas there is strong opposition, some areas there is not as much. If you look at the details the information is there, both big picture data and very specifics. Laura Dietz wanted to know if all of the businesses interviewed were also residents. Mr. Williams said the business universe was randomly drawn from active business license data, then clustered and stratified. The information is available in the cross tabulations, you can determine just the answers of the resident business owners. Ms. Wood reminded everyone that Appendix B is 300 pages long, so if it was not duplicated, however it is available. Mr. Gleason asked if the resident and business surveys would be given equal weight. Ms. Wood said that would be up to this committee, GPUC, Planning Commission and the City Council. III. Discussion of Revised Vision Statement Nancy Gardner reviewed the changes made to the Vision Statement. At the Subcommittee's meeting last week, they only addressed the areas where comments had been sent to them. The first change was in the order of the paragraphs. Under Community Character they cleaned up some language thanks • to Joe Gleason and they received a detailed note about balance from Carol Boice, with that they came up with the last sentence The successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses and visitors has been accomplished with the 3 recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community." Under • Growth Strategy and Land Use they said, "We have a conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of life —a strategy that balances the needs of the various constituencies...". In the second paragraph there was a word change "...characteristics that satisfythe community's desire..." The only other change was that estuary was used in both singular and plural, so the subcommittee decided to make it singular throughout the statement. The last question the Subcommittee discussed was regarding Responsive Government and whether it should be included in General Plan Vision Statement, after the discussion it in the statement. Karlene Bradley moved to accept the Visioning Statement as presented. Bob Shelton called for discussion before the vote on the motion. Jan Vandersloot asked why the plural form of estuary was changed to singular. Ms. Gardner didn't feel there was a strong feeling one way or the other. Tom Hyans said the discussions were always in reference to the Upper Bay. Mr. Shelton pointed out that with all the talk about the Santa Ana River, maybe it should be plural and members of the committee agreed. Joe Gleason wanted to make his argument to remove the Responsive Government paragraph, he pointed out that there is no Responsive Government element of the General Plan and he feels it is a function of the voters and may be a shot at the current City Council and not appropriate for this document. Dorothy Beek wanted the word navigability added. Mr. Shelton pointed out it is in the last sentence of • Boating and Waterways. Bob Hendrickson said he had a problem with the Airport section, because it is not visionary, it talks about preserving property values but doesn't provide a vision. Mr. Shelton stated there had been many opportunities to comment and if there is enough concern we might need to revisit that area, however for now we would be voting on what was presented. Mr. Gleason moved to amend the motion to remove Responsive Government. Mr. Hyans said asked the group to look at why greenlight was on the books here, it was because enough people felt government was not responsive, not listening and he feels there needs to be a reminder in these documents of what we're doing and what needs to be done in the future. Mr. Shelton called for a vote on the amendment. 12 were in favor of deleting the Responsive Government section and 14 opposed —the amendment failed. He then called for a vote on the main motion. A majority favored the statement as presented with the change to estuaries, 2 opposed. IV. Small Group "Area Visioning" Discussions Before starting the small group discussions, a discussion regarding the matrix took place. Carol Boice wanted the same language listed under GPAC for Question 18A (Fashion Island) "any expansion will increase existing traffic congestion" to be added to Question 18B (Newport Center) because it is the 40 same area. John Saunders asked to have the comment about opposition to car dealerships removed from the overall findings of Question 18C, it should be listed in the survey findings however this group disagreed with that so the comment DRAFT should not be in the overall findings. Tom Hyans brought up Question 13 and . said that under Newsletter Mailback the remaining 12% that seek economic gain were not addressed. Mr. Saunders also wanted the airport area added to Question 20 under Overall Findings and Neighborhood Workshops, Areas Needing Revitalization. John Corrough felt that findings from the business survey regarding water quality would fit into Question 13. Mr. Shelton asked that anyone with additional comments should meet with Ms. Verheyen during the small group discussions. The small groups were asked to appoint a recorder who would forward their notes to Debbie for inclusion in the minutes. Patty Temple explained the materials provided to each group to aid in their discussions. Groups were given 45 minutes for their discussions. A. Airport Business Area Roger Alford Carol Boice Laura Dietz John Saunders Jan Vandersloot The discussions centered around the Campus Drive area (Birch Campus Tract) where there are older, smaller buildings across from the airport and several car • rental agencies. One problem at the meeting was that the areas depicted numerically as Zones on the maps at the table did not correspond to the numerical areas in the General Plan Land Use Element. In general, it appears that there is roughly 17% more growth allowed in the current General Plan for Statistical Area L4 (Land Use Element, see page 86. 1,207,497 sq. ft./6,895,065 sq. ft. = 17%), while there is 42% more growth allowed for the Campus Drive area (Area 3, p. 86, 376,525 sq. ft./885,202 sq. ft. = 42%) under the existing General Plan Land Use Element. 1. Encourage retail, including big box, if economical, and car dealerships 2. Allow residential, let developers decide if practical in an airport area 3. Consider a parking authority 4. Allow minor density bonuses, as long as Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) is not triggered. 5. Allow flexibility in land use plan 6. Permitted land uses should not attract airport use and expansion 7. Permitted uses should not adversely impact traffic standards in residential areas (not trip the TPO) 8. Encourage better, newer office use to the extent we can't get retail, if retail is uneconomical 9. Effort is to encourage revitalizing and upgrading the area 10. Encourage revenue producing businesses in the area • 11. Consider lot consolidations to encourage revitalization E DRAFT B. Balboa Peninsula Commercial Dorothy Beek Julie Delaney Florence Felton Tom Hyans Thoughts and hopes from the group assigned to present their vision of the future Balboa Peninsula/Commercial Areas: Balboa Village: Commercial uses are concentrated in the area between A Street and Adams Street, between Edgewater walk and Oceanfront walk. Commercial uses are primarily visitor servicing, with a sprinkling of resident serving businesses. The City -owned and operated Balboa Village Theater complex is a success and theater -goers provide year round support for businesses. Fifteenth Street: Mixed use (residential -over -commercial) and multi -family residential uses in architectural harmony front the street. New median parking in 15th Street provides needed in -lieu parking for both residents and visitors. McFadden Square: The easterly boundary of the McFadden Square/Cannery Village District has been held to and includes the east side of 215t Street. • Central Balboa Peninsula: Residential uses, Peninsula -wide, have been preserved and expanded. Parks and beaches are preserved for residents and day -visitors. No new construction or paving has been permitted to spoil the remaining ocean and bay beaches. Hotels are limited to small Bed and Breakfast Inns which have been located in commercial zones and serve as buffers between commercial and residential uses. C. Lido Village John Corrough Louise Greeley Bob Henderson The three -person Lido Marina Village subgroup discussed, with the drop -by Q/A input of Sharon Wood and Patty Temple, the following key points/ideas. 1. Land Assembly and key outparcels/buildings, plus evolution of southerly waterfront edge to residential make this a very problematic area to develop cohesively. However is critical location for potential "big thing/big/space" on the harbor suggested in GP Harbor Element. 2. "Chinese wall" problem of views to and from the largest portion of water in Newport Harbor suggest retaining and enhancing the waterfront boardwalk, and enlarging to the existing 'peek-a-boo' view opportunities from adjacent streets/walks. 3. Making a big visual and access link between a renewed civic center/city hall complex and the water was a popular idea, and would give some new identity to the area. Problem is that this was also the 2 0 • 0 best place to put a new centralized parking structure to serve the under -parked existing and new uses in this area. 4. Closing many secondary streets (except for emergency and service) and extending the pedestrian concept of the Lido Village pedestrian street throughout the area, using bridging over the kept streets for pedestrian access upper level view plazas, etc. 5. Parking structures can be made friendly by articulation, retail uses around bottom edge, green/plaza, mixed uses on top, with a big visual/access slot through to the water seemed like a popular idea. Discussion group is now looking for a creative developer to sell this to. 6. Land assembly problems and inability of City/community/developers to do something readily done elsewhere will probably continue to condemn this important area to piecemeal solutions. A continuing shame. D. Mariner's Mile Phil Bettencourt Joe Gleason Carl Ossipoff Larry Root Mike Ishikawa Phil Lugar Alan Silcock Don Webb ❖ Possible continuous bayside boardwalk for pedestrian experience of the bay and shops. ❖ Possible parcel consolidation could increase the usefulness of lots. d• Parking could be resolved by creating parking districts on "inland side" of Mariner's Mile. ❖ Create pedestrian access to bayside (across PCH) by including a series of pedestrian bridges (over crossings). ❖ All noted that businesses will have to be active, and "buy in" to the concept of mixed use if residential were to be included as a possible use. ❖ Creation of reversible lanes was discussed as a possible method of reducing traffic congestion. However, due to numerous stated problems this concept was discarded. •3 Water quality improvement was discussed as necessary to attract pedestrians. ❖ The group recognized problems may exist with residents misunderstanding that commercial use may affect their use/lifestyle. Summary: The group agreed that the basic goal was to increase pedestrian use and access to the bay side of Mariner's Mile. Maximizing pedestrian access, the creation of parking districts with pedestrian over crossings, appropriate mixed use, and a continuous boardwalk along the bayside, will all serve to benefit Mariner's Mile. 7 II' E. Larger Homes • Karlene Bradley Hoby Darling Nancy Gardner George Jeffries Ed Siebel Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo The areas of special concern are Corona del Mar, Newport Heights, Balboa Island and the Peninsula, although these concerns may apply to other neighborhoods. INTRO: There is a concern that the character of some of our neighborhoods is being lost because large homes that do not fit that character are replacing older homes that established the character. In addition to changing the character, such homes may also impact the light and air of their neighbors and possibly diminish the sense of community that is so important to our neighborhoods. CURRENT REGULATIONS: Modifications are granted too easily and too frequently, and this is a contributing factor to the problem. FUTURE REGULATIONS: All regulations should be consistent and relatively simple to follow. There is a concern that simply controlling square footage is not the solution; suggestions include the elimination of tandem parking, step -backs for second stories and the prohibition of third floors, the expansion of required • usable open space, and the acceptance of basements which would not count as a third floor. HISTORICAL RENOVATION: Special consideration should be given to those who have older homes who wish to maintain the character of the home but enlarge it. DESIGN GUIDELINES: Design guidelines that emphasize the village character are a possible method to help builders design homes that fit into the particular neighborhood. Incentives (for example, plan check priority or concessions on parking) are a way to encourage builders to follow the guidelines instead of putting up cookie -cutter boxes. An effort should be made to educate current and future residents about the various areas of the city so that instead of moving into an inappropriate area and trying to make it fit, they choose an area suitable to their needs. PARKING: Thought should be given to parking permits for residents in some of these areas. V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items No discussion. 11 VI. Next Steps • Mr. Shelton reminded everyone of the Visioning Summit on Saturday, November 16t'. Ms. Verheyen advised the group that the General Plan Update Committee had selected the topics for the Summit, they are: Banning Ranch, the Airport Area, Hotel Development, Larger Homes, Newport Center/Fashion Island and Transportation. Next meeting, Monday December 2nd VII. Public Comments No public comments offered. Cr NEW , • GENERAL MN UPDATE VISIONING RRGDESS Community Visioning Summit Highlights • Prepared by Moore lacofano Goltsman (MIG), Inc. November 27, 2002 0 I. Introduction On November 16, 2002, the City ofNewport Beach hosted.the Community Visioning Summit, an event attended by more than 350 City residents, business owners, and other stakeholders in the City's future. The primary purpose of the Summit was to share the findings from the yearlong Community Visioning Process associated with the General Plan Update and seek further public input on future directions for the protection and development of Newport Beach's physical, economic and cultural resources. This report presents the key highlights from the discussion and feedback generated at the Summit. The first section of the report contains a high-level summary of the small group discussions. It synthesizes the input from the six topic areas of the morning and afternoon sessions. The second section of this report is a verbatim transcription of the participant comments drawn on tite large "Comment Walls." These were used as an open-ended forum to allow participants to provide commentary on issues not covered in other portions of the event. The final section of this document is a list of facts and technical data needed by residents in order to make adequately informed decisions on the key areas of future direction. II. Small Session Discussion Highlights Hotel Development • ■ Development depends on location, hotel character, size and height, and, neighborhood acceptability. ■ General support for small bed and breakfast amenities, inns, and boutique hotels that are integrated and harmonious with the surrounding area, e,g. appropriate height limits along the waterfront. ■ Improve the character, revitalize and convert existing hotels by making more upscale, thereby increasing the transient occupancy tax (TOT) while reducing or maintaining total accommodations. ■ The following have varying levels of support as potential sites for new hotels: Newport Coast, Banning Ranch, Ardell,property, Fashion Island, Lido Marina Village and Airport Area. ■ Analyze vacancy rates, markets, user groups, long-term tourism impacts, and neighborhood character in planning future hotel development. ■ Analyze various traffic impacts from tourism and hotels and minimize. Address seasonal traffic congestion contributed to by tourists. ■ Create a "hierarchy" of hotel types that match/harmonize with City villages and districts. ■ Examine4he market and clientele types and focus on low -impact,, upscale segments. ■ Do not encroach on public lands. ■ Hotel at IVlarinapark and the Dunes opposed by many. ■ Examine alternative TOT -generating tourist accommodations, e.g. timeshares, motor coaches. • Visioning Larger Homes/Bluff Development ■ Keep (and define) residential character of individual neighborhoods. ■ Restrict height and size of homes. ■ Balance property owners' rights with design control. ■ Be more restrictive in use of variances. ■ Encourage a variety of home designs. ■ Address sustainability. ■ Encourage visible open space. ■ Preserve both views of bluffs and views from bluffs. ■ Establish large setbacks to protect bluffs. ■ Address inter -relationships between properties. ■ Different neighborhoods should be evaluated to determine most appropriate solutions. ■ Need to distinguish between large lot/large home situation versus small lot/large homes. ■ Re-evaluate zoning regulations regarding FAR, height, density, setbacks. ■ Balance property rights with balancing need for compatibility. ■ Survey different areas. ■ The issue is both size and design ■ Evaluate impact of lot mergers. ■ Significant bluffs include: Castaways, Banning Ranch, Sunset Ridge, Hoag, Newport Coast, Irvine Terrace. • ■ Issue is views of and from bluffs, and preservation of existing land forms. ■ Need better inter -agency cooperation between the Coastal Commission and City. ■ Divided opinion on whether to use more controls. ■ Utilize HOA/BIIA to help Traffic & Transportation ■ Improve focus on bike and pedestrian trails and increase connectivity, e.g., Corona del Mar/Mariner's Mile toward Irvine. ■ Undertake greater traffic analysis. ■ Signal synchronization is supported, especially during peak hours. Make a top priority. ■ Public transit is supported. ■ Improve roadway signage, especially for tourist destinations. ■ Perform limited widening balanced with other modes of transit. ■ Improve current conditions but don't add capacity for new development. ■ Eliminate Mariner's Mile Street parking during peak hours. ■ Little support for overpasses. ■ Provide shuttle service to accommodate seniors, students and tourists, e.g., providing access to Balboa Peninsula. ■ There is greater support for Jamboree/MacArthur overpass, but less for others. ■ Address traffic impacts in residential areas as high priority. • ■ Address safety issue of crossing at 19'h Street. City of Newport Beach Community Visioning Summit Highlights General Plan Update Visioning Process z Banning Ranch ■ Use a needs -driven approach consistent with community values in developing and/or preserving. ■ Preserve and restore significant part as open space. ■ As a small enclave of natural space in the urban metropolis, area has intrinsic value. ■ Designate as area for special study under the General Plan Update. ■ Prioritize areas needing preservation (e:g., bluffs) and' perform additional studies of habitats and species to determine area characteristics and priorities. ■ Explore possibility of affordable housing, especially for family units. ■ Consider providing senior and youth public facilities. ■ The option receiving consensus support is to develop a "River Park" before proceeding with the development of Banning. ■ Open space preservation strongly supported but the degree of preservation not agreed upon. Approximately one -quarter to one-half of session participants favor complete preservation. ■ Partial development with affordable housing is a viable option to be explored, given the lack of alternatives to comply with State mandates. ■ Variable levels of support for sports fields, commercial, hotel and.other mixed -use development. ■ Examine land -use in adjacent region and adopt a broad approach'for determining land -use. ■ Integrate transportation and traffic mitigation measures into development plans. ■ Resistance to paying steep assessment and support for identifying alternative financing, e.g. • state. ■ ,Patricia Temple answered participants' technical questions and it was acknowledged that there.is a general lack of public information about Banning Ranch development. Newport Center & Fashion Island ■ Existing entitlement is okay. ■ Incorporate owner -occupied residential in Fashion Island, if: a) it can be designed so it is compatible with retail, and b) it is economically viable. ■ Consider impacts on traffic and link to public transportation. ■ Consider uses such as sporting goods store, grocery store, conference facility, hotel, etc. ■ Address the need for affordable housing. ■ Maintain marketability and attraction of Fashion Island. ■ Address safety of parking areas. ■ Majority discourages•more office development. ■ Strong support for cultural center, museum, performing arts at Newport Center. ■ Deal with traffic at San Miguel/Avocado. ■ Introduce mixed use. ■ Traffic is major issue. ■ Consider high-rise residential/condos at Newport Center. ■ Provide flexibility to bring in retail uses that may be needed in future. . City of Newport Beach Community Visioning Summit Highlights General Plan Update Visioning Process 3 ■ Need affordable housing and employee housing. ■ Preserve retail entitlement at Fashion Island. ■ Promote cultural activity at Fashion Island. Airport Business Area ■ Consider eliminating underdevelopment entitlement. ■ Revenue -generating business acceptable. ■ Coordinate with other jurisdictions' plans. ■ Auto dealerships supported. ■ Mixed -use and entertainment uses supported. ■ Hotels supported. ■ Split opinion on more development. ■ Auto dealerships may be acceptable if traffic is not adversely affected. ■ Split support and opposition for big box retail uses. ■ Mixed -use with high -density residential acceptable. ■ Limit uses that significantly increase airport traffic. III. Comment Wall Transcriptions Morning Session ■ Hotels are often vacant. Do we need more hotels? (Excellent! Good point!) ■ Where should the City's future Civic Center be (where is it now?)