Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2003_03_24G PAC 2003 03 24 G Ia CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA March 24, 2003 7:00-9:00 p.m. I. Welcome Mayor Steve Bromberg II. Introduction of All Members III. Approval of Minutes December 2, 2002 Police Department Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive • IV. Overview of State General Plan Law & Planning Principles Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant V. Communication between GPAC & Planning Commission/City Council VI. Discussion of Future Agenda Items VII. Future Meeting Schedule VIII. Public Comments DRAFT • 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 Phillip Lugar Carol Boice Evelyn Hart Catherine O'Hara Karlene Bradley Bob Hendrickson Larry Root Julie Delaney Tom Hyans Robert Shelton Laura Dietz Mike Ishikawa Ed Siebel Florence Felton Mike Johnson Jackie Sukiasian Nancy Gardner Todd Knipp Jan Vandersloot Joseph Gleason Donald Krotee Jennifer Wesoloski 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 n U I PE F r , 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 4" 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 3 UZT • 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, December 9th. Nancy Gardner was concerned that if we met again on the 9th, 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 DRAFT • V. Next Steps E • 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. 0 CHAPTER I General Plan Basics All statutory references are to the California Government Code unless otherwise noted alifomia state law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan "for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning" (§65300). The role of a community's general plan is to act as a "constitution," abasis for rational decisions regard- ing a city's or county's long-term physical devel- opment. The general plan expresses the community's development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land uses, both public and private. As will be discussed in Chapter 10, the poli- cies of the general plan are intended to underlie most land use decisions. Pursuant to state law, sub- divisions, capital improvements, development agreements, and many other land use actions must be consistent with the adopted general plan. In counties and general law cities, zoning and spe- cific plans are also required to conform to the gen- eral plan. COMPREHENSIVENESS Every city and county must adopt "a compre- hensive, long term general plan" (§65300). The general plan must cover a local jurisdiction's en- tire planning area and address the broad range of issues associated with a city's or county's devel- opment. Geographic Comprehensiveness The plan must cover the territory within the boundaries of the adopting city or county as well as "any land outside its boundaries which in the plan- ning agency's judgmentbears relation to its planning" (§65300). For cities, this means all territory within the city limits, both public and private. Counties must address all unincorporated areas. When establishing its planning area, each city should consider using its sphere of influence as a starting point. The Local Agency Formation Com- mission (LAFCO) in every county adopts a sphere of influence for each city to represent "the prob- able physical boundaries and service area" of that city (§56076). Although there is no direct require- ment that the sphere and the planning area match, the former provides a convenient measure of the city's region of interest. A county should consider the general plans of every city within the county in its own plans. City planning policies may be reflected in the county plan in various ways. The county plan may discuss city policies in the broad context of countywide policy. It may summarize city policies while lay- ing out the county policies for the surrounding un- incorporated area. It may examine city policies in the context of community plans that it has adopted for the surrounding unincorporated areas. In addition, since issues are not confined to political boundaries, the law provides for planning outside of the jurisdiction's territory. Cooperative extraterritorial planning can be used to guide the orderly and efficient extension of services and utili- ties; ensure the preservation of open space, agri- cultural, and resource conservation lands; and establish consistent standards for development in the plans of adjoining jurisdictions. Cities and counties should work together to de- lineate planning areas and may establish formal agree- ments for processing development proposals. For example, Yolo County delegates a portion of its land use authority to the City of Davis within areas sur- rounding the city. As urbanization occurs and adjoin- ing cities expand, the potential for conflict between cities competing for the same lands increases. Inter- city cooperation in establishing planning areas can proactively help to avoid such disputes. General Plan Guidelines • • Theoretical Relationship Between a ClWs Planning Area and Sphere of Influence Current City limits: Encompasses incorporated territory where land use is controlled by the city. City's "Spherewf-influence" adopted by the LAFCO: Encompasses incorporated and unincorporated territory which Is thecity's �-----� ultimate service area. City's Planning Area Boundary: Encompasses incorporated and uninoorporatedterritorybearing a relation _..1 to the dVs planning. Where desirable the planning area may extend beyond the sphere-0f-influence. Viewing the local general plan in its regional context is important. Traditionally, the concept of "community" encompassed only a local entity — the city or county. With increasing urbanization, the growing interdependence of local governments, and important issues that transcend local bound- aries such as transportation, air quality, and floodplain management, the regional perspec- tive should be considered. Cities and counties should identify risks from natural hazards that extend across jurisdictional boundaries, then use any available data from watershed -based flood - General Plan Guidelines plain management, mapped earthquake faults, or high fire -hazard areas as planning tools to ad- dress any significant issues. Each local planning agency carries a responsibility to coordinate its general plan with regional planning efforts as much as possible. Regional planning efforts typically address single issues or have indirect links to the local plan- ning process. Plans prepared by councils of gov- emment and other designated regional agencies provide the basis for allocating federal and state funds used for specific items such as transporta- n U • • tion facilities. Other regional plans, such as those for air or water quality, spell out measures that lo- cal governments must institute in order to meet federal or state standards for the region. Still oth- ers, such as regional housing allocation plans, mea- sure each local government's responsibility for satisfying a specific share of regional needs. Some regional agencies have put together useful infor- mation on seismic safety and other planning is- sues that can be helpful. The Legislature has mandated consideration of certain regional impacts. For example, if a city or county adopts or amends a mandatory general plan element limiting the number of residential units that may be constructed on an annual ba- sis, it must explain that action. The