The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGPAC_2003_06_09*NEW FILE* ppR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE oq<rfioaN'� AGENDA June 9, 2003 7:00-9:00 p.m. 7:00 I. Call to Order 7:05 II. Approval of Minutes May 12, 2003 • Police Department Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive 7:15 III. Discussion of Draft LCP Land Use Plan and Subcommittee Report 8:45 IV. Public Comments E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, May 12, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Florence Felton Phillip Lugar Patrick Bartolic Nancy Gardner Carl Ossipoff Dorothy Beek Louise Greeley Charles Remley Phillip Bettencourt Ernest Hatchell Larry Root Carol Boice Bob Hendrickson James Schmiesing Karlene Bradley Mike Ishikawa Ed Siebel Gus Chabre Kim Jansma Jan Vandersloot John Corrough Mike Johnson Ron Yeo . Laura Dietz Bill Kelly Grace Dove Lucille Kuehn do Members Absent: Tom Hyans Catherine O'Hara David Janes John Saunders Alex Kakavas Jackie Sukiasian Todd Knipp Jennifer Wesoloski Donald Krotee Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner George Berger, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Members of the Public Present: Allan Beek Coralee Newman 1 DRAFT • I. Call to Order Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. He pointed out that the agenda for this evening had times listed next to each item and this will be the format with future meetings. He stated he would like to stay within those times during the meetings so it may be necessary to cut discussions short in order to do so. II. Approval of Minutes Mr. Lugar asked for comments on the minutes from the last meeting. Louise Greeley had comments regarding typographical and grammatical errors. Sharon Wood asked Ms. Greeley to submit the changes in writing. The minutes of the April 14, 2003 meeting were approved with Ms. Greeley's recommended corrections. III. Attendance Policy Ms. Wood referred to the City Council Resolution 2003-20. The Council recognizes the importance of this Committee and asked for an attendance policy to insure continuity in the group. The policy is flexible and the Council realizes there are circumstances when members may miss more than 3 meetings. In that case you should talk to staff who will, in turn, discuss the situation with the • Mayor. Mr. Lugar also stressed the importance of attendance at the meetings and asked that everyone try to be on time. IV. Fiscal Impact Analysis of Existing Development Doug Svensson, Applied Development Economics, Inc., reviewed a Power Point presentation summarizing the Fiscal Impact Analysis Report. The presentation is attached. After the presentation he opened the floor for questions. Jim Schmiesing asked when we will see the breakdown of residential units (single family vs. multi -family). Mr. Svensson advised that level of detail will be provided when we start looking at land uses for General Plan alternatives. Mr. Schmiesing also asked about the method of sharing fire costs between older and newer housing areas due to newer/remodeled housing brings in more tax revenue and requires less service. Mr. Svensson acknowledged the point however pointed out that assessed value doesn't necessarily track the current condition of the property. Mr. Lugar asked if short-term rentals are included in the amount of TOT reported. The answer is yes, vacation rentals pay TOT amounting to approximately $875,000. Gus Chabre asked how dynamic the model is in terms of looking at alternatives. Mr. Svensson stated the model will allow a whole range of changes that can looked at one at a time or simultaneously. The City will also be able to use it on individual development projects as well as the General Plan. Ms. Wood pointed out that it may come isdown to budget, how much are we willing to spend on how many alternatives we are going to analyze. Carl Ossipoff asked which is our highest margin asset. Mr. 2 DRAFT • Svensson responded that it is lodging (TOT) followed by retail. Phillip Bettencourt asked about the public works allocations in the Newport Coast area, since the area is made up of mostly private streets, has a private storm drain network and private street light system. Mr. Svensson stated they used average costs, however they are still working through the question of how to treat the private streets in the City. John Corrough asked if there would be alternatives looked at utilizing the water areas where we could add revenue without adding more costs. Mr. Tescher said the capability to look at this area is there and he would discuss it with Mr. Svensson. Grace Dove asked about the effect AB1221 (sales tax/properly tax) would have if it passed. Ms. Wood said we have not looked at this because we don't know if it will pass; however if it does we will make the necessary adjustments. Nancy Gardner asked about Table 16, development and retail remain static; however Crystal Cove Promenade is open now and wasn't in 2000. Mr. Svensson will check into