? What should it contain? How big will it need to be? ■ 10 Million visitors come to N.B. yearly. They're coming like it or not. Let's accommodate and extract as many dollars from them to support our services that benefit ALL residents (i.e. fire/police/etc.) ■ Need shuttle buses like Laguna Beach (but, Privately Funded) ■ Funding priorities: increase cultural assets. ■ Protect public access to bluffs. ■ Don't restrictmy RIGHT to build my Home! ■ Protect private property rights! ■ Smaller/"boutique" type hotels could really help anchor some areas. Visitors are coming! Let's maximize their economic input. ■ City needs to recognize the importance of the arts and culture to the quality of life in our community. ■ The California Coastal Commission is a communist idea! ■ Safeguard private property rights ■ Safeguard human rights (AMEN)! Visioning Process ■ Better zoning of tourist facilities —fishing boat, and flyer to Catalina are located at end of Peninsula —why not locate closer to coast hwy? Better flow of traffic is the result. ■ Do not move City Hall. ■ City employees can park in city parking lot! ■ Install flashing lights on CDM crosswalks — as is done in Laguna Beach. ■ Integration of the Arts into all aspects of the city. ■ We need quality hotels. ■ Let's watch out for the "condos of corpses" that are approved at the Pacific View Memorial Park. They are out of scale, and too close.in proximity to Seaview and Spyglass Hill residence. The park is a beautiful piece of open space for all to enjoy. We are concerned about the noise, the conflict of use, privacy, the aesthetic impact to residential homeowners and plot owners who visit. The project should -be scaled down and proper horizontal and vertical set backs placed with thick and tall.landscape buffer zone. ■ Can we "ticket" racing, screeching, ear-splitting motorcycles speeding along BCH. Also, loud stereo idiots in their cars! ■ Turn Mariners Miles into a wonderful pedestrian, shops, restaurant, attraction. ■ For all developments, I would like to see if we can touch issues such as "SUSTAINABILITY LIVING" (water conservation, alternative energy, and transportation public traffic). All these are major issues now and definitely 10-15 yrs from now we need to change lifestyle to meet these. ■ Do we really need an "Aqua Toupe" for our reservoir? For 5 million dollars? This vital piece of infrastructure not only provides drinking water, but can potentially help beautify the Memorial Park, Spyglass and Seaview Vistas. People need a place.to reflect. Perhaps we can retrofit the -filtration system, the cracks in the walls, the black sediment and clean it up. We need to protect the power source, the water at post-distribution,locations, rather • than just "capping" it. The idea to'landscape the surrounding area is terrific! ■ If hotels are affordable the tourists will stay here and $$ remain in the city. ■ We need an arts center that is always open with drop -in programs, classes, and performances. Let's enrich our community. ■ Decrease land values with smaller homes! ■ Try to get a rezone opinion from the public for Banning Ranch. Choose to rezone between 0 and 1000. Current zoning is too large. ■ Let's get started on upper Bayview andNewport Village Parks — let's break ground! ■ Semi -fixed. Route jitney. (Must be alt. Fuel to qualify) ■ Mansionization: Among several factors, a basic problem with it is poor taste (aesthetically and socially). "Conspicuous consumption/display," ■ Counter -point: Harbor View is a much better neighborhood because of the teardown and re -model activity. Don't let Newport become Laguna Beach — where big government interferes with property owners' ability to turn -old, dilapidated housing into beautiful new housing. ■ Let's not forget Arts and Cultural programming under community services — in addition to providing facilities. The Arts and Culture are vital to our children's lives and add to everyone's quality of life. Orange County Museum of Art and NB Film Festival and a number of galleries/smaller orgs. Add a tremendous economic development impact in "clean" revenue potential. ■ Save our open spaces! (Absolutely!) ■ More open space, fewer office bldgs. and hotels! (Amen! Right on!) ■ Banning Ranch, great opportunity to put affordable housing away from our backyards. • City of Newport Beach Community Visioning Summit Highlights General Plan Update Visioning Process 5 s ■ No variables shall be given. ■ Must have a bike/roller blade path from S.A. River to wedge on oceanfront different from boardwalk! (Works in H.B.!!) (Great idea. Get bikes off the road between 36th and Santa Ana River) (Great Ideal) ■ Fewer large, noisy Harbor Public Cruise boats, please. ■ More bike and walking trails. ■ The ARTS bring more tourists, more revenue, and more tax money. ■ Plant grass at Newport Village Park, upper Bayview Park and Castaways — please ■ If I ever see uniformed officers helping w/ traffic flow I'll have a hear attack. (Amen!) ■ Limit height of ocean front homes! (and Bay Front homes) ■ For safety — "old" CDM needs streetlights! ■ No streetlights! Let's be able to see the stars at night! (Amen!) ■ Please don't forget more incentives to protect historical homes —just like the bluffs, we will never get them back. ■ I live in an old dilapidated house and I love it! Afternoon Session ■ A priority should be safety on residential streets (Newport Heights) and not getting to work faster. • Grow JWA responsibly: • We are 3M people here • • The conveniences are enormous • Keep curfews ■ 5 star hotel on the Peninsula — Hooray! ■ Dredging of Harbor! South side of area within 1000 yards of Groyne (sp?) is sitting badly and encroaching on the center of the main channel to the entrance. Boats and wharves are being damaged and soon the Catalina Flyer will have trouble making its passage through the heads. ■ Traffic speed and flow in Newport Heights and other residential neighborhoods. ■ AIRPORT: MIXED -USE Hotel -Condos Retail ■ Build and they will come! (Is that what you want?) ■ Bike and ped Trails and Streets ■ Traffic: • Let's get the traffic engineers to better sync traffic signals: • Poor now (esp Jamboree) (Amen!) • Is technology available? • Our main streets (PCH, Newport, Jamboree, MacArthur) are plenty wide — 6 lanes • Manage the traffic better! • Keep the main routes moving all day ■ No Nimby's in Newport! ■ anch: BanningRanch: • Most people are in favor of retaining it as open space • Telephone survey misrepresents desire because it put a $250 price tag on it/parcel/year. • Questions reflected development rather than preservation City of Newport Beach Community Visioning Summit'Highlights General Plan Update Visioning Process 6 ■ DeAnza Bayside Village: • Keep it under the over-riding G.P. • Pat Munn, #289 Mayflower Dr. N.B. ■ Open Space: • it's a finite resource and an•ever-dwindling resource.here in Orange County. Wetland and coastal'bluff areas should not be developed. Once open space is developed it's gone forever. ■ Balanced Growth: • More local jobs • Hotels • Tax revenuel • Let developers pay for traffic improvements ■ Complaints without solutions are worthless: • i.e. better traffic flow but no widening of roads • i.e, expand businesses but not at Newport Center or J.WA ■ With the County and state flat broke, where are all these "Grant" dollars coming from? IV. Information Needed ■ Conduct study/survey of cars and zip codes at Airport parking lot. (Airport Area) ■ 5-year hotel occupancy trends, both CVB and in neighboring cities. (Hotel Dev.) ■ Determine CVB vacancy rates at non -hotel rooms/rentals. (Hotel Dev.) ■ Potential traffic impact of Marinapark Hotel. (Hotel Dev.) ■ Who are hotel users? (Hotel Dev.) ■ How does hotel development, particularly high -end, relate to property values in surrounding area? (Hotel Dev.) ■ Amount of increased revenue if/when Fashion Island operates extended hours. (Newport C./Fashion Is.) ■ Safety issues of parking lots versus structures. (Newport C./Fashion Is.) ■ Look.at Charter regarding overpass intersections whether defined asfreeway. New freeways are not allowed. (Traffic) City of Newport Beach Community Visioning Summit Highlights General Plan Update Visioning.Process 7 4 • NEWP GENERAL PLAN UPDATECH VISIONING PROCESS A Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process Community Directions for the Future November 2002 DRAFT UNFORMATTED MANUSCRIPT CJ Pmpared by: Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. 800 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 61 The City of Newport Beach wishes to acknowledge the individuals listed below for devoting their time and expertise to the General Plan Update Community Visioning Process. We thank you for your dedication, leadership and creativity. The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Robert Shelton, GPAC Chair Mike Ishikawa Philip Lugar, GPAC Co -Chair David Janes Roger Alford George Jeffries Dorothy Beek Mike Johnson Phillip Bettencourt Todd Knipp Carol Boice Donald Krotee Karlene Bradley Catherine O'Hara John Corrough Carl Ossipoff Seth Darling Larry Root Julie Delaney John Saunders Laura Dietz Brett Shaves Florence Felton Ed Siebel Nancy Gardner Alan Silcock Joseph Gleason Jr. Jackie Sukiasian Louise Greeley Jan Vandersloot Evelyn Hart Don Webb. Ernie Hatchell Jennifer Wesoloski Bob Hendrickson Ron Yeo Tom Hyans The General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) Gary Adams, Council Member. Shant Agajanian, Planning Commissioner Tom Anderson, Aviation Committee Designee Allan Beek, Measure S Supporter Steven Bromberg, Mayor. Pro Tern Tim Collins, Harbor Committee Designee Robert Dunham, Economic Development Committee Designee Barry Eaton, Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee Designee Anne Gifford, Planning Commissioner John Heffernan, Council Member Michael Toerge, Planning Commissioner is City ofNetvnort Reach Connnnnity Directions for the Enatre A San nary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process I • Newport Beach City Council Tod Ridgeway, Mayor Steven Bromberg, Mayor Pro Tem. Gary Proctor, Council Member Norma Glover, Council Member Gary Adams, Council Member Dennis O'Neil, Council Member John Heffernan, Council Member Newport Beach Visioning Process Staff Homer Bludau, City Manager Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager, Visioning Project Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner Marilee Jackson, Public Information Officer Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Shirley Oborny, Administrative Assistant City of Newport Beach Planning Department Patricia Temple, Planning Director • Patrick Alford, Senior Planner George A. Berger, AICP, Senior Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Tamara Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner Javier Garcia, AICP, Senior Planner Janet Johnson -Brown, Assistant Planner Niki Kallikounis, Planning Department Assistant Laura Levin, Planning Technician Marina Marrelli, Assistant Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Chandra Slaven, Assistant Planner Daniel R. Trimble, Associate Planner Ginger Vatin, Administrative Assistant • City ofNeivoort Reach Community Directions for fire Future. A Summary ofthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 1I Consulting assistance and report design provided by: • Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) Planting Consultants Carolyn Verheyen, Principal Sharon McN:unee, Project Manager Julie Ting, Project Associate Andrew Miller, Project Associate Kate Welty, Project Manager Communications and Graphic Design Consultants Ed Canalin, Art Director Carie DeRuiter, Creative Director Kim Donahue, Production Manager Tim Lehane, Graphic Designer n U • City orNewnort Reach Community Directions for the rninre d Summary ojthe General Plan Update NsigningProcess in 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS n U • ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................1 Introduction................................................................................................ 7 Overview of the Visioning Process...................................................................................7 ANew Vision for the Future..............................................................................................9 Directionsfor the Future...........................................................................13 OutCommunity...................................................................................................................13 Our Land Our City 14 ....................24 City ofbleivnort Beach Community Directions for the Future A Summary ofthe General Plan Update Visioning Process IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 'Introduction Newport Beach is internationally known as one of Southern California's most appealing beach communities. Both residents and visitors celebrate the City's cultural and economic assets and sheet natural beauty. In order to maintain its course and collaboratively identify policy directions, the City initiated a long-term Visioning Process in November 2001. The Community Visioning brought together hundreds of residents, business owners and other constituents with a stake in the City's future to discuss and provide answers to key questions. Through an array of Visioning events, community members have spoken on how best to characterize the City's identity, how to address regional -widespread population growth and the ensuing pressures of development and how to balance environmentalconservation with the need to -maintain and improve infrastructure and services. C� This document presents the City's vision and strategic directions at both Cignvide.and neighborhood levels, which will help make the vision a reality. The Visioning Process has yielded some surprising and valuable results, identifying key areas where agreement is broad as well as areas where opinions are split. The statements of direction will inform and help shape the concrete policies to be included in the General Plan, defining the ways • Newport Beach wants to work together not only topreserve its cherished assets but to continue to improve them for future generations. Overview of the Visioning' Process In the Fall of 2001 Newport Beach initiated a "Community Visioning Process" to elicit the values, aspirations, and ideas of the Newport Beach community. The Visioning Process spanned a little more than a year and offered a series of opportunities for residents to become actively involved. A Visioning.Festival, multiple neighborhood workshops, a newsletter mailback questionnaire, a website questionnaire and an information display produced preliminary results, which were subsequently translated into preliminary strategic directions for the City. In October 2002, the City conducted a statistically verifiable community survey with both residents and business owners to further test these directions. In addition, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) met six times through the Sunvner and Fall to deliberate on the vision statement and the key questions facing the City as it charts a course for the future. A careful analysis of all the ideas and opinions that have surfaced through these activities revealed that several crucial issues needed to be further discussed. A Visioning Summit held in November 2002 allowed participants a chance to learn more about where the • community is aligned, to engage in probing discussion over areas where opinion is divided, City ofllcivnort Beach Conrmmnity Directions for the F+nnre A Snnnnary ojthe General Plan Update Visioning Process I • and to provide additional input on remaining future directions. The technical studies underway and those to be performed in early 2003 will provide a more rigorous and in- depth analysis of the current physical and fiscal reality and offer projections on future conditions. A New Vision for the Future The Process also resulted in a new, shared vision for the future of Newport Beach. This new vision describes the City's desired end state and what we as a community hope to have achieved by 2025. The GPAC played an instrumental role in crafting the vision statement through a series of discussions and revisions, drawing upon public feedback from the Visioning activities. Directions for the Future This section of the document presents the strategic directions that evolved from the Community Visioning Process. These community directions will inform and shape the policies to be included in the City's General Plan. In some cases, broad agreement exists among community members as to how to proceed into the future. In other areas, opinions are still somewhat divided. For ease of interpretation, the strategic directions summaries have been organized into two areas in this Executive Summary Areas of General Agreement and Areas of Divided Opinion. • The full document contains more detailed descriptions of the views expressed by Visioning Process participants. Areas of General Agreement Our Current and Future Identity The vast majority of residents view Newport Beach as primarily a residential beach town with broad appeal as a tourist destination. Most residents support reinforcing this identify into the future. Distinctive Characteristics Across the board, community members agree that Newport Beach can boast numerous assets and a good quality of life. Senior and Youth Services and Facilities In general, residents who were asked expressed satisfaction with services for seniors and youth. The City's Youth Council supported additional enhancements to recreational opportunities for youth, such as more sports fields and leagues. City offeiy4orl Beach Community Directions for the Future A Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process 2 Harbors and Beaches Overwhelming consensus exists that our harbors and beaches must be protected and • enhanced as our most cherished resource. Issues that demand attention are improving water quality and enhancing recreational areas. Coastal Bluffs A majority of participants, including members of the GPAC, feel strongly that coastal bluff areas are important and should be protected through stricter codes, tougher enforcement and improved planning and design efforts. Public View Corridors Newport Beach residents agree that the City should preserve remaining public view corridors, including the coastal bluffs, and create more views wherever possible. Additionally, a citywide inventory of existing public view corridors and firmer guidelines were recommended. Historic Commercial and Residential Villages Some support was expressed for protecting historic commercial and residential villages. Specific suggestions included narrowing the permitted uses in some commercial areas, adopting design and development guidelines, establishing a design review process, and reducingthe permitted size of buildings in residential neighborhoods. • Areas Whete Zoning Should Be Reduced While participants proposed areas where zoning capacity should be reduced, GPAC members warned that the issue is highly sensitive and that any, area considered must be carefully reviewed. Areas to Revitalize People are in general agreement about what areas of the City need revitalization. Participants at the Visioning Festival, website respondents and GPAC membets,agreed that the following areas are in need of revitalization: Balboa Village, Mariner's Mile, Old Newport Boulevard, Cannery Village, Central Balboa Peninsula, and McFadden Square. GPAC members felt that the Airport Business Area was a good candidate for revitalization as well. They cautioned that we need a shared definition of revitalization before any decisions are made regarding specific areas. Areas Suitable for Mixed Use From input collected at the Visioning Festival and through the website, the areas deemed appropriate for mixed -use development integrating housing and tetaill or office space are Balboa Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square and Lido Marina Village. The GPAC favors mixed -use development in all appropriate sites, and believes each site should be studied for its specific suitability. • City ofNewnort Beach Conarntni(v Directions for the Fnotre d Snnnnary ojthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 3 Use of Underutilized Commercial Land • GPAC members and Visioning Festival participants strongly agree that the City should consider re -zoning excess and underutilized commercial lands for residential or mixed -use development. Excess Development A number of community members felt that the City had an excess of certain types of development, particularly rental properties, office buildings and larger homes. Tidelands and Other Public Lands Most participants concur that tidelands and other public lands should be preserved as open space. Some development of public facilities is supported, particularly among business owners. Open Space or Parks Community members highly value the open space and parks in Newport Beach. Nearly 80% of Festival attendees wanted the City to be more proactive in acquiring these areas, even if doing so means bond financing. Council District 2 workshop participants, website respondents, and Summit attendees voiced similar opinions. • Residential Neighborhoods and Parking Impacts Participants support a wide range of solutions, but GPAC members warn that remedies to parking problems must be evaluated in relation to specific sites and neighborhoods. Airport Issues The vast majority of participants, including GPAC members, agree that the City should have a land use strategy to prevent the expansion of the John Wayne Airport. In line with this view, strong support exists for the construction of an airport at El Toro: 64 percent of residents and 55 percent of businesses affirm their support, with 56 percent of residents expressing strong support. Twenty-seven percent of residents and 37 percent of businesses are opposed. If flights from a new airport were restricted from passing over the City, survey respondents would be slightly more supportive of the project. City Funding Priorities Many participants, including members of the GPAC, agree that the City should prioritize the following: infrastructure maintenance; revitalization of infrastructure in older commercial areas; acquisition and improvement of open space, beaches and parks; improved water quality; and public safety. City o Newm ort Beach Community Directions for the Future A Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process 4 Areas of Divided Opinion Job Growth Participants are divided on whether the City should continue to accommodate job growth. Those who did express support for growth stated that the City should "accommodate" but not "promote" additional employment opportunities. Potential, Development Areas Overall, people want the City to set firm constraints on development, including expansion of employment centers. However, under certain conditions additional' development may be acceptable. Fashion island A majority of residents and businesses support keeping retail space at current levels, but many are still willing to back expansion of existing stores and moderate increases for new business. Many are concerned about the traffic impacts of any new development. Newport Center A majority o£residents and businesses support little or no change to Newport Center, but a number are still willing to allow growth for existing companies. Participants • expressed strong concerns over traffic and parking impacts of new development. Airport Business Area Participants are split on support for development, but some agreement exists over the types of development that ate appropriate for the area. If future development were to occur, both resident and business survey respondents were comfortable with low-rise office buildings. The two groups are also aligned in their opposition to more car dealerships and industrial, uses. Banning Ranch Most people want to see open space preserved at Banning Ranch, but the degree of preservation is still under debate. Resident survey respondents, GPAC members and Visioning Summit attendees were divided down the middle over whether to allow for limited development of Banning Ranch or to preserve the entite area as open space. Many who were supportive of development favor affordable housing. The majority of Summit attendees also agreed that a ",River Park" should be developed before ptoceeding with Banning Ranch. Larger Homes While larger homes and their effects on views and neighborhood character is a distressing trend to many in Newport Beach, residents have mixed opinions on whether existing • regulations are sufficient for now. Many residents believe existing regulations to restrain Cry oft mWort Beach Connnnnity Directions for the Frnere .4 Snannaty ofthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 5 • home size and protect views are sufficient. GPAC members and Visioning Summit attendees suggest that the extent of the problem varies by geographic area and relates to home design, rather than simply size. Tourism and Hotels Participants in the Visioning program events were overall in favor of tourism, but divided on providing more tourist accommodations. Participants were also divided over the question of whether the City wants more hotels. If hotels were to be built, opinions are split on what types to build, but some agreement exists as to where to build. Transportation Improvements A majority of participants are concerned with traffic congestion, but views differ over how to mitigate the problem. None of the solutions suggested received significant public support. The most support exists for a Jamboree/MacArthur overpass, public transit and improved bike and pedestrian trails. The strongest opposition was to street widening, although a number of participants support widening the Coast Highway. The majority of those asked view more airport business area traffic congestion as acceptable. Residential Neighborhoods and Traffic Impacts While no clear consensus emerged over how to remedy traffic impacts on neighborhoods, • Visioning Summit participants stressed that the issue should be one of the City's highest priorities. Only 37 percent of residents and 29 percent of business owners support traffic calming measures, such as stop signs, narrowed streets or roundabouts. Some have suggested stricter enforcement of speed limits, and improving transit options and school transportation. • Economic Development People expressed mixed opinions about the impact of economic development on the City, with business owners being slightly more in favor of economic development than residents. City offe port Reach Conran nnty Directions for the Future_ A Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process 6 INTRODUCTION Newport Beach is internationally known as one of Southern California's most appealing beach communities. Both residents and visitors celebrate the City's cultural and economic assets and sheer natural beauty. In order to maintain its course and collaboratively identify policy directions, the City initiated a long-term Visioning Process in November 2001. The principal outcome of the process is to ensure that Newport continues to develop well in the new century in a way consistent with.a strong andZiverse community identity and shared values. The Visioning Process provides direction for the next 25 years to preserve and enhance the City's environment and economy while improving the quality of life for its residents. As a City we must wisely capitalize on and protect our unique assets, including its beautiful coastal lands and.harbor, boating and recreational opportunities, popular shopping centers, arts and cultural events, and historic neighborhoods. Bringing the community vision to fruition will involve identifying opportunities and resolving challenges. The Community Visioning Process brought together hundreds of residents, business owners and other constituents -,vith a stake in the City's future to discuss and provide answers to key questions, Through a variety of Visioning events, community members have spoken on how best to characterize the City's identity, how to -address regional widespread population growth and the ensuing pressures of development, and how to balance environmental conservation with the need to maintain and improve infrastructure and services. The community's deliberations related to these issues will ultimately'be considered as part of a General Plan Update that will guide City decisions and actions well into the future. This document presents the City's vision and sttategic directions at both Citywide and neighborhood levels, which will help make the vision a reality. The Visioning Process has yielded some surprising and valuable results, identifying key areas where agreementis broad in terms of what direction to take in achieving our community vision as well as areas where opinion is split. An analysis of the cumulative public feedback has demonstrated a high degree of consensus over several fundamental questions of environmental' preservation, areas where growth should be directed or restricted, and City funding priorities and resource allocation. It has also illuminated issues where the community does not uniformly concur and where policymaking is not simply a matter of enacting public will. The statements will inform and help shape the concrete policies to be included in the General Plan, defining the ways Newport Beach wants to work together not only to preserve its cherished assets but to continue to improve them for future generations. Overview of the Visioning Process In the Fall of 2001 Newport Beach initiated a "Community Visioning Process" to elicit the values, aspirations, and ideas of the Newport Beach community. This process lead to a series of findings that are summarized here and form a framework for updating the • City's General Plan and directing future City planning efforts. City ofNewyort Beach Copn n inity Directions for the Fnlnre A Sunnnary ofthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 9 • The process spanned a little more than a year. Beginning in January 2002, the City offered a series of opportunities fox residents to become actively involved in the Visioning Process. The timeline (Insert the process graphic as Figure 1) illustrates how the events came together to allow each individual a chance to have a voice in shaping the future of Newport Beach. The booklet Newport Beach. Crttrent Conditions, Future Choices, released in Fall 2001, served as an important tool to frame the Visioning Process. At the City -sponsored Visioning events, it served as a reference guide, providing information about the current state of the City as the groundwork for discussing the future. It was organized around the following topics: the origin and culture of Newport Beach, the preservation and development of the physical environment, and City services, governance, and economy. As the City proceeded with the Visioning Process, Newport Beach residents were able to make decisions truly affecting their City. Throughout the process, residents, property owners, and business owners have had real influence while discussing their concerns with other City leaders and stakeholders and collaborating to arrive at realistic solutions for improving Newport Beach. Broad participation in the Visioning Process has resulted in a powerful expression of the community's goals and values. The areas of general agreement as well as those where opinion remains divided will help define the more detailed policies to be developed in the City's General Plan. n U Widespread participation at the Visioning Festival and neighborhood workshops, and responses to the newsletter mailback questionnaire, website questions and information display produced preliminary results. For complete details, please see the separate documents produced throughout the process: Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire Summary, Visioning Festival Summary, and Neighborhood Workshop Summary. These activities produced thousands of comments and concerns, which were subsequently translated into preliminary strategic directions fox the City. In October 2002, the City conducted a statistically verifiable community survey with both .residents and business owners to further test these directions. Please see the Resident and Business Survey Report available from the City upon request. In addition, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) met six times through the Summer and Fall to deliberate on the vision statement and the key questions facing the City as it charts a course for the future. A careful analysis of all the ideas and opinions that have surfaced through these activities revealed that several crucial issues needed to be further discussed. At the Visioning Summit, participants had a chance to learn more about where we are aligned as a community, engage in probing discussion over areas where opinion is divided, and provide additional input on remaining future directions. The technical studies underway and to be performed in early 2003 will provide a more rigorous and in-depth analysis of the current physical and fiscal reality and offer projections on future conditions. The information below quantifies the input received over a yearlong period of collaborative dialogue and community feedback from residents, property owners, business owners and youth. Participation counts for each activity are summarized below so that the reader may consider these numbers when interpreting results. City ofNeivnort Beach Community Directions for the Future A Summary ojthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 8 ctivi Aty Number of Partici ants Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire and Information Display 764 Neighborhood Workshops Over 450 Visioning Festival Over 400 Workshop Kit 22 Website #1 Key Questions 17 Website #2 Key Questions 15 Website #3 Key Questions 6 Resident Telephone Survey 1,000 Business Telephone Survey 175 Visioning Summit Over 350 A New Vision for the Future The following describes the City's desired end state and what we as a community hope to have achieved by 2025. The GRAC played an instrumental role in craftin&the vision statement through a series of discussions and revisions, drawing upon public feedback from the Visioning activities. The statement represents a portrait of the community that the Citywill strive to attain during the next quarter century. Community Character We have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique residential communitywith diverse coastal and upland'neighborhoods. We value our colorful past, the high quality of life, and our community bonds. The successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses and visitors has been accomplished with the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community. Growth Strategy, Land Use and Development 0 0 We have a conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of lifer strategy that balances the needs of the vatious constituencies and that cherishes and nurtures our estuaries, harbor, beaches, open spaces and natural resources. Development and revitalization decisions are well conceived and beneficial to both the economy and out character. There is a range of housing opportunities that allows people to live and workin • the City. QV ofNemnort Beach Community Directions for the Future ASnmmiary ojthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 9 • Design principles emphasize characteristics that satisfy the community's desire for the maintenance of its particular neighborhoods and villages. Public view areas are protected. Trees and landscaping are enhanced and preserved. A Healthy Natural Environment Protection of environmental quality is a high priority. We preserve our open space resources. We maintain access to and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves, harbor and estuaries. The ocean, bay and estuaries are flourishing ecosystems with high water quality standards. Efficient and Safe Circulation Traffic flows smoothly throughout the community. The transportation and circulation system is safe and convenient for automobiles and public transportation, and friendly to pedestrians and bicycles. Public parking facilities are well planned for residents and visitors. Community Services We provide parks, art and cultural facilities, libraries and educational programs directly and through cooperation among diverse entities. The City facilitates or encourages access to • high quality health care and essential social services. Newport Beach is noted for its excellent schools and is a premier location for hands on educational experiences in the natural sciences. Our streets are safe and clean. Public safety services are responsive and amongst the best in the Nation. Recreation Opportunities Newport Beach attracts visitors with its harbor, beaches, restaurants and shopping. We are a residential and recreational seaside community willing and eager to share its natural resources with visitors without diminishing these irreplaceable assets in order to share them. We have outdoor recreation space for active local and tourist populations that highlight the City's environmental assets as well as indoor facilities for recreation and socializing. Coastal facilities include pedestrian and aquatic opportunities. Boating and Waterways We are recognized as a premier recreational boating harbor. We have maintained a hospitable, navigable pleasure boating harbor in the lower bay through careful, low density, non -intrusive on -shore development, by regularly dredging navigation and isberthing/mooring areas, and by providing adequate access to the water and vessel related City oNeiynort Reach Community Directions for the Fianre A Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process 10 servicing facilities. The upper bay retains an unencumbered shoreline and its waterways are maintained free of sediment and debris. • Airport We remain united in our efforts to control and contain noise, air and traffic pollution associated with operation of the Airport. Our City government vigorously and wisely uses the political process to control the impact of the Airport on out -community. This has resulted in a level of Airport operation that preserves out unique character and land values. Responsive Government Elected officials and city staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community. «Sidebar Text>> What is a General Plan? A General Plan is a long-range plan that includes goals, policies, and programs to guide the future growth of a community. It includes maps showing where various land uses are permitted, as well as written policies describing how and where development and redevelopment may take place. California state laws requires each city to adopt a General Plan to direct its planning and building efforts. General Plans must address topics such as land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and public safety. City officials will use the plan to link community values, visions and priorities with decisions about physical development —including topics such as zoning, street projects, and housing densities. The current General Plan for Newport Beach was adopted in 1973-75. Since then, various elements of the Plan have been updated, but the City has never undertaken a comprehensive update until this year. The process of updating the Plan so that it accurately reflects the collective vision of what the citizens of Newport Beach want for the next 25 years is an important step in maintaining a strong, safe, and prosperous community. Legal Authority Limits Once adopted, the General Plan is considered the "constitution" of a city, the basis for decisions regarding long-term physical development. In addition to capturing the community's values, politics, and opinions, the General Plan also sets the guidelines for all growth and development within a city's boundaries. Since these factors ate continuously California Government Codes 65300-65302 City ofNeioort Beach Contmonity Directions for the Frame A Srenmary ojthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 11 evolving, General Plans are often reviewed and amended to reflect changes within the iscommunity and to keep the General Plan up-to-date. Each city has a governing body and a formal procedure for monitoring and amending, or completely revising its General Plan. Some elements of the Plan have a short-term focus and need to be revised more often than others. State Law recommends that local planning agencies review the entirety of their General Plans at least once every five years. In Newport Beach, members of the City Council guide the process of monitoring and amending the community's General Plan, with recommendation from the Planning Commission. is 0 The most common revision to a General Plan is an amendment associated with a privately initiated development project. On November 7, 2000, Newport Beach voters passed an amendment to the City's charter addressing this issue. The Greenlight Initiative, also known as Measure S, requires City residents to vote on large building proposals when limits established in the General Plan are exceeded. The threshold for a large development proposal is 100 homes, 100 peak hour car trips, or 40,000 square feet of commercial space. CjjyoPNewoort Beac A Summary of the Gej DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE This section presents the strategic directions that evolved from the Community Visioning Process. Community members weighed in on a number of critical questions facing the City and provided substantial guidance for the future. These community directions ate organized into the three areas described below. Our Community: These directions relate to the culture of Newport Beach and its people. Our Land. These directions provide guidance for preserving and developing our physical environment. Our City: These directions steer our choices related to services, governance, and our economy. In some cases, broad agreement exists among community members as to how to proceed into the future. These issues are highlighted with a symbol depicting two arrows coming together. In other areas, opinions are still somewhat divided over the best course of action. The latter are highlighted with a symbol.depicting two arrows diverging. 