city or county must make specific findings concerning the ef- forts it has made to implement its housing element and the public health, safety, and welfare consid- erations that justify reducing housing opportuni- ties in the region (§65302.8). Further, cities and counties must balance the housing needs of the region against the needs of their residents for pub- lic services and the available fiscal and environ- mental resources (§65863.6, §66412.3). In addition, the housing element of the general plan must include action programs to accommodate the locality's regional fair share of housing (§65583, §65584). Local general plans should recognize the city's or county's regional role if regional needs are to be satisfied, federal and state standards met, and coordination achieved in the location of public fa- cilities. Accordingly, general plans should include a discussion of the extent to which the general plan's policies, standards, and proposals corre- spond to regional plans and the plans of adjoining communities. A city or county may need to reex- amine its own general plan when its neighbors make important changes to their plans. Issue Comprehensiveness A general plan must address a broad range of issues. Under the "shoe fits" doctrine discussed in Chapter 4, the plan should focus on those issues that are relevant to the planning area (§65301(c)). The plan must address the jurisdiction's physical development, such as general locations, appropri- ate mixtures, timing, and extent of land uses and supporting infrastructure. The broad scope of physical development issues may range from ap- propriate areas for building factories to open space for preserving endangered species (see Chapter 4 -for examples). This.may include not only those is- sues described in the planning statutes, but regional issues as well. In the 1960s, planners began to assert that land use decisions have not only immediate and future physical environmental impacts, but also social and economic impacts. Because a general plan repre- sents the most comprehensive local expression of the general welfare as it relates to land use regula- tion, recognizing social and economic concerns in the general plan may be quite appropriate. Social and economic issues may be discussed within the context of the mandatory elements, such as hous- ing and land use. Some jurisdictions have adopted an optional economic development element as part of their general plans (see Chapter 6). Environ- mental justice, discussed in Chapter 2, recognizes that land use decisions have consequences for so- cial equity. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY The concept of internal consistency holds that no policy conflicts exist, either textual or diagram- matic, between the components of an otherwise complete and adequate general plan. Different poli- cies must be balanced and reconciled within the plan. The internal consistency requirement has five dimensions, described below. Equal Status Among Elements All elements of the general plan have equal legal status. For example, the land use elementpoli- cies are not superior to the policies of the open - space element. A case in point: in Sierra Club v Board of Supervisors ofKern County (1981)126Cal App.3d 698, two of Kern county's general plan elements, land use and open space, designated conflicting land uses for the same property. A provision in the general plan text reconciled this and other map inconsistencies by stating that "if in any in- stance there is a conflict between the land use element and the open -space element, the land General Plan Guidelines u • • use element controls." The court of appeal struck down this clause because it violated the internal consistency requirement under §65300.5. No el- ement is legally subordinate to another; the gen- eral plan must resolve potential conflicts among the elements through clear lang5age and policy consistency. Consistency Between Elements All elements of general plan, whether man- datory or optional, must be consistent with one another. The court decision in Concerned Citi- zens of Calaveras County a Board of Supervi- sors (1985) 166 Ca1.App.3d 90 illustrates this point. In that case, the county land use element contained proposals expected to result in in- creased population. The circulation element, however, failed to provide feasible remedies for the predicted traffic congestion that would follow. The county simply stated that it would lobby for funds to solve the future traf- fic problems. The court held that this vague response was insuffi- cient to reconcile the conflicts. Also, housing element law re- quires local agencies to adopt housing element programs that achieve the goals and implement the policies of,the housing ele- ment. Such programs must iden- tify the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements (§65583(c)). A city or county may incorporate by reference into its general plan all or a portion of another jurisdiction's plan. When doing so, the city or county should make sure that any materials incor- porated by reference are consistent with the rest of its general plan. Consistency Within Elements Each element's data, analyses, goals, policies, and implementation programs must be consistent with and complement one another. Established goals, data, and analysis form the foundation for any ensuing policies. For example, if one portion General Plan Guidelines "In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency. " (¢65300.5) of a circulation element indicates that county roads are sufficient to accommodate the projected level of traffic while another section of the same ele- ment describes a worsening traffic situation aggra- vated by continued subdivision activity, the element is notinternally consistent (Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v Board of Supervisors of Calaveras County (1985)166 Cal.App.3d 90). Area Plan Consistency All principles, goals, objectives, policies, and plan proposals set forth in an area or community plan must be consistent with the overall general plan. The general plan should explicitly discuss the role of area plans if they are to be used. Similarly, each area plan should discuss its specific relation- ship to the general plan. In 1986, the court of ap- peal ruled on an area plan that was alleged to be inconsistent with the larger general plan. The court up- held both the area plan and general plan when it found that the general plan's "nonurban/rural" designa- tion, by the plan's own description, was not intended to be interpreted literally or precisely, especially with regard to small areas. The court noted that the area plan's more specific "urban residential" designation was pertinent and that there was no inconsistency between the countywide general plan and the area plan (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. a County of Los An- geles (1986)177Cal.App.3d300). However, the court also noted that in this particular case the geographic area of alleged inconsistency was quite small. Text and Diagram Consistency The general plan's text and its accompanying diagrams are integral parts of the plan. They must be in agreement. For example, if a general plan's land use element diagram designates low -density residential development in an area where the text describes the presence of prime agricultural land and further contains written policies to preserve agricultural land or open space, a conflict exists. W, n LJ LA The plan's text and diagrams must be reconciled, for"internal consistency requires that general plan diagrams of land use, circulation systems, open - space and natural resources areas reflect written policies and programs in the text for each element." (Curtin's California Land -Use and Planning Law, 1998 edition, p. 18) Without consistency in all five of these ar- eas, the general plan cannot effectively serve as a clear guide to future development. Decision mak- ers will face conflicting directives; citizens will be confused about the policies and standards the com- munity has selected; findings of consistency of subordinate land use decisions such as rezonings and subdivisions will be difficult to make; and land owners, business, and industry will be unable to rely on the general plan's stated priorities and stan- dards for their own individual decision making. Beyond this, inconsistencies in the general plan can expose the jurisdiction to expensive and lengthy litigation. LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE Since the general plan affects the welfare of current and future generations, state law requires that the plan take a"long-term"perspective (§65300). The general plan projects conditions and needs into the future as a basis for determining objectives. It also establishes long-term policy for day-to-day decision making based upon those objectives. The time frames for effective planning vary among issues. The housing element, for example, specifically involves time increments of five years. Geologic hazards, on the other hand, persist for hundreds or thousands of years. Sewer, water, and road systems are generally designed with a 30- to 50-year lifespan. Capital improvement planning is typically based upon a five- or seven-year term. Economic trends may change rapidly in response to outside forces. Differences in time frame also affect the for- mulation of general plan objectives, policies, and implementation measures. Objectives are long term goals, slowly evolving to suit changing community values or to reflect the success of action programs. Specific policies tend to be shorter term, shifting with the political climate or self-imposed time limits. Implementation pro- grams tend to have the shortest span because they must quickly respond to the demands of new funding sources, the results of their own activi- ties, and the jurisdiction's immediate needs and problems. Most jurisdictions select 15 to 20 years as the long-term horizon for the general plan. The hori- zon does not mark an end point, but rather pro- vides a general context in which to make shorter -term decisions. The local jurisdiction may choose a time horizon that serves its particular needs. Remember that planning is a continuous process; the general plan should be reviewed regu- larly, regardless of its horizon, and revised as new information becomes available and as community needs and values change. For instance, new popu- lation projections that indicate that housing will be needed at a greater clip than anticipated, an un- expected major development in a neighboring ju- risdiction that greatly increases traffic congestion, or a ballot initiative that establishes an urban growth boundary may all trigger the need to revise the general plan. A general plan based upon out- dated information and projections is not a sound basis for day-to-day decision making and may be legally inadequate. It will be more susceptible to successful legal challenge. DEFINING THE PARTS OF GENERAL PLAN A general plan is made up of text describing objectives, principles, standards, and plan propos- als, as well as a set ofmaps and diagrams. Together, these constituent parts paint a picture of the community's future development. The following discussions help to clarify the meanings of these terms. Development Policy A development policy is a general plan state- ment that guides action. In a broad sense, develop- ment policies include objectives, principles, policies, plan proposals, and standards. Diagram A diagram is a graphic expression of a gen- eral plan's development policies, particularly its plan proposals. Many types of development poli- General Plan Guidelines lb n LJ • • cies lend themselves well to graphic treatment, such as the distribution of land uses, urban design, infra- structure, and geologic and other natural hazards. A diagram must be consistent with the gen- eral plan text (§65300.5) and should have the same long-term planning perspective as the rest of -the general plan. The Attorney General has observed that "...when the Legislature has used the term `map,' it has required preciseness, exact location, and detailed boundaries...:' as in the case of the Subdivision Map Act. No such precision is required of a general plan diagram (67 Cal.Ops.Atty.Gen. 75,77). As a general rule, a diagram or diagrams, along with the general plan's text, should be de- tailed enough so that the users of the plan, whether staff, elected and appointed officials, or the pub- lic, can reach the same general conclusion on "The general plan shall the appropriate use of consist of a statement of any parcel of land at a development policies particular phase of a and shall include a city's or county's diagram or diagrams physical development. and text setting forth Decision -makers objectives, principles, should also be able to standards, and plan use a general plan, in - proposals." (§65302) cluding its diagram or diagrams, in coordinat- ing day-to-day land use and infrastructure deci- sions with the city's or county's future physical development scheme. At the same time, given the long-term nature of a general plan, its diagram or diagrams and text should be general enough to allow a degree offlex- ibility in decision -making as times change. For ex- ample, a general plan may recognize the need for and desirability of community park in aproposed residential area, but the precise location of the park may not be known when the plan is adopted. The plan would not need to pinpoint the location, but it should have a generalized diagram along with poli- cies saying that the park site will be selected and appropriate zoning applied at the time the area is subdivided. In this sense, while zoning must be consistent with the general plan, the plan's diagram or diagrams and the zoning map are not required to be identical. 