0 The strategic directions presented below will inform and shape the policies to be included in the City's General Plan. This report will be presented to the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) when finalized by the citizen's group, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). Based on its review of the document, the GPUC will determine the • scope and phasing of the General Plan Update. City staff will then propose a schedule and strategy for completing the Update and determine whether any additional studies, beyond the traffic and fiscal studies already underway, will be needed. Our Community ZOur Current and Future Identity The vast majority of residents view Newport Beach as primarily a residential beach town with broad appeal as a tourist destination. Overall, participants across a number of Visioning activities favored the identity of "beach town" slightly more than "residential town." "Tourist destination" was significantly less popular than the other two options. Most residents support reinforcing Newport Beach's identity as both a beach town and residential community into the future. ZDistinctive Characteristics Across the board, community members agree that Newport Beach can boast numerous assets and a good quality of life. Residents, for example, cite the City's community character, governance and community design as exemplary qualities. In a survey of City business owners, the City's location within the County, its physical beauty, and the purchasing power of the community are listed as exceptionally attractive • attributes. Ciro of Newport Reach Coa n nniro Directions for the Frnare A Snmgnary ofthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 13 • Z Senior and Youth Services and Facilities In general, residents who were asked expressed satisfaction with services for seniors and youth. Website respondents and Youth Council meeting participants were more vocal about improving recreational opportunities and acquiring parks and playfields for younger residents than about enhancing services for seniors. These participants expressed interest in seeing a greater number of after -school recreational activities. Z Job Growth Participants are divided on whether the City should continue to accommodate job growth. Fifty-six percent of newsletter questionnaire respondents felt that the City should not accommodate more jobs in Newport Beach. Website respondents were slightly more supportive, with 11 out of 18 viewing job growth as a positive goal. GPAC members felt that the issue was more complex and depended on the types of jobs and the associated impacts. Those who did express support for growth stated that the City should "accommodate" but not "promote" additional employment opportunities. Our Land THarbors and Beaches . Overwhelming consensus exists that our harbors and beaches must be protected and enhanced as our most cherished resource. When probed as to how these areas could be improved, many Visioning Festival participants and newsletter questionnaire respondents indicated that they wished to protect the harbors and beaches as visual and recreational resources. Very few participants believed that harbors and beaches should be used for economic gain. GPAC members posited that as harbors and beaches are improved as recreational areas, visual and economic benefits would follow. Nearly across the board, participants also touted water quality and pollution control as important concerns. Just over half of business survey respondents cited the City's water quality as an extremely important or very important attribute in having a business located in Newport Beach. Newsletter questionnaire respondents hoped to make pollution clean up and the revitalization of beach areas priorities on the City's agenda. Z Coastal Bluffs A majority of participants, including members of the GPAC, feel strongly that coastal bluff areas are important and should be protected through stricter codes, tougher enforcement and improved planning and design efforts. Fifty-six percent of resident survey respondents support City protection of the coastal bluffs as required by the Coastal Act, while 38 percent favor the protection of property owners' tights. City Newport Beach Community Directions for the Future A Summary ojthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 14 ZPublic View Corridors 0 Newport Beach residents agree that the City should'preserve remaining public view corridors, including the Coastal Bluffs, and cteate more views wherever possible. GPAC members recommended a citywide inventory of existing public view corridors and suggested offering redevelopment incentives to enhance those corridors and create additional opportunities for views. They also cited the need for policies and guidelines regarding the publics' right to views. These sentiments were echoed by Visioning Festival attendees and website respondents. Many who accessed the website also suggested that the City purchase these corridors as public land, and District 7 neighborhood workshop participants would like to implement a "view equals value" view preservation law. To some extent, the resident survey results contradict the need for firmer guidelines. When asked about City regulations regarding buildings, plants and trees, and business signs that interfere with views, more than half of residents in each case felt that current regulations were either "just right" or "too strong." ZHistoric Commercial and Residential Villages Some support was expressed for protecting historic,commercial and residential villages. When asked what the City should do to protect historic villages, workshop participants in Districts 2 and 6 favored (in ranked order): narrowing the permitted uses in some commercial areas, adopting design and development guidelines, and establishing a • design reviewprocess. While Districts 3 and 5 workshop attendees were not asked to prioritize policy directions, they supported all of the above -mentioned suggestions and proposed that the Cityadopt mote Specific Plans and reduce the permitted size of buildings in residential neighborhoods. 0 Potential Development Areas Overall, people want the City to set firm constraints on development, including expansion of employment centers. However, under certain conditions additional development may be acceptable. Fashion Island A majority of residents and businesses support keeping retail space at current levels, but many are still willing to back expansion of existing stores and moderate increases for new business. The surveys revealed somewhat contradictory results. Seventy percent of residentrespondents and 61 percent of business respondents desire to keep retail space at current levels, while 67 percent of residents and 66 Percent of business would support the expansion of existing stores. Sixty-two percent of resident respondents and 68 percent of business respondents would endorse moderate increases in retail space to attract new businesses. These findings are somewhat consistent with results from previous Visioning activities. Approximately 68 percent of newsletter questionnaire and information • display respondents indicated that the City should refrain from expansion at Fashion Cjto%New oM Reach ComiminiN Directions for the Fntnre A Summary ofthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 15 • Island (256 respondents), while slightly less than 40 percent (142 participants) said that they would like to see more development. A little less than half of Visioning Festival participants voted for expansion. The GPAC was also split over the question, with a number supporting no further development and others supporting limited expansion. Members raised an important issue, stating that under the current General Plan, the Fashion Island property owner is entitled to build roughly another 195,000 square feet. Some members warned that any expansion, however limited, would increase already burdensome traffic congestion. Visioning Summit participants overwhelmingly agreed with the GPAC's concerns about traffic impacts. In turn, however, many supported the existing entitlement to build and some expressed a desire for flexibility to add retail uses that may be needed in the future. Owner -occupied residential development was favored, as long as it was designed to be compatible with retail spaces and it was economically viable. Summit participants also suggested promoting cultural activities at Fashion Island. Newport Center A majority of residents and businesses support little or no change to Newport Center, but a number are still willing to allow growth for existing companies. The strongest contingent of opinion among residents (71 percent) and business (68 percent) supports little or no change to the size and amount of buildings. However, both groups are amenable to allowing existing companies to grow (57 percent residents, • 61 percent business). Residents are split on the entrance of new businesses (48 percent pro/48 percent con) and the development of residential and mixed -use buildings (45 percent pro/51 percent con). Businesses are more supportive of both initiatives, with 63 percent supporting the former and 56 the latter. Findings from previous Visioning activities were also mixed. Approximately 68 percent of newsletter questionnaire and information display respondents indicated that the City should refrain from expansion at Newport Center (264 respondents), while slightly less than 40 percent (156 participants) said that they would like to see more development. Just over half of Visioning Festival participants, however, voted for expansion. The GPAC was also split over the question, with a majority supporting limited expansion for existing businesses. Members felt the need to provide flexibility to allow specific projects. No strong support was voiced for mixed -use development for the area. Visioning Summit participants expressed concerns about traffic impacts and parking safety around Newport Center. Of particular concern is the traffic at San Miguel and Avocado. Some Summit attendees favored mixed -use development and stressed the need for more affordable housing in particular. Specific suggestions included high-rise xesidential units and condominiums. Other uses suggested were a grocery store, conference facility, and hotel. Strong support was also expressed for developing a cultural and performing arts center and a museum. The majority of participants discouraged development of more offices. • City ofil port Beach Community Directions for the Future A Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process 16 Airport Business Area Participants are split on support for development, but some agreement exists over the types of development that are appropriate for the area. Two-thirds of residents and just over half of businesses support no changes in the development of the Airport Business Area. These findings are somewhat consistent with feedback solicited earlier in the process. Sixty percent of the questionnaire and information display respondents did not support.expansion. However, 63 percent of Visioning Festival participants indicated that the City should, expand in this area. If future developmentwere to occur, both resident and business survey respondents were comfortable with low-rise office buildings, with resident support at 66 percent and business at 68 percent. The two groups are also aligned in their opposition to more car dealerships (business at 79 percent/residents at 64 percent) and industrial uses (business at 57 percent/residents at 62.percent). Residents and businesses area bit more divided on the issues of high-rise buildings and retail stores. Fifty-eight percent of residents oppose new high-rise buildings (40 percent simnSly oppose), while only 51 percent of businesses share this view. Residents were split on adding more retail stores (47 percent pro/49 percent con), but 63 percent of business support retail expansion in the area. GPAC members were supportive of non -airport, non -peak hour uses to discourage airport expansion. They also suggested targeting the area for revitalization. Some members of the group voiced concern about traffic impacts and the need to consider the trade-off between building heights and the amount of remaining open space in the area. Other members argued that the City should consider transferring development tights. Visioning Summitparticipants were also split on whether the area should be developed further. Summit attendees were supportive of a range of development types, as long as traffic was not adversely affected. Unlike survey respondents, Summit attendees expressed some support for auto dealerships. Some also favored mixed -use development with high -density residential and revenue -generating businesses, such as hotels and entertainment. Participants were split in their support for "big box" retail uses. Banning Ranch Most people want to see open space preserved at Banning Ranch, but the,degree of preservation is still under debate. Resident survey respondents were divided down the middle over whether to allow for limited development of Banning Ranch or to preserve the entire area as open space. Forty-four percent of those familiar with the area would allow'£or half of the land to be utilized for residential and limited light industrial use with the remaining half of the space reserved as open space. The other forty-six percent support preserving the entire area as open space, even though this option may require a local tax increase of $250 per parcel per year for•fifteen years along with matching state funds to pay for complete preservation. • GPAC members argued both sides of the issue as well. Some support using a portion of the land for affordable housing,.arguing that Banning Ranch ,is one of the few places • available for this use. Others raise concerns about any development, citing the potential City orNeiv m Beach Coannuniiiv Directions for the Gninre A Sionmaryojthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 17' costs of environmental clean up; the need to avoid geological hazard and natural slope areas; and potential traffic congestion and limits to emergency vehicle access. Members supportive of preserving Banning Ranch suggest partnerships with the County and others to make securing the land more financially viable. Results from the Visioning Summit were entirely consistent with previous findings. Summit attendees were divided on the development issue, with roughly one-half dedicated to complete preservation. Proponents of open space protection suggested designating Banning Ranch as an area for special study under the General Plan Update. The City could then perform additional studies of habitats and species to determine area characteristics and prioritize those most in need of preservation. Summit participants who were supportive of development favored affordable housing and public facilities for seniors and youth. Varying levels of support were also expressed for sports fields, hotels and mixed -used development. Some argued that the City's land use plan should be crafted with a regional perspective. Most agreed that traffic mitigation measures must also be integrated into any plans for development. The majority of Summit attendees also concurred that a "River Park" should be developed before proceeding with Banning Ranch. ZAreas Where Zoning Should Be Reduced While participants proposed areas where zoning capacity should be reduced, GPAC members warned that the issue is highly sensitive and that any area considered must be carefully reviewed. Festival participants felt that zoning in Banning • Ranch (30), the Corona del Mar Residential Area (22), Balboa Village (16), and Newport Heights (16) should be changed to limit future development. Website responses indicated that Fashion Island (3), Newport Center (3), and De Anza MHP (3) should be down zoned. 0 ZAreas to Revitalize People are in general agreement about what areas of the City need revitalization. Participants at the Visioning Festival, website respondents and GPAC members agreed that the following areas are in need of revitalization: Balboa Village, Mariner's Mile, Old Newport Boulevard, Cannery Village, Central Balboa Peninsula, and McFadden Square. GPAC members felt that the Airport Business Area was a good candidate for revitalization as well. GPAC members further explored the meaning of revitalization for Newport Beach. They envision that revitalization is making something nicer, without making it bigger; respecting historic places and ambiance; creating high -pedestrian areas with terrific restaurants. Members agree that the City should be proactive in creating a revitalization vision to guide future private development. City oflimport Beach Commanity Directions for the Fatare A Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process 18 ZAreas Suitable for Mixed Use From input collected at the Visioning Festival and through the website, the areas deemed appropriate for mixed -use development integrating housing and commercial or office space are Balboa Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square and Lido Marina Village. The GPAC favors mixed -use development in allappropriate sites, and believes each site should be studied for its specific suitability. ZUse of Underutilized Commercial Land GPAC members and Visioning Festival participants strongly agree that the City should consider re -zoning excess and underutilized commercial lands for residential or mixed -use development. Festival participants leaned more toward mixed - use development or a combination of residential and mixed use. They also expressed a strong desire to ensure that new development preserves the character of the neighborhood and is in proportion to existing homes. ZExcess Development A number of community members felt that the City had an excess of certain types of development. Those who answered this question from the newsletter questionnaire and information display comment card indicated that Newport Beach has too many rental properties. Of the 22 percent (137 respondents) who felt this way, a number commented that renters are often noisy and' do little to maintain their residential properties. These • respondents also stated that the City has too many office buildings (17% or 109) and too much housing (17% or 108), especially bighousing (75). ZLarger Homes While larger homes and their effects is a distressing trend to many in Newport Beach, residents have mixed opinions on whether existing regulations are sufficient for now. Many cite larger homes and -their effects on neighborhood character as a problem. Sixty-five percent of responses to the newsletter questionnaire and infonmation display indicated a desire for the City to implement restrictions on the construction of larger homes. Residents and business owners in Districts 5, 6, and 7 cited this trend of mansionization during their workshop as a major concern in their neighborhoods. When prompted, residents expressed concerns about the lack of privacy, natural sunlight and views. Participants who attended the Visioning Festival and members of the Youth Council suggested limiting the size of new infill housing as a solution to the problem (161 from the Festival, no tally from the Youth Council). Others would like to restrict the size of remodeled housing (140 from the Festival, no tally from the Youth Council). Those who responded to the website preferred the above -mentioned options in addition to a lot merger requirement. Is City of Newport Beach Contnntnity Directions for the Fntnre A Stnnnrary ofthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 19 • Many residents believe existing regulations to restrain home size and protect views are sufficient. The results from the recent resident survey tell a slightly different story than the one above. Forty-one percent of respondents believed that existing regulations are sufficiently effective, with only 27 percent citing them as too weak. When asked about regulations regarding buildings that interfere with views, 42 percent of residents said regulations are just right, with only 32 percent citing them as not strong enough. GPAC members suggest that the extent of the problem varies by geographic area and relates to home design, rather than simply size. Many GPAC members have also expressed concerns about the trend toward larger homes, but suggest that the extent of the problem varies largely by geographic area. They also argue that size is not entirely the issue; larger homes can enhance the character of the neighborhood if they are well designed. Some members do contend, however, that three-story homes are simply too high. GPAC suggestions include creating design guidelines for villages and allowing higher height limits in the middle of the peninsula to provide beach views for these residents. Results from the Visioning Summit were extremely consistent with previous findings. Summit attendees are concerned by the trend but divided over whether more controls are warranted. Participants stressed the need to maintain the residential character of individual neighborhoods, and agreed with the GPAC that solutions should be neighborhood specific. They also agreed with the GPAC's assertion that the issue is both home size and design, and added that lot size needed to be taken into consideration as well. Clarifying that views both of and from bluffs need to be preserved, participants highlighted the following bluffs as particularly significant: Castaways, Banning Ranch, • Sunset Ridge, Hoag, Newport Coast and Irvine Terrace. Some support was expressed for restricting the height and size of homes, establishing large set backs to protect bluffs, and being more restrictive in the use of variances. Many also stressed the need to balance increased controls with the rights of property owners. ZTourism and Hotels Participants in the Visioning program events were overall in favor of tourism, but divided on providing more tourist accommodations. Participants were also divided over the question of whether the City wants more hotels. If hotels were to be built, opinions are split on what types to build, but some agreement exists as to where to build. The majority of participants favor tourism, but are divided on providing more accommodations. Approximately 70% of those who participated in the Visioning Festival and 76% of those who responded to the newsletter questionnaire were in favor of accommodating tourism in Newport Beach, particularly for hotel visitors and business travelers. The results from the business and residents surveys, however, contradict these earlier findings to some extent. Residents are roughly split on the City providing more tourist accommodations, including more restrooms (48 percent pro/43 percent con), shuttle bus service (51 percent/45 percent), and more parking (50 percent/47 percent). However, three quarters of residents oppose building more retail stores and restaurants. Business respondents are more supportive of accommodating tourism for each of the above measures, but they also oppose (61 percent) more retail and restaurants. City ofNeiyoorl Beach Community Directions for the Future A Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process 20 The majority of those asked oppose increased hotel development. Fifty-two percent of resident survey respondents and 70 percent of those at the Visioning Festival oppose development of new hotels in Newport Beach. Eighty percent (65) of those who attended' District 1's neighborhood workshop supported this sentiment when the discussion focused on a proposed hotel for the Matinapark site on the Peninsula. Youth Council meeting participants also wanted to see fewer hotels in the City. A minority shows support for more hotels. Business survey respondents were split over hotel development, with approximately 4 supporting for every 3 opposing. Businesses favor hotel development to support tourism (61 percent), business conferences (59 percent), tax revenue (57 percent), and local stores (54 percent). The GPAC is also divided, with a number of members supporting new development, particularly to boost tourism and business conferences. Nine out of 11 website respondents felt that this industry should, expand as well. Residents and business are divided over what types of hotels to build. If hotels were to be built in the City, 61 percent of residents, surveyed find smaller -sized inns appropriate. However, 54 percent of business survey respondents favor large hotels as appropriate. GPAC members were also divided over large, revenue -producing hotels and smaller, boutique hotels to cater to vacationers. Supporters of larger hotels argue that without high -end, convention facilities, Newport Beach will lose valuable business to its neighbors. Proponents of smaller, boutique inns posit that Newport Beach needs to offer vacationers a place to stay as more and more people take up year-round residence in what were formerly rental properties. Some agreement exists over where to build. A majority of resident and business survey • respondents support building new hotels in the Airport Business Area and Newport Center: 73 percent of residents and 74 percent of business support locating a new hotel in the Airport Business Area; 54 percent of residents and 58 percent of business support development in Newport Center. Otherwise, residents tend to oppose locating new hotels in: Marmapark (66 percent), Lido Marina Village (63 percent), Mariner's We (60 percent), and Newport Dunes (49 percent). Business respondents were also opposed to buildingin: Marinapark (59 percent) and Lido Marina Village (57 percent). Visioning Summit participants echoed many of the views expressed throughout the process. The,majorityagreed that support for hoteLdevelopment depends on location, design, size and height. Some supported smaller inns, with others favoringlarger, revenue-producing,hotels. One creative suggestion was to renovate existing hotels to make them more upscale, thereby increasing the transient occupancy tax (TOT), while maintaining the total number of accommodations. Many participants asserted the need for further analysis of vacancy rates, markets, user groups, long-term tourism impacts, and traffic impacts. Others requested that the City examine alternative TOT -generating tourist accommodations. Opinions were divided over where to build, but a majority was opposed to hotel development at Matinapark and Newport Dunes and voiced a strong preference for protecting public lands. City Qc& ort Reach Comanntity Directions ror the Fnatre A Staninary ojthe General Plan Update Visioning Process 21 • Z Tidelands and Other Public Lands Most participants concur that tidelands and other public lands should be preserved as open space. Some development of public facilities is supported, particularly among business owners. Survey results reveal that 54 percent of residents oppose the City developing portions of waterfront property at Newport Dunes and Marinapark, with 41 percent citing strong opposition. Business survey respondents were slightly more supportive of development, with 56 percent in favor and 41 percent opposing. Of the 41 percent, however, 30 percent were strongly opposed. An overwhelming 78 percent of those who addressed this issue in the newsletter questionnaire and on the information display comment cards felt strongly about preserving tidelands and other public lands as open space. Festival participants also echoed this sentiment, with 65 percent in support of preservation. Less popular was the option of developing these areas into public/park facilities. Least popular of all, generating less than 10 percent of the Festival votes and 12 percent of the questionnaire and information display votes, was developing the public lands for tax producing purposes. ZOpen Space or Parks Community members highly value the open space and parks in Newport Beach. Nearly 80% of Festival attendees wanted the City to be more proactive in acquiring these areas, even if doing so means bond financing. District 2 workshop participants, website • respondents, and Summit attendees voiced similar opinions. ZTransportation Improvements A majority of participants are concerned with traffic congestion, but views differ over how to mitigate the problem. Fifty-seven percent of resident and business survey respondents rated traffic as somewhat congested. Roughly a third of businesses and a quarter of residents rated it very congested. When asked how to remedy traffic congestion, however, participants have not reached consensus on any one proposal. A majority of residents and business survey respondents opposed all of the suggested improvements to traffic circulation. The strongest opposition was to widening Jamboree Road (71 percent residents/62 percent business) and MacArthur Boulevard. (68 percent residents/60 percent business). Participants have also consistently opposed street widening. Resident and businesses preferred leaving roads as they currently are to widening options by a 2 to 1 ratio. Little support existed for this option at either the Visioning Festival or the neighborhood workshops. The options with greatest relative support are building an overpass at MacArthur and Jamboree (39 percent resident/52 percent business) and widening the Coast Highway through Mariner's Mile (37 percent residents/45 percent business). A significant number of Visioning Festival participants also supported widening the Coast Highway. However, only 7 percent of questionnaire respondents supported this improvement. Expanding public transit also received some support from participants in the Visioning program events. A significant number of Visioning Festival participants and a small percentage of questionnaire respondents support this strategy. Those who addressed this Ci(LofNeiyoort Beach Community Directions for the Future A Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process 22 issue in their questionnaires offered community shuttles (particularly in the heavily congested tourist areas), electric cars, taxis and a light tail as alternatives to driving private automobiles. Many community members also stated that the City should encourage residents to walk and bike to their destinations as much as possible. Responses from the website emphasized the need for more and 'unproved bike lanes: The majority of those asked view more airport business area traffic congestion as acceptable. Sixty-eight percent of business survey respondents and 64 percent of residents believe that it is acceptable to have more traffic congestion in the airport business area than in other parts of the City. Some members of the GPAC argue that the City needs to define "more" traffic congestion before moving ahead with significant development. Results from the Visioning Summit were fairly consistent with previous findings. Summit attendees expressed relative support for the same solutions mentioned above —a Jamboree/MacArthur overpass, public transit and improved bike and pedestrian trails. A majority also supported signal synchronization, especially during peak hours. Other transportation solutions that received some support included: improving roadway signage, especially for tourist destinations; performing limited widening; eliminating Mariner's Mile street parking during peak hours; and providing shuttle service to accommodate seniors, students and tourists. While current conditions need to be improved, some argued, capacity should not be added to encourage new development. ZResidential Neighborhoods and Traffic Impacts . While no clear consensus emerged over how to remedy traffic impacts on neighborhoods, Visioning Summit participants stressed that the issue should be one of the City's highest priorities. Only 37 percent of residents and 29 percent of business support traffic calming measures, such as stop signs, narrowed streets or roundabouts. Some have suggested stricter enforcement of speed limits, and improving transit options and school transportation. Districts 6 and 3 also discussed how the City might alleviate traffic impacts in their neighborhoods during the workshops. Participants from District 6 supported the enforcement of speed limits and discouraged "through" traffic as ways to•ease the problem. District 3 and 4 participants wanted the City to disallow street widening, improve transit options and school transportation, reduce growth and regionalize traffic solutions. ZResidential Neighborhoods and Parking Impacts Participants support a wide range of solutions, but GPAC members warn that remedies to parking problems must be evaluated in relation to specific sites and neighborhoods. Visioning Festival participants and District 5 workshop attendees addressed the issue of parking impacts on residential neighborhoods. Possible solutions generated during the workshop include: issuing residential parking permits, reducing commercial areas and regulating business operations, installing meters and increasing off - site parking areas. Forty-five percent (140) of the Festival attendees who addressed this is City ofNeiMort Reach Connnnni(v Directions for the Fatnre A Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process 23 • issue also suggested that the City increase off -site parking areas. Other solutions supported by participants include regulating businesses and reducing commercial zoning; each garnered approximately 18 percent of the votes. ZAirport Issues The vast majority of participants, including GPAC members, agree that the City should have a land use strategy to prevent the expansion of the John Wayne Airport. In line with this view, strong support exists for the construction of an airport at El Toro: 64 percent of residents and 55 percent of businesses affirm their support, with 56 percent of residents expressing strong support. Twenty-seven percent of residents and 37 percent of businesses are opposed. If flights from a new airport were restricted from passing over the City, survey respondents would be slightly more supportive of the project. District 4 neighborhood workshop participants and those who attended the Commercial/Airport Business Area meeting also addressed issues surrounding the airport and land use strategies. Seventeen out of 21 workshop attendees believed the City should have a land use strategy to prevent the expansion of John Wayne Airport. Participants also stated that reaching an agreement regarding JWA expansion should be a high priority, and that City leaders should keep the community abreast of where Newport Beach is headed in regards to the future of the Airport Area and JWA/El Toro. Workshop participants offered additional ideas, including creating an international airport • at Camp Pendleton, supporting extension of the JWA Settlement Agreement, and providing education. • Our City Z City Funding Priorities Many participants, including members of the GPAC, agree that the City should prioritize the following: infrastructure maintenance; revitalization of infrastructure in older commercial areas; acquisition and improvement of open space, beaches and parks; improved water quality; and public safety. Improved infrastructure maintenance was the top choice for those who responded to the newsletter questionnaire and the information display comment card, as well as for Visioning Festival participants. Revitalization of infrastructure in older commercial areas; acquisition and improvement of open space, beaches and parks; and improved water quality also ranked high among participants across a number of Visioning activities. While those who responded to the newsletter questionnaire cited public safety as their third highest priority, this issue received very little support from other participants. A Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process 24 Economic Development People expressed mixed opinions about the impact of economic development on the City, with business owners being slightly more in favor of economic development than residents. Fifty-seven percent of resident survey respondents believe that encouraging economic development will detract from residents' quality of life, whereas 33 percent believe that economic development will be in the best interest of residents. Forty-five percent of business owners support the first position and 42 percent support the second. When asked if the City should encourage growth in the local economy to help pay for municipal services, 67 percent (224) of those who responded to the newsletter questionnaire said yes. Respondents, however, were divided as to how the City should generate growth. Twenty-four percent thought that encouraging small business development Nvas the best option;18 percent indicated support for levying taxes, fees, and licenses; and 16 percent favored promoting tourism and travel. • • Cityot NoWort Bench Cornnnmity Directions for the Funrre A Suuunary of the General Plan Update VisioningProcess 25 City of Newport Beach ARTS COMMISSION November 22, 2002 City of Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Dear Ms. Wood and Committee Members: The City Arts Commission, the City Cultural Arts Office and the arts community in Newport Beach have been actively following and participating in the General Plan update process since it began last January. We applaud the GPAC committee, city staff and the citizens of Newport Beach for doing an excellent job to date sharing visions, identifying issues and working toward resolution. We understand that many "special interest" groups have emerged during this • process, as they should, to advocate their particular positions. The arts community is no different. We believe that arts and culture play an important role in improving the quality of life for those who live, work and visit our city. The current General Plan does not reference arts and culture, and we feel that a city as sophisticated and progressive as Newport Beach should make the arts an integral part of the city's future. While we were pleased that our suggestion to add "arts and cultural facilities" to the Newport Beach Vision Statement in the Community Services section was acknowledged, we also recognize that the arts play a larger role in the community, enhancing and enriching education, civic pride and identity, the built environment, tourism and economic development, as well as historical and cultural heritage. The City Arts Commission has been discussing these issues as a group over the past eleven months, and has also met with artists and arts leaders from Newport Beach at a June 2002 Community Arts Workshop (similar to the Neighborhood Workshops) held at the Newport Beach Central Library. We would like to take this opportunity to share with City staff and GPAC the information gathered during these meetings, as well as contribute our vision statement and priorities for the cultural sector in Newport Beach. The 2002-2003 Newport Beach Visitors Guide says it well: "Newport Beach's array of cultural attractions is unmatched for a city of its size and beautiful location. From the Orange County Museum of Art, an internationally renowned showcase for contemporary art, to the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, with the city's marine heritage preserved aboard an historic boat; • from the well -attended outdoor art festivals on Balboa Island and in the Cannery Village, to the cultural assemblies in local schools made possible by the City Cultural Grants program; from the highly -regarded presentations of the Newport Beach Film Festival, which draws P.O. Box 1768 0 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, CA 0 92658-8915 • Phone 949.717-3870 0 Fox 949.640-5681 celebrities and film enthusiasts from all over the world, to the acclaimed performances at the •charming cliff -side Newport Theatre Arts Center; from the elegant wildlife relief carvings on the Pelican retaining wall on Mariner's Mile, to the delightful Japanese friendship statue in front of the Central Library; from the magical water color landscapes of painter Rex Brandt, to the playful antics of Chuck Jones' cartoon characters; from the exquisite classical offerings of the Baroque Music Festival, to the fun -filled family gatherings at the Summer Concerts in the Park; from the beautiful grounds and buildings of the Sherman Library & Gardens, to the amazing potential of the soon -to -be -restored Balboa Performing Arts Theater; from the variety of cultural lectures and special performances at the Central Library, to the dozens of art galleries that dot the city's landscape, the arts are alive and vibrant in Newport Beach. The City's General Plan should reflect this lively arts community. The City of Newport Beach recognizes the importance of the arts and culture to the quality of life in our community. The City understands that the arts enhance and enrich education, civic pride and identity, the built environment, tourism and economic development, as well as cultural and historical heritage. With this in mind, the City promotes public awareness and participation in the arts, and encourages and supports a wide range of cultural activities and facilities to address the needs and interests of both residents and visitors in the Newport Beach community. 1) Arts Advocacy/Appreciation—Increase public awareness of the value of arts and culture, as well as appreciation for, understanding of, and participation in the arts. 2) Artist/Arts Organization Development Encourage growth and development, support with resources, and coordinate collaboration of a community's artists and arts organizations. 3) Accessibility —Assure equitable access to the arts to diverse cultures, people with special needs, and the economically disadvantaged. 4) Facility Development —Identify, renovate or build cultural facilities and live/work spaces for arts organizations, artists and the arts -interested public. 5) Community/Village Design —Preserve and enhance the community with public art supported by ordinances and incentives, integrate aesthetic concerns into design development, and create and preserve cultural/historic districts where appropriate. 6) Cultural Tourism/Economic Development —Enhance the city's identity through promotion of its cultural and historic assets; integrate cultural development with other community development efforts; use cultural elements to revitalize commercial areas; and use the arts to help promote local tourism. 7) Arts Education —Work with artists, schools and arts organizations to enhance the basic curriculum with programs of arts education for children and lifelong learning for adults. The cultural sector cares about the Newport Beach community and we respectfully request Committee and staff consideration of our position. We would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss any items in more detail. We are pleased to be part of this important citizen input process, and thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts and concerns with you. Thank you for your time. • Sincerely, Catherine Micha s, Chair City of Newport Beach Arts Commission LA . GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, December 2, 2002 Roger Alford I 1' yj Dorothy Beek - - ce� Phillip Bettencourt-3 Carol Boice - 4 Karlene Bradley- S John Corrough - I Seth Darling - 2 Julie Delaney- 3 Laura Dietz - 4 Florence Felton - 5 Nancy Gardner - • Joseph Gleason Jr. - 2 Louise Greeley - 3 Evelyn Hart - Lf- Ernie Hatchell - 5 Bob Hendrickson - I Tom Hyans - 2- Mike Ishikawa - 3 David Janes 4 George Jeffries - 6 Mike Johnson - I Todd Knipp - Donald Krotee -3 Philip Lugar - 4 Catherine O'Hara - S • Carl Ossipoff -I i, r�>> �Y,. 1 Larry Root - a John Saunders - 3 Brett Shaves , 4 Robert Shelton —5 Ed Siebel -I Alan Silcock Jackie Sukiasian —Z Jan Vandersloot— 3 Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski —� Ron Yeo — S GENERAL PLAN ADAORY COMMITTEE Monday, December 2, 2002 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS Mar�C2 w�i�� A3 0 IJ"or Cen r'Dr; ve, Z [ D �� or-f $ea�ti, c� g���o Mariee®govs0/.cony �aJ�.�t�.lcv��n.�t GENERAL PLAN ADAORY COMMITTEE Monday, December 2, 2002 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS NEWP • GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, December 2, 2002, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Dorothy Beek Louise Greeley Carol Boice Evelyn Hart Kariene Bradley Bob Hendrickson Julie Delaney Tom Hyans Laura Dietz Mike Ishikawa Florence Felton Mike Johnson Nancy Gardner Todd Knipp Joseph Gleason Donald Krotee Members Absent: • Roger Alford Carl Ossipoff Phillip Bettencourt John Saunders John Corrough Brett Shaves Hoby Darling Alan Silcock Ernest Hatchell Don Webb David Janes Ron Yeo George Jeffries Staff Present: Patty Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Chandra Slaven, Assistant Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator Members of the Public Present: Jennifer Irani Marice White 0 Phillip Lugar Catherine O'Hara Larry Root Robert Shelton Ed Siebel Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Jennifer Wesoloski I. Welcome and Introductions • Bob Shelton called the meeting to order. Carolyn Verheyen announced that the Vision Summit was very successful and thanked GPAC members for their participation. II. Approval of Minutes The minutes for meetings #10 and #11 were presented for approval. There was discussion regarding the draft of 11/4/02. Nancy Gardner asked for clarification from the small group that discussed the Balboa Peninsula regarding their comment about the City operating the Balboa Village Theater. Laura Dietz wanted to add wording to the Airport Business Area section under #2 to include condos in conjunction with low-rise office/retail. Mr. Shelton asked for Ms. Dietz to submit her corrections in writing and then called for a vote on the minutes. The minutes of October 21 and November 4, 2002 were approved as submitted. Louise Greeley later brought up concerns she had regarding the notes submitted for the Lido Village group in the 11/4/02 minutes, she did not recall discussing the last sentence under #5—Discussion group is now looking for a creative developer to sell this to. She also did not like the wording under #6. • III. Discuss the Vision & Strategic Directions Report Ms. Verheyen described the process for reviewing the Community Directions for the Future report. The committee was seated at 5 tables and the document had also been divided into 5 sections, a staff member was assigned to each table to record comments on each section of the document—comments/edits would only be recorded if a majority of the people at the table agreed on the change. At 20-minute intervals, the groups would switch tables allowing them to move on to another section. At the end of this process everyone would have been able to review all sections of the document. Before starting the group discussions, Mike Johnson reported to the full committee a few problems he had found with the document regarding District 2: Page 3 & 18, Areas to Revitalize — add West Newport including the trailer park on the north side of Coast Highway, Hoag commercial/industrial area near Costa Mesa; Page 4, Open Space or Parks — only mentioned bond financing not other alternatives that came up during discussions; and Page 11, Vision Statement/Responsive Government — did not include appointees as discussed in prior meetings. Ms. Verheyen pointed out that the Vision Statement had been approved by the committee at the November 4t' meeting and was not open for • additional changes, Mr. Johnson's other comments would be added to those collected with the review process this evening. 