10 General Plan Guidelines Objective An objective is a general direction -setter. It is a future goal or end related to the public health, safety, or general welfare toward which planning and planning implementation measures are di- rected. An objective is a general expression ofcom- munity values and, therefore, may be abstract in nature. Consequently, an objective may or may not be quantifiable or time -dependent. Examples of Objectives: ♦ Quiet residential streets ♦ A diversified economic base for the city ♦ An aesthetically pleasing community ♦ A safe community Objectives, by definition, should be expressed as ends, not actions. For instance, the fast example above expresses an end, namely, "quiet residential streets." It does not say, "Establish quiet residential streets" or "To establish quiet residential streets." Principle A principle is an assumption, fundamental rule, or doctrine guiding general plan policies, pro- posals, standards, and implementation measures. Principles are based on community values, gener- ally accepted planning doctrine, current technol- ogy, and the general plan's objectives. In practice, principles underlie the process of developing the plan but seldom need to be explicitly stated in the plan itself. Examples of Principles: ♦ Mixed use encourages urban vitality. ♦ The residential neighborhoods within a city should be within a convenient and safe walk- ing distance of an elementary school. ♦ Parksprovide recreational and aesthetic benefits. ♦ Risks from natural hazards will be identified and avoided to the extent practicable. Policy A policy is a specific statement that guides decision -making. It indicates a commitment of the 0 local legislative body to a particular course of ac- tion. A policy is based on and helps implement a general plan's objectives. A policy is carried out by implementation mea- sures. For a policy to be useful as a guide to action it must be clear and unambiguous. Adopting broadly drawn and vague policies is poor practice. Clear policies are particularly important when it comes to judging whether or not zoning decisions, subdivisions, public works projects, etc., are con- sistent with the general plan. When writing policies, be aware of the differ- ence between "shall" and "should." "Shall" indi- cates an unequivocal directive. "Should" signifies a less rigid directive, to be honored in the absence of compelling or contravening considerations. Use of the word "should" to give the impression of more commitment than actually intended is a common, but unacceptable, practice. It is better to adopt no policy than to adopt a policy with no backbone. Solid policy is based on solid information. The analysis of data collected during the planning pro- cess provides local officials with a knowledge of trends, existing conditions, and projections that they need to formulate policy. If projected com- munity conditions are not in line with a general plan's objectives, local legislative bodies may adopt policies that will help bring about a more desirable future. Examples of Policies: ♦ The city shall not approve a parking ordinance variance unless the variance pertains to the rebuilding of an unintentionally destroyed non -conforming use. ♦ The city shall not approve plans for the downtown shopping center until an inde- pendently conducted market study indicates that the center would be economically fea- sible. ♦ The city shall give favorable consideration to conditional use permit proposals involv- ing adaptive reuse of buildings that are des- ignated as "architecturally significant" by the cultural resources element. Standards A rule or measure establishing a level of quality or quantity that must be complied with or satisfied. Standards define the abstract terms of objectives and policies with concrete specifi- cations. The Government Code makes various refer- ences to general plan standards. For example, §65302(a) states in part that the land use element must "...include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recom- mended for the various districts and other terri- tory covered by the plan." Other examples of statutory references to general plan standards in- clude those found in §66477 (the QuimbyAct) and §66479 (reservations of land within subdivisions). Of course, a local legislature may adopt any other general plan standards it deems desirable. Examples of Standards: ♦ Aminimally acceptable peak hour level of ser- vice for an arterial street is level of service C. ♦ The minimum acreage required for a regional shopping center is from 40 to 50 acres. ♦ High -density residential means 15 to 30 dwelling units per acre and up to 42 dwelling units per acre with a density bonus. ♦ The first floor of all new construction shall be at least two feet above the base flood elevation. Plan Proposal A plan proposal describes the development intended to take place in an area. Plan proposals are often expressed on the general plan diagram. Examples of Plan Proposals: ♦ First Street and HarborAvenue are designated as arterials. ♦ The proposed downtown shopping center will be located within the area bound by D and G Avenues and Third and Fourth Streets. ♦ A new parking structure shall be located in the vicinities of each of the following down- town intersections: First Street and AAvenue, and Fifth Street and D Avenue. General Plan Guidelines I I )3 Implementation Measure Objective: An implementation measure is an action, pro- ♦ A thriving downtown that is the center of the cedure, program, or technique that carries out gen- city's retail and service commercial activities. eral plan policy. Each policy must have at least policy: one corresponding implementation measure. ♦ The city shall not approve discretionary Examples oflmplementationMeasures: projects or building permits that could impede development of the downtown regional shop - The city shall use tax -increment financing to ping center. pay the costs of replacing old sidewalks in Implementation Measures: the redevelopment area. ♦ The city shall adopt interim zoning ♦ The city shall adopt a specific plan for the r development inn the Hance restricting further industrial park. general vicinity of the proposed downtown ♦ Areas designated by the land use element for shopping center until a study has been com- agriculture shall be placed in the agricultural pleted determining its exact configuration. zone. ♦ During the interim zoning period, the city Linking Objectives to Implementation shall adopt a special regional shopping cen- ter zoning classification that permits the de - The following examples show the relation- velopment of the proposed downtown mall. ships among objectives, policies, and implemen- tation measures. The examples are arranged ♦ Upon completion of the study, the city coun- according to a hierarchy from the general to the cil shall select a site for the downtown mall specific —from objectives to implementation mea- and shall apply the shopping center zone to • sures. In an actual general plan, there might be the property. more than one policy under each objective, more than one implementation measure under each Objective: policy, etc. ♦ 500 additional dwelling units for low-income households by 2010. Objective: Policy: ♦ No motor vehicle traffic congestion on city ♦ When a developer of housing within the high - streets. density residential designation agrees to Policies: construct at least 30 percent of the total ♦ The city shall install left -turn lanes at arterial units of a housing development for low -in - intersections with peak -hour levels of service come households, the city shall grant a 40 worse than C. percent density bonus for the housing ♦ For arterial intersections with peak -hour lev- project. els of service of D, E, or F, the city shall in- Implementation Measure: stall left turn signals whenever left turn lanes ♦ The city shall amend its zoning ordinance to alone will not bring about peak -hour level of allow for a 40 percent density bonus in the service C. high -density residential zone. Implementation Measure: ♦ Left-tum lane improvements and signals shall COMMUNITY PLANS,AREA PLANS, be funded by means of exactions imposed in AND SPECIFIC PLANS conjunction with the city's approval of con- Area and community plans are part of the gen- ditional use permits, building permits, or ten- eral plan. A specific plan, on the other hand, is a • tative tract or parcel maps. tool for implementing the general plan but is not 12 General Plan Guidelines t3 0 CJ • part of the general plan. In the following para- graphs, we'll look briefly at each of these types of plans. "Area plan" and "community plan" are terms for plans that focus on a particular region or com- munity within the overall general plan area. An area or community plan is adopted as an amend- ment to the general plan in the manner set out in §65350, et.seq. It refines the policies of the gen- eral plan as they apply to a smaller geographic area and is implemented by ordinances and other dis- cretionary actions, such as zoning. The area or com- munity plan process also provides a forum for resolving local conflicts. They are commonly used in large cities and counties where there are a vari- ety of distinct communities or regions. As discussed earlier, an area or community plan must be internally consistent with the general plan of which it is apart. To facilitate such consis- tency, the general plan should provide a policy framework for the detailed treatment of specific issues in the various area or community plans. Ide- ally, to simplify implementation, the area or com- munity plans and the general plan should share a uniform format for land use categories, terminol- ogy, and diagrams. Each area or community plan need not address all ofthe issues required by §65302 when the over- all general plan satisfies these requirements. For example, an area or community plan need not dis- cuss fire safety if the jurisdiction -wide plan ad- equately addresses the subject and the area or community plan is consistent with those policies and standards. Keep in mind that while an area or community plan may provide greater detail to poli- cies affecting development in a defined area, adopt- ing one or a series of such plans does not substitute for regular updates to the general plan. Many of the mandatory general plan issues are most effec- tively addressed on a jurisdiction -wide basis that ties together the policies of the individual area or community plans. A specific plan is a hybrid that can combine policy statements with development regulations (§65450, et seq.). It is often used to address the development requirements for a single project such as urban infill or a planned community. As a re- sult, its emphasis is on concrete standards and de- velopment criteria. Its text and diagrams will ad- dress the planning of necessary infrastructure and facilities, as well as land uses and open space. In addition, it will specify those programs and regu- lations necessary to finance infrastructure and pub- lic works projects. Compounding its versatility, a specific plan may be adopted either by resolution, like a general plan, or by ordinance, like zoning. Specific plans must be consistent with all fac- ets of the general plan, including the policy state- ments. In turn, zoning, subdivisions, and public works projects must be consistent with the spe- cific plan (§65455). See Chapter 10 for more about specific plans. OPR's publication A Planner's Guide to Specific Plans is another good source of information. ELEMENTS, ISSUES,AND FLEXIBILITY In statute, the general plan is presented as a collection of seven "elements" or subject catego- ries (see §65302). These elements and the issues embodied by each are briefly summarized below. They are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. The land use element designates the type, in- tensity, and general distribution of uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, waste disposal fa- cilities, and other categories of public and private uses. The circulation element is correlated with the land use element and identifies the general loca- tion and extent of existing and proposed major thor- oughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities. The housing element is a comprehensive as- sessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community. In addition, it embodies policies for providing ad- equate housing and includes action programs for that purpose. By statute, the housing element must be updated every five years. The conservation element addresses the con- servation, development, and use of natural re- sources, including water, forests, soils, rivers, and mineral deposits. The open -space element details plans and measures for the long-range preservation and con- servation ofopen-space lands, including open space General Plan Guidelines 13 14 • • for the preservation of natural resources, the man- aged production of resources (including agricul- tural lands), outdoor recreation, and public health and safety. The noise element identifies and appraises noise problems within the community and forms the basis for land use distribution. The safety element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks as- sociated with seismic, geologic, flood, and wild- fire hazards. The level of discussion given to each issue in the general plan depends upon local conditions and the relative local importance of that issue. When a city or county determines that an issue specified in the law is not locally relevant, the general plan may briefly discuss the reason for that decision but does not otherwise have to address that issue (§65301). A local general plan may also include other topics of local interest. For instance, a city or county may choose to incorporate into its land use element a detailed program for financing infra- structure and timing capital improvements. The safety element of a city or county that suffers from wildfire hazards may contain strategic fire protec- tion planning policies to mitigate such hazards. In the statutory descriptions of the elements, a number of issues appear in more than one ele- ment. In order to minimize redundancies or inter- nal conflicts in the general plan, combining elements or organizing the plan by issue often makes practical sense. This idea is explored fur- ther in Chapter 5. There are a number of state and federal laws, such as the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and the Endan- gered Species Act, which can affect the content of the general plan. Communities whose other legis- lation is relevant may wish to address pertinent issues, such as mineral recovery, endangered spe- cies, and wetlands. These are discussed in detail in Chapter 9. In addition to the mandatory elements, a city or county may adopt any other elements which relate to its physical development (§65303). Once adopted, these optional elements become an inte- gral part of the general plan with the same force and effect as the mandatory elements. Accordingly, 14 General Plan Guidelines zoning, subdivisions, public works, specific plans and other actions which must be consistent with the general plan must be consistent with its op- tional elements. Common themes for optional elements in- clude recreation.and parks, air quality, capital im- provements, community design, and economic development. Suggestions for preparing severatof the more common optional elements are provided in Chapter 6. An optional element may clarify how a local government exercises its police powers, and in some instances, can expand a local government's authority. For example, the California Energy Com- mission may delegate geothermal power plant li- censing authority to counties with certified geothermal elements (See Chapter 6 for guide- lines). In the more typical situation, an optional element will indicate how a local government will apply its existing police power or other authority. For example, a historic preservation element may lay the foundation for historic district regulations or participation in the California Main Street Pro- gram. Astrategic fire prevention planning element could identify wildfire hazard areas, control new development within those areas, and provide the basis for zoning, subdivision, and brush clearance ordinances intended to minimize fire hazards. ADOPTION OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION'S GENERAL PLAN AND JOINT ADOPTION A city or county may adopt all or a portion of the general plan of another public agency (§65301(a)). Additionally, §65302(g) specifically provides that a city may adopt the county's safety element if the county's element "is sufficiently de- tailed containing appropriate policies and programs for adoption by a city." One of the benefits of this approach is that it eliminates duplication of effort in collecting data for the more technical elements. A city and county may jointly prepare and separately adopt a general plan or individual ele- ments. A city or county may adopt a functional plan such as a regional transportation plan prepared by a special district, regional planning agency, or some other public agency. Although joint adoption of another jurisdiction's plan or elements may be advanta- IS geous, a city or county remains solely respon- sible for the legal adequacy of its general plan. The other jurisdiction's plan and/or elements or the jointly prepared plan and/or elements must be sufficiently detailed to address the concerns of the adopting agency and to provide -adequate cover- age ofthe issues required in the Government Code. Aplan orelementthat is jointlyprepared or adopted from another jurisdiction's general plan has the same legal standing as the rest of the adopting agency's general plan and internal consistency re- quirements continue to apply. Similarly, discretion- ary zoning, subdivision, and capitol improvement project decisions must be consistent with the joint plan or element. Despite options such as adopting another jurisdiction's general plan or joint adoption be- 0 tween multiple agencies, each adopting agency must retain its sole and independent authority to make amendments to its general plan unless a joint powers agreement has been approved. In Alameda County Land Use Association V. City of Hayward (1995) 38 Ca1.App.4th 1716, the appellate court overturned amemorandum ofunderstanding (MOU) adopted by Alameda County and the cities of Hay- ward and Pleasanton to specify general plan goals and policies regarding the "Ridgelands Area." The MOU provided that any amendment to the appli- cable sections by one jurisdiction would not be effective unless "parallel amendments" were ap- proved by the other two. The court held this arrange- ment to be an impermissible divestment ofthe police power, restricting the individual agencies' legisla- tive authority to amend their general plans. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUMMARY MATRIX OF MANDATORY GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS DRAFT 118103 GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT SCOPE OF WORK POTENTIAL VISION PROCESS INPUT 1. Land Use Element (last comprehensive update in 1988) Legal Requirements - a) Designate the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of uses of the land 1 Community Identity. Reinforce Newport Beach as primarily residential beach town with broad appeal as a tourist destination b) Provide standards for population density and building Intensity. 2. Job Growth Overall, people want the City to set firm constraints on c) Provide info on areas subject to flooding (done in Public Safety Element) and development, including expansion of employment centers. However, under certain conditions, additional development may be acceptable. (See conduct an annual review. 'Community Directions for the Future') Deficiencies of Current Element- 3. Harbors and Beaches. Emphasize protection and enhancement of our beaches and harbors. GPAC wishes to define separate water quality and d) Does not provide an overall vision for the future conservation policies for the different categories of water resources such as oceanlbay, drinking, etc. e) Spec regulations are not backed policies to guide review of amendment requests. 4. The Villages. Some support was expressed for protecting historic commercial and residential villages. Input suggests investigating the need to f) Does not provide goals relating to land use or urban form for commercial and narrowing list of permitted uses in some commercial areas, adoption of design residential areas. and development guidelines, consideration of a design review process. Input also suggests Identifying more areas for specific plans and the reduction of g) Lacks goals, policies and Implementing measures for management of future permitted sizes of buildings in residential neighborhoods. visitors and the Improvement of the quality of future visitors - reduce impacts on local residents and resources. 5. Potential Development Areas. Overall, people want the City to set firth constraints on development. Including expansion of employment centers Other Potential tasks- However, under certain conditions, additional development may be acceptable. Areas still under debate include: Airport Business Area, Fashion Island, and h) Revise and reformat for clarificabon and readability. Newport Center. " ) Update any technical information, including build -out projects based on 6. Banning Ranch. Most people want to see open space preserved at Banning current development trends and foreseeable major developments to the year Ranch, but the degree of preservation is still under debate. GPAC suggests 2025. pursuing funding from a variety of public and private sources. f) Develop a land use data base (an updated inventory of exisbng land uses in 7. Areas Where Zoning Should be Reduced White participants proposed the City) areas where zoning capacity should be reduced, GPAC Members noted that the issue is highly sensitive and that any area considered must be carefully k) Update the General Plan land use map. reviewed. I) Develop General Plan policies for existing and future land uses and integrate 8. Areas to Revitalize: People are in general agreement about what areas findings and recommendations of the Citywide Economic and Fiscal Study as need revitalization. GPAC suggests that'revitalization' should mean making well as the new Traffic model. something nicer, without making it bigger, respecting historic places and ambiance, and creating pedestnan-dense areas with high quality restaurants. m) Develop performance criteria for defining allowable development n) Address development allocations by area rather than by parcel 9. Areas Suitable for Mixed Use: Based on Input reserved, mixed -use • 9 • o) Integra [e the Citys Vision Statement development would be appropriate at Balboa Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Lido Marina Village, the Airport Business Area and Newport p) Develop goals, policies and Implementing measures for Center. The GPAC favors mixed -use in all appropriate sites and desires unique commercial districts (Le specific plans) specific Investigation for each area to determine suitability. q) Develop goals, policies and implementing measures that pertain to new 10. Use of Underublaed Commercial Land: GPAC Members and Visioning development including quality of design, neighborhood compatibility, Festival participants strongly propose re -zoning excess and underublized landscaping and quality of construction. commercial land for residential and mired -use development. r) Develop land use goals and policies for Banning Ranch New development should preserve the character of the neighborhood and in s) Identifyany other areas for future Specific Plan consideration.proportion to existing home sae. 11.Larger Homes Mixed opinions on methods for addressing and if need to address (See report). GPAC indicated the extent of the problem vanes by geographic area and relates to a combination of home design and sae. 12. Tourism and Hotels Overall support for tourism, however, divided on providing more tourist accommodations as well as type of hotels acceptable. 