2 • After completing the small group review process, Ms. Verheyen asked if the group felt they needed to meet again the following Monday. Evelyn Hart suggested getting back together to see the document with the corrections but thought it might be too soon to get the edits made. Tom Hyans asked about the next step for the committee. Ms. Verheyen explained that she would be collecting all the notes from staff and incorporate them into the document to reflect the discussions tonight and then distribute the document again to the committee for final comments. She explained that this could be done by e-mail or by having another meeting. The edited document is scheduled to be on the agenda for the GPUC meeting on Monday F December 9th. Nancy Gardner was concerned that if we met again on the 9 , the committee would do the same thing as tonight and wouldn't be any closer to a final document. She also mentioned that if we met so close after GPUC, we may be commenting on the same issues as they discuss. Catherine O'Hara asked if there were any major disagreements in the discussion groups, her group seemed to agree on comments made, as well as agreeing with comments from prior groups. Ed Siebel made a motion for the group to receive a redlined version of tonight's comments through e-mail prior to the GPUC meeting on the 9th to allow further feedback. Motion carried. IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items . Louise Greeley would like to address variances or modifications and a presentation of the current guidelines used by the City. Tom Hyans asked for clarification, would this topic be on General Plan Amendments or code variations? Ms. Greeley said she wanted to discuss both. She also pointed out the letter from the Arts Commission and wanted to know if they could be included in the final report. Tamara Campbell said groups at her table discussed the lack of comments regarding arts, culture and historic preservation. Ms. Campbell will report this and ask for the consultants to include any findings on these topics. Patty Temple advised that the letter will be provided to GPUC to determine if a Cultural Element should be added to the General Plan. Ms. Greeley also wanted to explore the idea of a light rail system brought up in an earlier meeting. Ms. Temple thought that a presentation regarding the current OCTA program would be helpful background for this item. Jan Vandersloot requested the group more thoroughly analyze the Circulation Element, he feels the committee has been looking primarily at the Land Use Element. Ms. Temple pointed out that the General Plan Update process will be comprehensive, GPUC will be determining the scope and phasing of the process. Nancy Gardner thought small task forces would assist with some of future issues, it allows more time and in depth conversations and worked well with the Vision Statement. Bob Hendrickson pointed out that many creative ideas came out at the Visioning Summit and • wanted to make sure they did not get lost in the process. 3 • V. Next Steps Bob Shelton expressed his appreciation for the Committee's attendance and contributions to the process. Carolyn Verheyen thanked the group for their cooperation. No future meeting dates were scheduled. VI. Public Comments Jennifer Irani is a resident of West Newport and attended the Visioning Summit where she heard many ideas regarding possible development of Banning Ranch. Ms. Irani feels this area should be preserved as open space, even if it came at a cost to residents. u PA DRAFT NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Retail Commercial Market Analysis December 2002 Prepared for The City of Newport Beach Prepared by Applied Development Economics 2029 University Avenue • Berkeley, California 94704 • (510) 548-5912 1029 J Street, Suite 310 • Sacramento, California 95814 • (916) 441-0323 www.adeusa.com • CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 NEWPORT BEACH CITYWIDE RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS 8 COASTAL SUBAREA RETAIL SUMMARIES 11 APPENDIX A: RETAIL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 33 FIGURES Figure1 Economic Analysis Coastal Study Area ......................................... 6 Figure 2 Citywide Retail Capture................................................................ 7 Figure 3 Citywide Sales Leakage and Regional Capture................................7 Figure 4 Coastal Centers Sales and Leakages ............................................... 7 0 TABLES Table 1 Newport Beach Retail Market Analysis...........................................9 Table 2 Balboa Island Subarea Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, andSales Leakage.................................................................................11 Table 3 Balboa Island Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot...................12 Table 4 Balboa Village Subarea Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, andSales Leakage.................................................................................14 Table 5 Balboa Village Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot..................15 Table 6 Corona del Mar Subarea Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, andSales Leakage.................................................................................17 Table 7 Corona del Mar Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot................18 Table 8 Lido -Cannery Subarea Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, andSales Leakage................................................................................. 20 Table 9 Lido -Cannery Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot ................... 21 n U Table 10 McFadden Square Subarea Analysis of Retail Demand, • Retail Sales, and Sales Leakage.............................................................. 23 Table 11 McFadden Square Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot........... 24 Table 12 Mariner's We Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, and Sales Leakage ......................................... 26 Table 13 Mariner's Mile Subarea Selected Sales per Square Foot ................ 27 Table 14 Analysis of Retail Demand, Retail Sales, and Sales Leakage for Newport Beach Coastal Area........................................................... 29 Table 15 Analysis of Leakage from Local Household Demand for the NewportBeach Coastal Area................................................................... 30 n U • 3 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This report presents a preliminary retail commercial market analysis for Newport Beach, with a particular focus on commercial centers in the coastal area of the City. This represents the first report to be prepared as part of the economic studies for the Newport Beach General Plan update.' These economic studies are intended to provide a baseline of the City's current economic and fiscal performance, and help identify realistic market opportunities for economic development. Other economic studies that will be completed as the project progresses include a fiscal and revenue analysis, and an economic opportunity analysis. Within the context of the general plan revision, these studies will provide the technical background for an economic strategy, as well as a vital informational input into the public review and committee planning processes. The economic analysis will outline options for future business development for public discussion and possible inclusion in the proposed land use element, and identify whether the current land use plan for the City provides for the right types of economic development in the right places. • This retail report focuses on retail commercial business types, and does not address the market for hotels, office space or other commercial land uses. In addition to a citywide overview, the report discusses in detail the commercial centers in the coastal area of the City, in view of the fact that the schedule for updating the City's Local Coastal Program must run slightly ahead of the process for the citywide General Plan update. The "coastal area" as denoted in this report is not necessarily coterminous with the "coastal zone" of the city. The coastal zone of the city includes nearly two- thirds of the city's land area, whereas the coastal area analysis in this report focuses on retail uses that are in some way related to the coast or the neighborhoods along the coast. From a geographic perspective, this generally means businesses located along or west of the Pacific Coast Highway (see Figure 1). 1 The present report addresses the existing market performance and potential for new retail business development. The report includes estimates of retail spending by visitors but does not address the economic impact or future potential of other visitor serving uses such as hotels or entertainment venues. The report also does not make specific estimates or recommendations regarding land use or building space for commercial uses. These analyses • will be included in subsequent stages of the work. APPLIED DEYE[OPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE/ q APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS • The purpose of the report is to answer the question, "How well does the retail business mix in Newport Beach serve the shopping needs of its residents and visitors to the City?" The report presents a fairly technical analysis and it is useful to review the basic approach and some of the terminology used in the analysis (see below for a brief glossary)? The analysis begins by estimating the retail purchasing power of residents in the City. This is done based on recent national consumer expenditure surveys correlated to the income levels of households in Newport Beach. In this way, the analysis can estimate the likely spending by resident households for nearly forty different types of retail stores, ranging from department stores at Fashion Island to local markets in the neighborhoods. However, the estimates of purchasing power do not assume households will necessarily make these expenditures in Newport Beach, only that they will spend a certain amount of money somewhere. In addition to residents, tourists and business visitors in the City spend money while they are here. The analysis includes estimates of visitor spending calculated by other consultants in a separate report presented to the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau. Similarly, employees who • work in Newport Beach but do not live here also make some retail purchases while they are in town. The estimates of total purchasing power for the City include this incidental employee spending. Unlike the estimates of household purchasing power, the estimates of demand for visitors and employees only include the amounts thought to be spent in Newport Beach. As noted above, purchasing power reflects the household retail demand for goods and services by Newport Beach residents, but may not represent the amounts actually spent in Newport Beach. Residents may go to South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa, or restaurants in Laguna Beach, or auto dealers in Tustin, or a variety of other places to buy retail products. In order to estimate how much spending occurs in Newport Beach, we reviewed actual sales tax records for all retail businesses in the City. Based on prior research on the product types generally carried in each type of store, we adjusted the sales figures to include non-taxable, as well as taxable retail items. The sales posted by retail stores constitute the amount of retail demand that is captured locally. 2 A detailed description of the methodology for the retail market study is provided in is Appendix B. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOM/CS PAGE2 5 By comparing the total retail demand to the actual sales by Newport Beach • stores, we can estimate how well the businesses capture the available retail market. When businesses post higher sales than the estimates of demand, it means they are attracting shoppers from outside the City (m addition to visitors and employees counted in the aggregate demand estimates). This is referred to as net capture. If sales are lower than demand, then the City is experiencing a sales leakage in that particular retail category. This may be because a particular store type does not exist or is underrepresented in the City. Or it may be that the local retailers do not adequately serve the current needs of local shoppers. The analysis, therefore, can be used to identify opportunities both for new stores and for expansions of existing stores in the community. • In addition to the citywide retail market analysis, the report discusses the performance of smaller commercial centers in the coastal area. For this part of the analysis, it was necessary to make assumptions about where residents of each neighborhood would logically shop for certain retail items. We were aided in this effort by earlier commercial studies in Newport Beach that actually surveyed business owners and shoppers to determine local shopping patterns. We also made estimates of how much visitor spending occurs in the smaller commercial centers based on analysis of the types of stores in each center and their proximity to visitor attractions. It is important to recognize that none of the smaller commercial centers would be expected to meet all the needs of residents in the neighborhoods. Leakage from neighborhood commercial centers is generally captured by larger regional centers in the city such as Fashion Island and the separate boat and auto dealerships. Therefore, use of the term leakage in the analysis of the coastal area centers should not be construed to mean that City as a whole is not sufficiently capturing local demand. The analysis describes the performance of the neighborhood stores in terms of sales per square foot, to indicate how well the stores are doing given their size and type. To summarize the approach for the study, it is assumed that the City should capture an amount of retail spending at least equal to the purchasing power of its residents plus the actual amounts spent by visitors and non-resident workers. In reality, local residents will naturally shop for some goods outside the City, just as Newport Beach stores would be expected to attract some spending from residents of adjacent cities. The analysis leaves aside the question of whether the City should attempt to capture an even greater share of spending by visitors. Also, the City may decide to accept a lower level of retail sales if the types of stores currently underrepresented are not ones for which the City has sufficient land or which are consistent with the desired APPUEDDEYHOPMENTECONOM/CS PAGES commercial character of the City. These are questions to be discussed by the • policy committees involved with the General Plan Update. Glossary Purchasing Power: The total amount of spending by households, tourists and non-resident workers on retail goods and services. For resident households, the estimates of purchasing power do not reflect where the spending takes place, only the total amount of their spending over the course of one year. For visitors and non-resident employees, the estimates of purchasing power are limited to amounts spent only in Newport Beach. Demand: Synonymous with Purchasing Power. Capture: The amount of sales in local retail stores. This term reflects the amount of demand that is actually spent in retail stores in the Newport Beach. Net Capture: The amount of retail sales in Newport Beach stores that exceeds the estimated local purchasing power. Leakage: The amount of local demand that is not captured by Newport Beach stores. • Sales per Sq.ft.: The dollar value of sales for a retail store divided by the floor area of the store. This measure can be compared to national averages by store type to determine how well a particular store is performing. SUMMARY OF THE RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS Citywide Analysis Citywide in 2001, Newport Beach retail businesses generated about $1.57 billion in retail sales. City residents have an estimated retail purchasing power of $1.04 billion and the city is estimated to capture $449 million in visitor spending as well as about $55 million from employees not residing in Newport Beach (Figure 2). As an overall conclusion, it can be fairly stated that the City does very well in serving the retail shopping needs of both residents and visitors. Although the balance between demand and sales is very close, the city actually captures large amounts of spending in some categories from the surrounding region, while losing local spending in other categories. The City's retail base is particularly strong in boats, autos, restaurants, furniture, apparel and specialty retail stores. It is estimated that the city captures at least $229 million, or . 14.5 percent, of its sales from shoppers living in the surrounding region. APPUEDDEYE[OPMENTECONOMICS PAGE4 17 Conversely, relatively large sales leakages occur in other general merchandise, isfamily clothing, discount department stores and home improvement store categories. This leakage amounts to about $118 million annually. Most of these spending categories represent "big box" retail store categories that require large tracts of land and seek more central locations than tourist oriented coastal areas (Figure 3). Coastal Areas The commercial centers in the coastal area largely serve the visitor market and do not capture a large proportion of residents' spending, with the exception of Corona del Mar, which has the broadest base of local -serving retailers (see Figure 4). Except for the Balboa Village area, most of the coastal commercial centers perform adequately in terms of sales per square foot among existing businesses. In Balboa Village, the average is relatively low in a number of the visitor -serving store types categories, reflecting the less accessible location and attractiveness of this older commercial area. In terms of opportunities for new retail establishments in the coastal subareas, the focus should be on retail categories that have retail leakage is of all of Newport Beach and would also be at the appropriate scale of commercial development. Certain specialty retail categories such as music and bookstores would fit these criteria • APPLIED DEVELOPMENTECONOM/CS PAGES APPLIED DEVELOPMEMECONOM/CS PAGE6 E FIGURE 2 Citywide Retail Capture ($Million) FIGURE 3 Citywide Sales Leakage and Regional Capture ($Million) (Selected Retail Store Types) FIGURE 4 Coastal Centers Sales and Leakages Workers $123 Visitors $449 Residents $1,036 Total Sales Total Demand $1,570 $1,608 Auto Parts and Service -$6A Building Materials and Hardware -$15.0 Warehouse Clubs Music -$4.1 and Discount Ctrs -$98.4 Shoes-$8.7 Family Clothing -$27.1 $60.3 Boats 11111111111111$30.7 Automobiles Home Furnishings/ $11.6 Appliances/ Garden Supplies ■ $20.5 Restaurants 1 $14.9 Grocery Stores $5.8 Men & Women's Apparel APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOM/CS PAGE7 /v • NEWPORT BEACH CITYWIDE RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ■ Newport Beach's retail base benefits from a very strong local spending base, as well as a high level of spending attracted from non-residents. Overall, Newport Beach households (including Newport Coast) generate about $1.04 billion of retail spending annually (fable 1). ■ In addition, Newport Beach attracts about $449 million of retail spending from visitors and another $123 million from employees not otherwise accounted for in the retail analysis. ■ Overall, the largest spending categories are grocery stores, restaurants, automobile dealerships, gas stations, and department stores. ■ In 2001, Newport Beach retail businesses generated about $1.57 billion in sales, resulting in a net leakage of $35 million in sales. The largest retail • sales categories include restaurants/eating places, auto dealerships, grocery stores, department stores, miscellaneous specialty retail, gas stations, and boat/motorcycle dealers. is ■ Comparing the overall household and visitor demand with the retail sales shows that the totals are very similar with only a slight overall leakage of retail sales. However, closer examination of individual store categories finds that Newport Beach has been very successful at attracting spending from outside the city in some retail categories, while it remains very underrepresented in others. ■ The largest net capture categories include boats/motorcycles, auto dealerships, restaurants/eating places, furniture, nursery products, men's and women's apparel, and miscellaneous specialty retail. In addition to drawing high levels of spending from local households, visitors, and workers, these store types also attract significant spending from neighboring communities. Although shopper surveys would be needed to know precisely the extent of this spending from non -Newport Beach residents, the net capture figures in Table 1 suggests that it is at least $152 million per year, including some $27 million accounted for by the department stores at Fashion Island. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOM/CS PAGER (c ■ Newport Beach also has several categories where the local and visitor • demand significantly exceed the existing retail sales, resulting in sales leakage to surrounding communities that have more retail offerings in these categories. The largest leakages are in other general merchandise, family clothing, discount department stores, and home improvement businesses. Most of these spending categories represent "big box" retail store categories, which often have compatibility issues with sensitive coastal areas and require large tracts of inexpensive land with visible highway access. Moreover, large-scale developments of this type are generally located in more central locations rather than in coastal areas. • ■ Other retail categories with at least $1 million of retail leakage in Newport Beach include shoe stores, music stores, office supplies, liquor stores (which will be partially addressed by the new Beverages & More store at Fashion Island), service stations and auto parts stores. These more specialized retail categories do not typically need large building footprints. ■ Leakage in the coastal subareas represents unmet consumer demand that could be recaptured into retail potential for new businesses. However, because of Newport Beach's comprehensive retail base on a citywide basis, attracting new businesses into these coastal subareas that already have a citywide excess capture of sales could transfer sales away from existing businesses elsewhere in Newport Beach. ■ In considering alternatives for providing new retail establishments in the coastal subareas, the first options would be retail categories that have retail leakage throughout all of Newport Beach. This would likely need to be limited to specialty retail categories such as music and bookstores, and other store types that do not need large building footprints. APPL/EDDEVELOPMENTECONOM/CS PAGES r2 TABLE I NEWPORT BEACH RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS • Newport Beach Employee and Retail Sales Household Visitor Total Consumer Leakage/(Net Retail Group Spending Spending Demand Retail Sales Capture) • Total S1.035.772,702 $571,937,093 $1,607,709,794 $1,572,517,550 $35,192,244 AppareStore Group M,897777 2, 7 , 60 1 , 7 ,9 9;5 2, 43 Women'sApparel $14,623,970 $27,491,259 $42,U5,229 $46,052,900 ($3;937,671) Men'sApparel $5,631,796 $12,784,324 $18,416,120 $20,327,000 ($1,910,880) Family Clothing $37,439,441 $7,849,251 $40,288;692 $13,134,800 $27,153,89 Shoe Stores Y1202 57D 4149 327 15 51 7 6 624 800 727 D97 General Merchandise Group $181,563,394 $128,865,195 $310,428,589 $225,908,791 $84,519,797 Department & Dry Goods $105,042,314 $120,164,8D4 $225,207,118 $189,946,965 $35,260,153 Discount Stores $61,985,810 Department Stores $43,055,859 Other General Merchandise $49,254,426 $66,928 $49,321,354 $281,112 $49,040,241 Warehouse Clubs and Superstores $36,394,079 Mtm_ Gpnoml Merchandise 512.860.346 Drug & Proprietary Stores _ $27,266,654 $8,633,463 $35,900,117 $35,680,714 $219,403 Specialty Retail Group $76,680,910 $86,932,638 $163,613,548 $162,013,277 $1,600,27: Gift &Novelties $5,823,324 $11,109,143 $16,932,467 $18,812,766 ($1,880,299) Sporting Goods $8,978,055 $11,336,883 $20,314,938 $21,187,788 ($872,849) Florists $2,001,735 $2,473,248 $4,474,983 $4,598;693 ($123,710) Photographic Equipment $1,082,262 $981,279 $2,063,541 $1,631,600 $431,941 Records & Music Boob & Stationery $4,830,280 $5,197,264 $972,794 $6,574,969 $5,803;075 $11,772,233 $1,678,200 $11,086,900 $4,124,87 $W5,933 office Supplies/Computer Equipment $13,212,883 $0 $13,212,883 $100900 $1,302,983 3ewehy $8,460,886 $12,761,568 $21,222,454 $20,969,670 $252,785 Misc.S al Retell 27 094 220 940,722,753 67 816 973 2 Food, Eating and Drinking Group $266,319,868 $289,205,647 $555,525,516 $589,540,295 ($34,014,780) Grocery Stores $170,675,644 $21,936,363 $192,612,007 $207,549,011 ($14,937,003) Specialty Food Stores $5,290,478 $1,422,861 $6,713,339 $7,911,157 ($1,197,818) Liquor Stores $7,951,848 $2,456,364 $10,408,213 $7,784,639 $2,623,574 Eating Places $82,401,898 $263,390,059 $345,791,957 $366,295,489 ($20,503,532) 1011dingtMatedals And Home °umishings Group $116,985,295 $2,992,052 $119,977,347 $116,524,289 Furniture & Home Furnishings $54,730,766 $1,243,242 $55,974,008 $59,117,335 Household Appliances & Electronics $18,791,361 $1,748;809 $20,540,170 $19,764,300 Used Merchandise $3,022,133 $0 $3,022,133 $2,965,500 Nurseries&Garden Supply Stores $9,490,015 $0 $9,490;015 $18,702,405 Lumber& Other Building Materials $17,768,043 $0 $17,760,043 $6,803,000 Home Centers and Hardware Stores $12,314,135 $0 $12,314,135 $8,699,700 Automotive Group $330,325,457 $11,667,400 $341,992,858 $392,391,448 ($50,398,590) New Cars & RVs $218,719,752 $0 $218,719,752 $249,448,200 ($30,728,448) Used Car Dealers $15,978,023 $0 $15,978,023 $16,878,000 ($899,977) Gasoline Service Stations $81,128,752 $11,580,124 $92,708,876 $56,769,048 $35,939,828 Mobile Homes &Trailers $56,521 $87,277 $143,798 $948,900 ($805,102) Auto Parts & Accessories $7,073,805 $0 $7,073,805 $643,700 $6,430,105 Boats & Motorcycles $7,368,603 $0 $7,368,603 $67,703,600 ($60,334,997) Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited by I SIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPL Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the 1990 US Ceases. Income for Newport Coast residents was calculated based on selling prices for housing units. Employee spending calculated from data provided by California EDD, and the City of Newport Beach. Visitor spending derived from CIC Research visitor survey data. Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. APPLIED DEVELOPMENTECONOM/CS PAGE/0 13 • COASTAL SUBAREA RETAIL SUMMARIES INTRODUCTION The analysis of individual commercial subareas in the coastal area is intended to provide an indication of how they function in relation to the overall business mix in the city. A local market area is drawn for each subarea to help measure the neighborhood demand for retail products. In the Newport Beach coastal area, visitors comprise a significant segment of the retail market. In addition, residents of Newport Beach often visit the beach areas for the same reasons as do tourists. The analysis attempts to identify the amount of spending by non -neighborhood residents for each subarea, as well as residents living near the subareas.' Neighborhood shopping districts typically provide convenience goods and are not intended to meet the full range of shopping needs of neighborhood residents. Therefore, the analysis, while it attempts to identify leakage from each subarea, does not recommend commercial development based on the neighborhood leakage. Rather, certain of the business development opportunities identified above in the citywide analysis are suggested for the coastal areas based on their suitability in terms of size and scale. In this way, new store development in the coastal area would add to the overall business mix in Newport Beach and not impact sales for existing stores elsewhere in the city. In addition, the stores are evaluated in terms of how well their sales compare to national averages for each type of store, to indicate where existing stores in the coastal area can improve their performance. BALBOA ISLAND' ■ Balboa Island's retail demand, which includes spending from local residents, visitors, and other non-residents, totals about $58 million annually (fable 2). Coupled with the Island's total retail sales of about $14.7 million, this results in an estimated sales leakage of $43 million. m It should be noted that, within the non -neighborhood resident group, there is no way to distinquish among tourists, Newport Beach residents, and residents of nearby cities, without shopper survey data which is not available. • 4 The Balboa market area includes all of Census Tract 630.06 APPLIED DEYELOPMENTECONOMICS PAGE iy ■ Individual categories with large sales leakages among local residents • include general merchandise, grocery stores, and automotive related businesses (such as gas stations). Much of this leakage is accommodated by businesses in these categories elsewhere in Newport Beach. ■ Balboa Island's retail sales are dominated by apparel stores, specialty retail stores, and restaurants. These stores generally sell to tourists and other non-residents. ■ Shoppers not living on Balboa Island account for about $13.1 million of the $15.4 million in retail sales on Balboa Island, further reinforcing the perception of the area primarily catering to visitor -serving needs. ■ The average retail sales per square foot on Balboa Island (for those businesses for which square footage data is available through the Orange County Assessor's database) is about $159, which is within a normal average range for a shopping area with mostly specialty retail stores (Table 3). Some retail categories appear to under perform compared to national benchmark averages, but on the whole Balboa Island does not have a particularly distressed business district. ■ In recent years, Balboa Island has seen an escalation in retail rents. This • has resulted in some turnover of long-time businesses and a few retail vacancies. The sales patterns in the area indicate that excessively high rents cannot be supported over the long term. • APPLIED DEVELOPMENTECONOM/CS PAGE/1 K • TABLE 2 BALBOA ISLAND SUBAREA ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE Spending Total Retail Retail From Outside Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Sales Leakage Businesses The Subarea Total $58,048,477 $15,446,827 $42,760,737 56 $13,087,312 4pparel store Group $6,399,833 $3,883,800 $2,516,033 1i Women's & Men's Apparel* $2,809,875 $2,071,000 $738;875 8 Food Store and General Merchandise Group* $24,205,158 $6,181,299 $18,023,859 16 $4,536,803 Department & Dry Goods $4,502,813 $0 $4,502,813 0 $0 Drug Stores $1,215,828 $0 $1,215,828 0 $0 Grocery/Specialty Food/Other General Merchandise Stores* $10,556,682 $1,492,855 $9,063,827 5 $551,625 Liquor Stores $347,289 $0 $347,289 0 $0 Eatin Places $7,582,547 $4,688,444 $2,894,103 11 3 985 178 Specialty Retail/Home Furnishings/ Boats & Motorcycles Group* $12,351,228 $4,645,473 $7,864,842 22 $4,207,65 GRIs/Home Furnishings* $4,437,807 $2;070,035 $2,367,773 8 $1,945,833 Florists/Garden Suppty/Sporting Goods/Boob &,Stationery* $1,284,499 $384,750 $1,058,837 4 $202,577 Photographic Equipment $44,899 $0 $44;899 0 $0 Records & Music $200,621 $0 $200,621 0 $0 Office Supplies/Computer Equipment $561,591 $0 $561,591 0 $0 3ewelry $350,448 $0 $350,448 0 $ Misc. Specialty Retail/Boats & Motorcycles* $4,233,482 $2,926,944 $1,306,539 11 $2;751,327 Household Appliances & Electronics $809,269 $0 $809,269 0 $0 Used Merchandise $128,476 $0 $128,476 0 $0 Lumber & Other Building Materials $747,268 $0 $747,268 0 $0 Home Centers and Hardware Stores $51.7,026 $0 $517,026 0 $0 Pa t Wall r 36885 $0_ —___$36,885 0 0 Automotive Group $14,091,214 $0 $14,091,214 0 $0 New Cars & RVs $9,457,874 $0 $9,457,874 0 $0 Used Car Dealers $689,762 $0 $689,762 0 $0 Gasoline Service Stations $3,623,847 $0 $3,623,847 0 $0 Mobile Homes &Trailers $2,479 $0 $2,479 0 $0 Auto Parts & Accessories $317,251 $0 $317,251 0 $0 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited by MBIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPL Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton &Associates. "Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. APPLIED DEYELOPMENTECONOMICS PAGE/3 TABLE 3 BALBOA ISLAND SUBAREA SELECTED SALES PER SQUARE FOOT • National Retail Sales Average Sales Retail Group Per Sq. Ft. Per Sq.Ft. Total $159.09 Food Store and General Merchandise Group* $180.40 Grocery/Specialty Food/Other General Merchandise Stores* $180,51 $144 to $399 Source: ADE, based on data from the Orange County Assessor and the Urban Land Institute. Refer to Methodology Appendix for details of the analysis. * Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements. APPLIED DEVELOP14ENT ECONOMICS PACE14 • BALBOA VILLAGE' ■ Balboa Village draws from a total spending base of about $78 million (fable 4). ■ Balboa Village generates approximately $17.3 million of retail sales. The single most prominent category is restaurants and eating places, which alone account for $8.5 million of retail sales and exceed the spending from local households alone. ■ Non-residents account for about $14 million of thereto sales in Balboa Village. Much of this is due to the very large base of eating places that are heavily supported by visitor spending. ■ When accounting only for Balboa Peninsula residents, the subarea generates a sales leakage of about $61 million. Individual categories with large sales leakages among local residents include general merchandise, grocery stores, and automotive related businesses, including gast stations. In addition, several specialty retail categories generate large sales leakages. This is due to the shopping area's heavy orientation towards visitor - serving uses, and limited availability of local serving retail. • ■ Out of all the coastal subareas examined in the retail analysis, Balboa Village has by far the lowest average sales per square foot ('fable 5). Nearly every retail category represented in the area underperforms compared to national retail averages. Not surprisingly, Balboa Village has a noticeably higher number of commercial property vacancies than other prominent retail districts in Newport Beach. ■ Even though Balboa Village will continue to draw large numbers of beach visitors, the area's long-time function as a regional destination for general entertainment purposes has diminished in recent years as competing year-round entertainment options have emerged inland. This trend is clearly reflected in the under performing retail uses and comparatively high retail vacancies. • 5 The Balboa Village market area includes Census Tract 628. APPLIED BEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGES I� • • TABLE 4 BALBOA VILLAGE SUBAREA ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE Spending Total Retail Sales Retail From Outside Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Leakage Businesses The Subarea Total $78,484,642 $17,281,936 $61,202,706 S4 $14,021,276 Food Store and General Merchandise Group* $36,583,045 $11,137,815 $25,445,231 29 $8,302,826 Department & Dry Goods $6,459,969 $0 $6,459,969 0 $0 Other General Merchandise $3,095,799 $0 $3,095,799 0 $0 Grocery/Liquor/Drug Stores* $14,194,076 $2,416,537 $11,777,539 3 $966,615 Specialty Food Stores $408,059 $170,833 $237,225 6 $68,333 Building Materials Home Furnishings Group $7,003,103 $0 $7,003,103 0 $0 Furniture & Home Furnishings $3,227,738 $0 $3,227,738 0 $0 Household Appliances & Electronics $1,157,674 $0 $1,157,674 0 $0 Used Merchandise $184,362 $0 $184,362 0 $0 Nurseries & Garden Supply Stores $575,192 $0 $575,192 0 $0 Lumber& Other Building Materials $1,065,322 $0 $1,065,322 0 $0 Home Centers and Hardware Stores $740,059 $0 $740,059 0 $0 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited by MBIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton & Associates. * Figures me aggregated due to confidentiality agreements Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. APPLIED DEVELGPMEN7ECONOM/CS PAGE16 IG TABLE 5 BALBOA VILLAGE SUBAREA SELECTED SALES PER SQUARE FOOT • National Sales Per Average Sales Retail Group Sq.Ft. Per Sq.Ft. Total $128.80 Food Store and General Merchandise Group* $165.98 Grocery/Liquor/Drug Stores* $242.45 $265 to $399 Specialty Food Stores $28.17 $174.42 Automotive Group $125.26 $200.10 New Cars & RVs $165.98 Mobile Homes & Trailers $242.45 $265 to $399 Source: ADE, based on data from the Orange County Assessor and the Urban Land Institute. Refer to Methodology Appendix for details of the analysis. is* Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements. • APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 17 CORONA DEL MAR' • ■ Corona del Mar's households and visitors account for about $160 million in retail spending annually (Table 6). ■ Corona del Mar retail businesses generate approximately $108 million in retail sales. About half of these sales come from grocery stores and restaurants. Compared to other coastal areas, Corona del Mar has a relatively diverse variety of retail businesses, many of which are primarily local serving. In addition, $14.4 million in sales are generated by furniture and home furnishings stores, while various home improvement businesses generate another $9.8 million in sales. ■ Shoppers not residing in Corona del Mar account for about $82 million of the retail sales in the area. Although marry retail categories capture high proportions of spending by shoppers outside of Corona del Mar, many of the categories represented in Corona del Mar are not necessarily tourist oriented, which indicates that much of this spending likely comes from other Newport Beach residents and customers from neighboring communities. ■ Individual categories with large sales leakages among local residents include general merchandise and automotive related businesses. Because • marry local serving businesses are already represented among Corona del Mar's retailers, the leakage from local households is not as widespread as in some other coastal subareas. ■ Corona del Mar's retail district is generally in the best condition among the coastal subareas. It has a very diverse range of retail stores that both serve local residents and attract significant spending from outside of CdM. The sales per square foot data finds that CdM retail stores generally fall within or exceed national averages for these retail categories (fable 7). The major retail category in Corona del Mar that under performs is the furniture and home furnishings category. However, it should be noted that some key businesses in this category did not have accurate square footage counts available, and their inclusion could change this conclusion. ■ Although Corona del Mar's retail uses may face some market pressure for conversion to residential uses similar to other coastal areas in Newport Beach, the district's existing retail market is very strong and there are no clear indications that the area is oversupplied for commercial uses. 6 The Corona del Mar market area includes Census Tract 627.02 and Block Group 627.01 • BG5. APPLIED DEW OPMENTECONOMICS PAGE18 2c 0 • CJ TABLE 6 CORONA DEL MAR SUBAREA ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE Spending Total Retail Sales Retail From Outside Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Leakage Businesses The Subarea Total $159,927,256 $108,067,016 $51,860,241 106 $81,809,592 Specialty Retail and Apparel Group* Gifts/Women's & Family Apparel* Men's Apparel Shoe Stores Sporting Goods/Photo Eq./ Stationery* Florists Records & Music Office Supplies/Computer Equipment Jewelry $20,108,164 $10,191,047 $9,917,117 27 $9,579,584 $5,334,535 $1,459,749 $3,874,786 5 $1,372,164 $419,052 $0 $419,052 0 $0 $853,111 $0 $853,111 0 $0 $4,404,022 $3,478,468 $925,554 5 $3,269,760 $1,855,256 $1,814,874 $40,382 5 $1,705,982 $356,888 $0 $356,888 0 $0 $988,364 $0 $988,364 0 $0 $624,095 $0 $624,095 0 $0 Automotive Group $38,511,650 $14,395,036 $24,116,613 5 $13,531,334 New Cars & RVs $16,484,040 $0 $16,484,040 0 $0 Used Car Dealers $1,203,223 $0 $1,203,223 0 $0 Gasoline Service Stations/Auto Parts* $20,272,089 $14,395,036 $5,877,052 5 $13,531,334 Mobile Homes &Trailers $4,281 $0 $4,281 0 $0 Boats & Motorcycles $548 017 $0 $548,017 0 $0 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited by MBIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton & Associates. * Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements. Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE19 • TABLE 7 CORONA DEL MAR SUBAREA SELECTED SALES PER SQUARE FOOT Is • National Retail Sales Average Sales Retail Group Per Sq.FG Per Sq.Ft. Total $345.38 Specialty Retail and Apparel Group* $147.53 Gifts/Women's & Family Apparel* $175.23 $136to$201 Sporting Goods/Photo Eq./ Stationery* $252.04 $173 to $582 Source: ADE, based on data from the Orange County Assessor and the Urban Land Institute. Refer to Methodology Appendix for details of the analysis. * Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE20 �s • LIDO -CANNERY' ■ Households near the Lido -Cannery business district and visitors to Lido - Cannery account for about $199 million in retail spending annually (Table 8). The household base includes the Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, and West Newport. It should be noted that this market area definition overlaps with McFadden Square and Balboa Village. ■ Lido -Cannery retail businesses generate approximately $65 million in retail sales. About $49 million of these sales come from grocery stores and restaurants, while $10 million comes from marine -related businesses. In addition, nearly $2 million in retail sales come from jewelry stores. ■ Spending from shoppers not living around the Lido -Cannery area account for about $31 million of the retail sales in the Lido -Cannery area. Compared to other coastal areas, this district captures a relatively high proportion of its retail sales from local residents. ■ Residents around Lido -Cannery generate a sales leakage of about $134 million, which includes some of the leakage also shown for Balboa Village and McFadden Square. Individual categories with large sales leakages among local residents include general merchandise and automotive related businesses. In addition, the sales leakages from some specialty retail and home furnishings categories could be sufficient to support additional businesses of this type. Lido -Cannery area food/drug stores, restaurants, and jewelry stores generate high sales per square foot, compared to the national benchmarks. Those categories alone represent 79 percent of the sales in Lido -Cannery, but less than half of the establishments. The other businesses in the Lido -Cannery area generally produce sales per square foot below the expected sales per square foot for specific retail store types (Table 9). This indicates that the area has some core strengths in specific retail categories, but a lot of other underperforming businesses as well. 7 The Lido -Cannery area draws from a larger market than some of the other coastal commercial subareas. The market area includes Census tracts 628 ,629, and 635, which • overlaps with Balboa Village and McFadden Square. APPLIED DEVELOPMENTECONOM/CS PACE2/ • • • TABLE 8 LIDO -CANNERY SUBAREA ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE Spending Total Retail Sales Retail From Outside Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Leakage Businesses The Subarea General Merchandise and Food Store Group* Grocery Stores/Drug Stores* Department & Dry Goods Other General Merchandise Liquor Stores $89,442,002 $37,135,408 $16,876,844 $8,019,142 $1,293,521 $49,150,158 $34,174,047 $0 $0 $0 $40,291,844 $2,961,360 $16,876,844 $8,019,142 $1,293,521 29 $16,321,726 $3,592,032 $0 $0 $0 Building Materials, Home Furnishings, and Automotive Group* $83,085,959 $11,821,171 $71,264,788 20 $11,111,901 Furniture & Home Furnishings $9,435,049 $935,671 $8,499,377 4 $879,531 Household Appliances & Electronics $3,024,336 $0 $3,024,336 0 $0 Used Merchandise $582,527 $105,800 $476,727 3 $99,452 Nurseries & Garden Supply Stores $1,512,182 $0 $1,512,182 0 $0 Building Materials/Paint & Wallpaper/ Used Cars* $6,202,399 $723,700 $5,478,699 4 $680,278 Home Centers and Hardware Stores $1,951,512 $0 $1,951,512 0 $0 New Cars & RVs $35,201,308 $0 $35,201,308 0 $0 Gasoline Service Stations $13,381,608 $0 $13,381,608 0 $0 Mobile Homes &Trailers $9,185 $0 $9,185 0 $0 Auto Parts & Accessories $1,167,663 $0 $1,167,663 0 $0 Boats & Motorcycles $10,618,191 $10,056,000 $562,191 9 $9,452,640 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited by MBIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton &Associates. * Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements. Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establislunents, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. The muket area is the same as McFadden Square. Differences in the total consumer spending may differ due to different capture rates of visitor spending between the two subareas. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE2? TABLE 9 • LIDO -CANNERY SUBAREA SELECTED SALES PER SQUARE FOOT • National Sales Per Average Sales Retail Group Sq.Ft. Per Sq.Ft. Total $406.90 General Merchandise and Food Store Group* $528.33 Grocery Stores/Drug Stores* $587.76 $265 to $399 Building Materials, Home Furnishings, and Automotive Group* $165.08 Furniture & Home Furnishings $231.24 $220.02 Used Merchandise $21.67 $174.98 Building Materials/Paint & Wallpaper/ Used Cars* $126.42 $153 to $177 Source: ADE, based on data from the Orange County Assessor and the Urban Land Institute. Refer to Methodology Appendix for details of the analysis. * Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements. APPLIED DEY£LOPMENT ECONOMICS PAG£23 MC FADDEN SQUARES ■ The market area for McFadden Square/Newport Pier retailers includes the Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, and West Newport. Residents and visitors to the McFadden Square/Newport Pier area account for about $194 million in retail spending annually (Table 10). ■ McFadden Square retail businesses generate approximately $30.8 million in annual retail sales. About $22.7 million of these sales come from restaurants. The other prominent retail categories such as apparel stores and sporting goods primarily cater to visitors. Non-residents account for about $26.5 million of the retail sales in the McFadden Square area. Compared to other coastal areas, this district captures a lower proportion of its retail sales from local residents. ■ Except for restaurants, most of the retail businesses in McFadden Square are under performing in terms of their sales per square foot compared to national averages for comparable businesses (Table 11). Fj • 8 The market area is the same as that for the 1 id) -Cannery area — Census Tracts 628, 629, and 535. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOM/CS PACE24 &I • 0 TABLE 10 MC FADDEN SQUARE SUBAREA ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE Spending Total Retail Retail From Outside Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Sales Leakage Businesses The Subarea Total 194135 714 30 764 786 163 370 928 42 $26,487,797 pparehStoreGroup $11,696,255 $1;492,600 $10,203,455 5 5 $1,40%237 $1,403,232, Apparel Stores* $9,852,325 $1,492,800 $8,359,525 Shwa Stores $1843 930 to #1841930 0 SO General Merchandise Group $29,407,266 $0 $29,407,266 u *U Department & Dry Goods $16,876,844 $0 $16,876,844 0 $0 other General Merchandise $8,019,142 $0 $8,019,142 0 $0 specialty Retail Group $14,889,320 $2,796,552 $12,092,768 7 $2,625,751 Sporting Goods $3,69$,333 $2,426,727 $1,271,007 4 $2,281112 Florists $318,592 $0 $318;592 0 $0 Photographic Equipment $170,341 $0 $170,341 0 $0 Records & Music $760,521 $0 $760,521 0 $0 Books & Stationery $834,269 $0 $834A69 0 $0 Office Supplies/Computer Equipment $2,111,295 $0 $2,111,295 0 $0 3ewelry $1,331,568 $0 $1,331,568 0 $0 MiSG Spedalty. BetalI16111s* $5 664 3 9 8 294 57 3 Food, Eating and Drinking Group $63,275,213 $23,397,134 $39,878,079 27 $19,562,204 Grocery/Liquor Stores* $30,614,826 $723,023 $29,891,802 4 $289,209 Eating Places $32,660,386 $22,674,111 $9,986,277 23 $19,272,994 Building Materials And Home furnishlogs Group $18,479,756 $0 $18,479,756 0 $0 Furniture & Home Furnishings $8,555;518 $0 $8,555,518 0 $0 Household Appliances & Electronics $3,024,336 $0 $%024,336 0 $0 Used Merchandise $483,075 $0 $483,075 0 $0 Nurseries& Garden Supply Stores $1,512,1$2 $0 $1,512,182 0 $0 Lumber &Other-BulldingMaterials $2;814,594 $0 $2,814,594 0 $0 Home Centers and Hardware Stores $1,951,512 $0 $1,951,512 0 $0 L"Wt—&—w—allappar S138 540 #0 5138 S40 0 SO Automotive Group $56,387,904 $3,U78,3UU �63'3U9,6U4 a y4,07o,0v4 New Cars & RVs $35,201,308 $0 $35,201,308 0 $0 Used Car Dealers $2,568,987 $0 $2,568,987 0 $0 Gasoline Service Stations $13,381,608 $0 $13,381,608 0 $0 Mobile Homes &Trailers $9,185 $0 $9,185 0 $0 Auto Parts B. Accessories $1,167,663 $0 $1,167,663 0 $0 Boats & Motorcycles $4 059153 $3 078 300 $980 853 3 $2,893,602 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited by MBIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the'1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton &Associates. "Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements. Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. The market area is the same as Lido Cannery. Differences in the total consumer spending may differ due to different capture rates of visitor spending between the two subareas. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PACE15 at TABLE II MC FADDEN SQUARE SUBAREA SELECTED SALES PER SQUARE FOOT • National Average Sales Per Sales Per Retail Group Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Total $189.80 • • Specialty Retail Group $125.49 Sporting Goods $132.65 $200.56 Source: ADE, based on data from the Orange County Assessor and the Urban Land Institute. Refer to Methodology Appendix for details of the analysis. * Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PACE26 • MARINER'S MILE' ■ Households near Mariner's Mile and visitors to the area account for about $199 million in retail spending annually ('fable 12). ■ Mariner's Mile retail businesses generate approximately $199 million in retail sales. Most of these sales came from restaurants and auto dealerships that rely heavily on spending from households in non- adjacent areas. Boat dealers and other marine sales generate another $44.7 million in sales. ■ Consumers not living immediately adjacent to Mariner's We account for about $98.7 million of the retail sales along Mariner's Mile. Compared to other coastal areas, this district captures a relatively low proportion of its retail sales from local residents. ■ Mariner's Mile generated the highest retail sales per square foot out of all the coastal subareas (Table 13). This is almost solely because of the exceptional performance of the area's restaurants and other eating places. With restaurants generating over $2 million each on average per year, and accounting for over $600 per square foot in sales, this sector performs • verywell. ■ Even though Mariner's Mile has a very strong existing retail base, the area has seen several high profile business closures in recent years, including some large restaurants and marine businesses. In addition, some buildings along Mariner's Mile exhibit high vacancy rates for office and local service uses as well. However, it also appears that even though several businesses have folded, the spaces continue to lease out and at least three properties have recently been sold. This indicates that interest in the area remains high for commercial and office activities. The retail mix in Mariner's Mile is citywide and regional in focus, with the almost complete absence of local serving retail businesses. • 9 The market area includes Census Tract 634. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PACE27 30 TABLE 12 • MARINER'S MILE SUBAREA ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE Spending Total Retail Sales Retail From Outside Retail Group Demand Retail Sales Leakage Businesses The Subarea • � 1 U General Merchandise Group $9,798,273 $0 $9,798,273 0 $0 Department & Dry Goods $5,623,616 $0 $5,623,616 0 $0 Other General Merchandise $2,669,716 $0 $2,669,716 0 $0 Food, Eating and Drinking Group $56,918,326 $43,576,652 $13,341,674 22 $42,372,292 Grocery Stores $9,370,736 $0 $9,370,736 0 $0 Specialty Food/Liquor Stores* $1,772,599 $1,587,208 $185,391 3 $1,050,885 Automotive Group $111,498,420 $97,194,000 $14,304,420 18 $93,699,662 Auto Dealerships* $61,852,810 $52,421,100 $9,431,710 3 $49,275,834 Gasoline Service Stations $4,443,330 $0 $4,443,330 0 $0 Mobile Homes & Trailers $3,055 $0 $3,055 0 $0 Auto Parts & Accessories $387,539 $0 $387,539 0 $0 Boats & Motorcvcles $44.811.686 $44.772.900 $38,786 15 $44,423,828 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited by MBIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton &Associates. * Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements. Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. APPLIED DEVELOPMENTECONOM/CS PACE28 TABLE 13 • MARINER'S MILE SUBAREA SELECTED SALES PER SQUARE FOOT • National Retail Sales Average Sales Retail Group Per Sq.Ft. Per Sq.Ft. Food, Eating and Drinking Group $551.57 Specialty Food/Liquor Stores* $41.58 $174 to $268 Eating Places $609.99 $216.22 Source: ADE, based on data from the Orange County Assessor and the Urban Land Institute. Refer to Methodology Appendix for details of the analysis. * Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE29 • COASTAL AREA TOTAL ■ As a whole, the coastal area of Newport Beach generates approximately $769 million of retail demand annually (Table 14), about $363 million of which comes from customers that do not live in the coastal area. r1 U • ■ Altogether, the coastal area generates about $476 million in retail sales. The largest share of the total sales come from food stores and restaurants, with boat and auto dealerships also accounting for sizable shares of the total retail sales. ■ Altogether, the coastal area generates about $293 million of retail leakage from household spending. About $62 million of the leakage is recovered by businesses in Fashion Island (Table 15). The remaining $234 million of retail leakage is largely in retail categories typically dominated by "big box" retail stores. These large-scale retailers are generally absent from Newport Beach's retail mix outside of Fashion Island. Some other spending is likely recovered by businesses located elsewhere in Newport Beach. APPLIED DEYELOPMENT ECOHOM/CS PAGE30 sS TABLE 14 • ANALYSIS OF RETAIL DEMAND, RETAIL SALES, AND SALES LEAKAGE FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH COASTAL AREA • • Total Spending From Consumer Retail Outside Coastal Department & Dry Goods $40,938,846 $0 $40,938,84b U `^ ^'^ �u spenattY Ketau urouP. T .. 'SFlpoorristitns $5,996,841 $4r204,762 792,07i of$�255`Gif.&Novetes .{#nP'„r', ' I g'=•;G' oodrt` $10,833,135 . $8,348;849 ,. ' . py $2484286 13.1,*y $7 77d4. , 41' ";. ; $2,916,103 $2,356,583 . 070.4 $559520t".. I Photographic Equipment/Music Stores* $2,759,834, -1..4612,10Q •,; -,a .,,, $2;147,734, Al VF, 7,24 7�9 Books &Stationary } R ;• , $3,022,531 $1,129,400 $1;893,131. ;III'. y,3;i;�sq,. jOfRcd6u Iles/Corn uterE ui'ment pp p q p $5129797.. .. ..$0, , $Sil29797,: ''4`''':^,,0$6,431,.,; st " y,r 2?p 4+. i 7Q "c t .u.8; '., ?$ 8 i 047 $3,429,229 $3,001,818 ' Mlsc Retail $17 475 582 $7 771559 $9 704 623 t ... ' 44 ' e' $6 �68,21b .Spegialri Food, Eating and Drinking Group $241,802,827 $211,536,362 $30,266,465 179 $136,466,159 Grocery Stores $82,658,987 $60,055,686 $22,603,301 7 $14,910,592 Specialty Food Stores $3,576,495 $3,576,495 $0 26 $1,476,989 Liquor Stores $4,639,219 $4,379,959 $259,260 10 $1,513,148 n,____ tt snQ7a179 t149574-722 VA03.904 136 $118,565,431 come furnishings Group $69,478,711 Furniture &Home Furnishings $33,623;478 Furniture Stores $0 Other Home Furnishings,Stores #0 Household Appliances&Electronics $9,396,977 Used Merchandise i $3,048,681 Garden Supply/Hardware/Paint Stores*. ,$14,036,328 $32,550,429 $36;928,282 48 $24,405,3 $17,687,475 $15,936,004, 26 $12,686,4 $0 $0 0 . . $2,335,100., • $7,061,877.>>°,t „r„y ;2;, <',',$2,063,2 $2,122,000 $926,681 ; ,,r 8 ; $1,874A $6,393,454-., ; , : $7,642,874..,,,, 67,C Automotive Group $294,751,240 $180,802,840 $113,948,400 Auto Dealerships* $176,785,339 $96,326,200 $80,459,139 5 $85,113,830 Service Stations/Auto Parts* $53,417,324 $20,081,833 $33,335,491 7 $18,406,251 Mobile Homes &Trailers $22,217 $0 $22,217 0 $0 Boats & Motorcycles $64 526 360 $64,394,807 $131,553 35 $61,684,447 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited byMB1A. Data adjusted for inflation using CPL Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton &Associates. 'F Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements. Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. Non -local resident spending can include visitors, business -to -business transactions, residents of neighboring communities, employees, and residents living in other parts of Newport Beach. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE31 3`j n LJ • • Apparel TABLE 15 ANALYSIS OF LEAKAGE FROM LOCAL HOUSEHOLD DEMAND FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH COASTAL AREA Stores* Department & Dry Goods Stores* Coastal Area Resident Spending at Net Retail $4,755,726 $3,100,419 $21,763,858 Gifts&Noveltles $1,792,079 $1,627,522 $164,55 Sporting Goods $2,484,286 $10,543 $2,473,74 Florists $559,520 $Si072 $554,449 Photographic Equipment/Musi:Stores* $2,147,734 $212;567 $1,935,1 Books* Stationery $1,893,131 $1,382,562 $510,56 Office Supplies/Computer Equipment $5,129,797 $0 $5,129,79 3ewelry $3,001,818 $2,704,594 $297;22 Misc. Specialty Retail 9 7023 04 612 314 9 091709 Food, Eating and Drinking Group $30,266,465 $9,634,775 $20,631i690 Grocery Stores $22,603,301 $2,971,262 $19,632,040 Specialty Food Stores $0 $0 • $0 Liquor Stores $259,260 $0 $259,260 Eating Places $7,403,904 $6,663,513 $740,390_ 4ome furnishings Group $36,928,282 $10,923,317 Furniture & Home Furnishings $15,936,004 $4,485,872 Furniture -Stores $0 $0 Other Home Furnishings Stores $0 $0 Household Appliances'& Electronics $7,061,877 $6,437,445 Used Merchandise $926,681 $0 Garden Supply/Hardware/PalntStores* $7,642,874 {0 Automotive Group $11J,9925,9UU $Wb,41J 113,3Y1,7nY New Cars & RVs $75,463,694 $0 $75,463,694 Used Car Dealers $4,995,445 $0 $4,995,445 Service Stations/Auto Parts* $33,335,491 $386,420 $32,949,071 Mobile Homes &Trailers $22,217 $19,995 $2,222 Boats & Motorcycles $131,553 $0 $131,553 Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Retail Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Sales data comes from the State Board of Equalization, data audited by hMIA. Data adjusted for inflation using CPI. Household counts and aggregated income growth factors come from the 2000 US Census, and income estimates are derived from the 1990 US Census. Data for calculating local spending capture and non-resident spending from Linda Congleton &Associates. * Figures are aggregated due to confidentiality agreements. Notes: Spending and sales do not include non -store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. Non -local resident spending can include visitors, business -to -business transactions, residents of neighboring communities, employees, and residents living in other parts of Newport Beach. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PACE31 3S • APPENDIX A: RETAIL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Market Area Definition The area defined as primary market area includes the City of Newport Beach. Because Newport Coast households were annexed into the city limits after the 2000 Census, the analysis used data from those tracts formerly in the unincorporated area. The retail subareas are geocoded according to the definitions used by the City of Newport Beach for its sales tax reporting. The market areas defined for these retail subareas are as follows: Balboa Island (Census Tract 630.06), Balboa Village (Tract 628), Corona Del Mar (Tract 627.02 and Block Group 627.01 BG5), Udo-Cannery (Tracts 628, 629, and 635), and Mariner's Mile (Tract 634). For the entire coastal area, the analysis included these tracts and added the households along Bayside Drive and the remainder of Census Tract 627.01. Household Growth and Income Assumptions The household counts used in the analysis came directly from the 2000 US Census of Population. The household income distribution for the primary and secondary market areas comes from the 1990 Census, and the calculations hold this distribution . constant. To estimate 2000 incomes, the income ranges were inflated using the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and real income increase was estimated by using the preliminary Summary File 3 data from the 2000 Census for Orange County (minus Anaheim and Santa Ana).30 In order to calculate total household income, the midpoint for each income range was multiplied by the number of households within that range. Data Sources Used In The Retail Analysis The taxable sales figures in the analysis come directly from the California State Board of Equalization (SBE) sales tax allocation records, audited by MBIA. This data covers all establishments for the City of Newport Beach for the 2001 calendar year. Due to confidentiality requirements, any retail category with fewer than three establishments must be aggregated together with other retail categories before data can be reported. The data for the subarea retail studies come directly from the MBIA sales tax audit reports, which use geographic definitions provided by the City of Newport Beach. During the process of conducting the subarea analyses, some missing data along Bayside Drive and around McFadden Square was detected. The to At the time of the retail market analysis, the Summary File 3 data from the U.S. Census for the • Newport Beach CDP was not available. APPLIED DEVELOPMENTECONOM/CS PACE33 90 sales tax data for these areas reflect aggregated totals with no detail by store type. This will be added in the final report. • ADFs retail model estimates household retail demand by store type and product type. The variables that go into the model are average household income, the number of households in the study area, and any necessary inflation factors. The source of data for the household product type demand is the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, which the agency uses to compute the Consumer Price Index. These surveys stratify the sample based on type of location, income, and region. For purposes of analyzing the household spending in Newport Beach, data for analyzing the household demand by store type came from the 1997 US Census of Retail Trade. Additional Assumptions Made In The Retail Model Because the data from the State Board of Equalization only reflects taxable sales, the retail model makes an adjustment to account for nontaxable retail items. These items include food and prescription drugs. The adjustment inflates the taxable sales by the average ratio of nontaxable to taxable products for an individual store type. This distribution of sales by product type comes from the 1997 Census of Retail Trade. Information regarding the taxability of different retail products comes from the California Tax Code. The household capture assumptions for different retail store categories in the coastal subareas came from the Linda Congleton & Associates market studies of the Balboa Peninsula. In store categories where the household capture assumption exceeded the available demand, the analysis assumed that the household demand would equal the local spending component. In the subarea studies, the non-resident spending includes visitors, business -to -business transactions, spending from households living in the surrounding communities, and residents living in other parts of Newport Beach. The capture assumptions for the entire coastal area aggregated the household spending for each individual subarea, and reapplied the household capture assumptions to the remaining leakage in order to differentiate between resident and non-resident spending for the entire coastal area. For the citywide totals, the visitor spending estimates are calculated from CIC Research visitor survey data. Because the visitor spending data was reported at a more aggregated level than the retail sales figures, ADE took the visitor spending data and proportionally distributed it to the most appropriately matched retail category. The citywide analysis does not make any assumptions regarding capture of spending from residents living in the surrounding communities, such as Irvine, Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach, and Huntington Beach. For categories that have large excess capture of spending, it can be assumed that the regional capture of spending is at least this amount. The CIC visitor survey sample had less than 1.5 percent of the respondents from Orange County, therefore the analysis assumes that visitor APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOM/CS PAGE34 3'? spending does not include recurring shopping trips into Newport Beach by residents in the surrounding communities. • Employee spending used several data sources to come up with an overall estimate. The analysis assumed an employed total of approximately 59,400 jobs. This job estimate comes from California Employment Development Department statistics, and excludes self-employment and residential employment. Based on typical employee spending patterns identified through surveys in other communities, the analysis assumed a daily spending amount of $6 per workday, most of which applies to eating establishments. • The employee spending analysis also assumed 15,000 total jobs at Newport Center, based on a 2000 Irvine Company survey. This data estimated that approximately 18 percent of Fashion Island sales come from Newport Center employees. To account for the presence of Fashion Island, the employee spending analysis assumed that Newport Center workers had an average daily spending amount of $21 per workday. This spending was proportionally distributed based on the sales patterns at Fashion Island. Because the retail market analysis already accounted for most retail spending by Newport Beach residents, the amount allocated to employee spending at Fashion Island only includes retail spending by commuters. The commute pattern data came from the 2000 U.S. Census. Data for the average sales per square foot comes from the sales tax records and the Orange County Assessor's database. The averages calculated for the retail analysis reflect the available data. In many cases, the square footage data in the Assessor's records was either missing or mixed together with several uses. In most cases where the square footage total included several uses sharing a single address, the analysis totaled the number of businesses at that address and assigned an equal square footage total to each business. Balboa Island had the most comprehensive and complete square footage data of all the subareas analyzed. Lido -Cannery had several properties with missing addresses. In addition, the data records for Corona del Mar had problems because most of the properties were improperly entered as "W Coast Hwy" The national benchmark data comes from the Urban Land Institute's Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers publication. ADE's analysis used the community shopping center median sales per square foot for each retail category. APPLIED DEVELOPMENTECONOMICS PAGE3S 3g