13. Airport Issues: The vast majority of participants, including GPAC members, agree that the City should develop a land use strategy to prevent the expansion of the John Wayne Airport 2. Circulation (last comprehensive update in 1988) Legal Requirements: 1. Transportation Improvements A majority of participants are concerned with Provide for the general location and extent of existing and proposed major traffic c congestion, but news differ over how to mitigate the problem. The level support for most transportation improvement option was low. thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals and other public utilities, directly correlated with the Land Use Element. 2. Residential Neighborhoods and Traffic Impacts Although there was no clear Deficiencies of Current Element: consensus over how to remedy traffic impacts, visioning summit participants stressed It should be one of the City's highest priorities a) Lacks a discussion of what constitutes an adequate level of circulation system function. 3. Residential and Parking Impacts: Participants support a Wide range of solutions, but GPAC members cite that remedies to parking problems must be b) Does riots policies to grade tleneral -makers in balancing roadway evaluated in relation to specific sites and neighborhoods. wifhprovide service goals with other goals of the General Plan. c) Does not analyze other transportation related issues, such as the movement of goods, the role of transit, the role of regional infrastructure (such as rail), and the opportunities related to Transportation System Management (smart streets, signal coordination, etc ) or Transportabon Demand Management (tele- commubng, car pooling, flex lime, etc.) Other Potential tasks: d) Investigate the development of a'Mobility Plan to be integrated into the Circulation Element. e Iuale intersections in groups for the purpose of assessing circulation system function f) Establish 5 and-10 year roadway improvement programs designed to maintain desired levels of service and consider different levels of service for various parts of the City. g) Ensure consistency with the County Master Plan of Artenals Highways h) Update all maps, revise all figures and include recommendations and/or findings as set forth in the City Traffic study. it Update any figures pertaining to traffic flows and volumes. () Identify projected roadway deficiencies and recommend improvements. k) Updalefrefinefdevelop the Cuys bicycle and tail plan (including map) if needed. 1) Evaluate the County's Regional Bicycle Trail Plan and develop recommendations for connections 3. Housing (currently being updated) Staff is currently working with the State's Department of Housing and Community Development to obtain Housing Element certification. Certification is expected in the Spring of 2003. Deficiencies of Current Element. The document will need to be reformatted to provide consistency with other updated elements Other potential tasks - Reformat for consistencyvnlh other elements. 4. Conservation of Natural Resources (1974) Legal Requirements t. Coastal Bluffs: 56 percent of Vision process participants desired to protect Coastal Bluff areas through stricter codes, tougher enforcement and improved Provide for the conservation of natural resources such as water, soils, rivers, planning and design efforts. 38 percent favor the protection of property owner's harbors,fisheries,wildlife, minerals and other natural resources. rights. Deficiencies of Current Element- 2. Public View Condors: a) Has not been updated since original adoption in 1974 and has largely been a) Newport residents agree that the City should preserve remaining public view ignored throughout the City's planning and policy program. corridors, including the Coastal Bluffs and create more views wherever possible b) Does not discuss or incorporate requirements and programs that have been established subsequent to its adoption such as the 208 planning process b) GPAC recommends a citywide Inventory of existing public view corridors and (regarding upper Newport Bay), NPDES(National Pollution Discharge offering Incentives to enhance those corridors and create additional Elimination System) requirements, or the other planning efforts which have opportunities for views. occurred to address issues within the Newport Bay Watershed. c) GPAC recommends developing policies and guidelines regarding the publics c) Does not provide a platform for the many water quality/watershed issues that right to views. the City continues to deal with in coordination with other municipalities and agencies in the County as well as issues such as tide pool preservation, and d) Some respondents of District 7 desire protection of private views as well as sand conservation and replacement on ocean and bay beaches public views, since they add to the value of property. d) No clear City policies to direct development in relation to conservation e) Survey Respondents felt that current regulations pertaining to buildings, efforts, plants, bees and signs that interfere with views were either just right ornot strong enough. 11 3. Tidelands and Other Public Lands- Most participants concur that bdelands Other Potential tasks- and other public lands should be preserved as open space. Some development of public facilities is supported, particularly among business e) Update and reformat all maps, figures and technical data. owners. f) Establish thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. 4. Open Space or Parks: Community members highly value the open space and parks in Newport Beach g) Incorporate findings and recommendations of the Citywide biological assessment, including the mapping of environmentally sensitive areas. h) Include policies consistent with the Local Coast Program that provide direction on the following; Coastal Land Features Seawall and Other Shore Protection Devices Tide Pools and Marine Habitats Public Beaches and Shoreline Access Water Quality and Conservation Master Plan of Trails Visual Resources Vegetation and Wildlife Resources Watersheds and Watercourses Natural Hazards Art Quality Archaeology and Paleontology Ridgelines Hillside Slopes 5. Recreation and Open Space (1973, 1985,1988, 1998) Legal Requirements: Provide an action plan consisting of specific programs, which the City intends to 1. Senior and Youth Services Increase after -school recreational activities pursue in implementing its open space plan. DeRcienclea of Current Element - None noted Staff considers this element to be one of the Cilys strongest elements, as it provides a good program to achieve open space and recreation goals in light of our largely built -out status. Other Potential tasks• a) Considercombiningwith Conservation Element. b) Reformat to provide consistency with other elements. 6. Noise (adopted in 1974, comprehensive update in 1994) Legal Requirements: Provide a detailed assessment of current and projected noise sources, sensitive noise receptors and community noise contours. Deficiencies of Current Element- Substantial than es not re cored, exce t as related to u dated airport information and new traffic data. However, issues related to measurement standards and the City's Community Noise Ordinance have developed, especially as they relate to certain forms of nuisance noise (voices, music, etc ) and whether standards are maximum or average and whether sounds from businesses such as the clinking of silverware in a restaurant are subject to Noise Ordinance Standards Other Potential tasks a) Reformat for consistency, update maps b) Consider/recommend establishing thresholds of significance for delermming noise impacts 7. Public Safety (1975) Legal Requirements a) Provide for the protection of the community from unreasonable risks associated with the effects rf seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, selche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides, subsidence, liquefaction and other seismic and geologic hazards as well as flooding, and wildland and urban tires b) Map known seismic and other geologic hazards c) Address evacuation routes, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures Deficiencies of Current Element: d) Does not meet State requirements concerning wildland and urban fire, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures as those items relate to fire and geologic hazards. e) Soils and geology info is outdated and was based on reports prepared in 1974, which may or may not meet current standards for such reports. Other Potential tasks: f) Prepare a new city-wide sods and geological hazards map. g) Incorporate findings and recommendations from the LCP hazards report S. Growth Management (Required per Orange County Measure M) Legal Requirements This Element is not required by Stale Law, but rather, is a requirement of Measure M. The purpose of the Growth Management Element is to insure that growth and development be based on a Citys ability to provide an adequate circulation system. The Element achieves this by setting forth in one place the various tools the City uses to phase transportation improvements with new -development Deficiencies of Current Element: N a) To the eztenl that growth management features are included in the Land Use and Circulation Elements, changes to this element may also be required. b) Update and reformat the element based on traffictroadway improvements over the last 10 years. N W u CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUMMARY MATRIX OF OPTIONAL GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS DRAFT 1/8/03 EXAMPLES OF OPTIONAL VISIONING PROCESS INPUT GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS No legal requirements for optional elements 1. Harbor and Bay Element (adopted June 2001) NIA 2. Air Quality N/A 3. Water NIA 4. Capital Improvement/Public Facilities WA City Funding Pnorfbes: Most participants, including GPAC members, agree that the City should prioritize the following: infrastructure maintenance; rewtalration of infrastructure In older commercial areas, acquisition and improvement of open space, beaches and parks; improved water quality, and public safety (not in rank order) S. Community Design NIA 6. Economic\Fiscal Development NIA Economic Development People expressed mixed opinions about the impact of economic development on the City, win business owners being slightly more in favor of economic development than residents. 7. Parks and Recreation NIA 8. Energy NIA S. Geothermal NIA 10. Floodplain Management N/A 11. Cultural Resources 12. Historic Preservation Inventory of Historic Resources Several GPAC members requested that the GP update scope of work include provisions for a separate Historic and Cultural Resources Element The Arts Commission wrote a letter requesting the same. L� r� U GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, March 24, 2003 Roger Alford Patrick Bartolic Dorothy Beek — AbSt«�" Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Karlene Bradley Gus Chabre John Corrough Laura Dietz Grace Dove Florence Felton — bebb�' Nancy Gardner Louise Greeley Ernie Hatchell Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa David Janes Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Alex Kakavas Todd Knipp Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Philip Lugar Catherine O'Hara 1 k 171 GENERAL PLAN AEMSORY COMMITTEE Monday, March 24, 2003 =PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE i E-MAIL ADDRESS VeS, vDnt 1; mil)14 a /�<� C i GENERAL PLAN ADQSORY COMMITTEE Monday, March 24, 2003 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS PA • PO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE °q41 Rout Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, March 24, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Bob Hendrickson Phillip Bettencourt Tom Hyans Carol Boice Mike Ishikawa Karlene Bradley David Janes Gus Chabre Kim Jansma John Corrough Mike Johnson Laura Dietz Alex Kakavas Grace Dove Todd Knipp Nancy Gardner Donald Krotee Louise Greeley Lucille Kuehn Ernest Hatchell Phillip Lugar Members Absent: Patrick Bartolic Alan Silcock Dorothy Beek Jackie Sukiasian Florence Felton Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager PattyTemple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Members of the Public Present: Bill Kelly Gay Kelly Coralee Newman Cris Trapp Catherine O'Hara Carl Ossipoff Charles Remley Larry Root John Saunders James Schmiesing Ed Siebel Jan Vandersloot Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo 0 I. Welcome • Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order and introduced Mayor Steve Bromberg. Mayor Bromberg asked to attend this meeting to thank returning members of the Committee and welcome new members. II. Introduction of All Members Mr. Lugar asked each committee member to introduce him or herself and indicate their interest in this committee. III. Approval of Minutes Minutes of the December 2, 2002 meeting were approved as submitted. IV. Overview of State General Plan Law & Planning Principles Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant, reviewed a Power Point presentation. The presentation will be included in the next agenda packet. After the presentation he opened the floor for questions. V. Communication between GPAC & Planning Commission/City Council This item was continued to the April 14th meeting. • VI. Discussion of Future Agenda Items See Future Meeting Schedule for Future Agenda Items. VII. Future Meeting Schedule Sharon Wood reviewed the meeting schedule with the issues to be discussed at the meetings. April 14th - Traffic Model Results for Existing General Plan Build -out May 12th - Fiscal Impact Analysis of Existing Development June 9th — Results of Biological and Hazards Studies June 23'd — Analysis of Key Planning Issues Ms. Wood also indicated that future meetings would be scheduled on the Mondays prior to City Council meetings. Ms. Wood also announced that the Visioning Statement had been endorsed by the Planning Commission and was on the March 25th City Council agenda. VIII. Public Comments No public comments offered. 2