this; they worked with the same database as the Traffic Model and the categories used were not as detailed as needed in the fiscal analysis. Lucille Kuehn asked about Table 17 and wanted to know how a library would be funded in the Newport Coast area. Mr. Svensson explained that the money listed in Community Services is not just for libraries; however if the City decided to build a library funding could be found in many sources if revenue was not enough to cover costs. For example general fund, bonds, assessment districts, etc. Patrick Bartolic thought there had been money • set aside for community services in Newport Coast. Ms. Wood said she believed there was a commitment in the annexation agreement for a community center using money gained from allowing IRWD to continue to provide water in the area. Carol Boice stated she remembered hearing funds went to South County for a library that would serve the Newport Coast area. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out that the annexation agreement is still posted on the City's website and maybe this is a good question to have the consultant review. Laura Dietz asked for a definition of the terms "incremental costs" and "marginal costs". Mr. Svensson explained the terms mean the same, the technical term is "marginal cost", and "incremental" was used at times to help the reader understand the meaning. • V. Appointment of Subcommittee to Review LCP Mr. Lugar asked for volunteers for a subcommittee of any size to review the LCP. The list below indicates the members who agreed to participate in the subcommittee. Nancy Gardner, Mike Ishikawa, Phillip Lugar, Ron Yeo Section 2 Review - Karlene Bradley, Ed Siebel Section 3 Review - John Corrough, Laura Dietz, Louise Greeley Section 4 Review - Gus Chabre, Jan Vandersloot 3 • Mr. Lugar would like the subcommittee to meet at least once before the June 9th meeting just to get some initial thoughts from the group. Ron Yeo asked when the document would go to the Coastal Commission. Ms. Wood indicated the document given to this group (LCP Land Use Plan) was also given to the Coastal Commission staff. This is only the first half of the LCP, the second part is the Implementation Plan and can't really be started until comments on the Land Use Plan are received. It will probably be another year before the whole package is formally submitted to the Commission. Mr. Bettencourt asked when the environmental documents would be submitted. Ms. Wood stated the document is the equivalent of an EIR so additional documentation is not required. Louise Greeley asked when the comment period closes. Ms. Wood said the period was extended to accommodate both the GPAC and EQAC meeting schedules, it will close June 20th. Ms. Dietz asked to have Patrick Alford at the subcommittee's meeting. Ms. Wood stated he will attend the June 9th meeting and if he was available, he would probably attend the subcommittee meeting. VI. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Ms. Wood referred to the last sheet in the agenda packet, which lists the topics for the next few meetings. The main topic on June 9th will be the LCP, June 23�d the Housing Element and July 7th will cover the Biological Resources Report and • Hazards Report. Future meetings may also include guest speakers and discussions on how other communities deal with issues that were raised in the visioning process. VII. Public Comments No public comments offered. M E ,Newport Beach Fiscal Analysis for the General 'Plan -Update I May2003 ;((,�� InitIal,Land Use Categories n Resldendal o lodging o Retail o Instllutlanal o Otgce o Marine n Industrial o Pudic o Servke Commerdal s'b synopsis _.. _...i ._..-t. �._�._ Fiscal Analysts ... o shows average cost ofserving edstlng development o Discusses marginal vs average cost ormving future development, such as Newport Coast o Provides citywide, average east analysis of current General Plan Dulldout o Does not address Infrastructure needs atthls time. ' d4,-,gI BudgetFunds Included'in'Mod'el o Generel Fund o Tidelands Fund o Gas Tax Fund o Measure M Fund 1 6 i� t Property Tax Distribution' Institutional 1.0 % Lodging 1.2% Marla.IndusW 1.4% LUghtlndustrial 3.5% Service Commercial 3.8%r � 79S% M �usine'ssLicense•RevenueiDistribution Reslacn0a119.9 Outof Town 28.5%• Of8ce30.9% R.bll 10% Insutullon.l 0.8% ` Lugging OA% Sorvlce Commercial 8.7% Marina lndusW Li% Light Industrial 4.7%• f , Sa'Ies Tax Distribution Residen0a1 A% 001t894% SCMIM Zmm uclal 7.2% Oght InduW 1 4.5% Marino Indus W 4.9% Lodging 3.0% Rebil ]0,2% Institutional 0% �F� Gross ReyenueslbyLandlUse n.— in inNM.1 sw S.rvW 4mm. 4. ax / N 0 &[ ; Police DepartmentAnal'y 0 TRAFFIC DIVISION n PaddnO enrartement eRats • 53%residential • 47%coninndal a TraBlc CO lion • 30%Residential • 64% Business and Public sil3 Fire De,partrnent,Analysis' 0 80%are costs for EMS responses • Distributed per capita 0 20%are fire responses . Dlstdbuted by assessed value 6 ipo'llce, 56p rtment Anlillyslis 0 PATROL DMSION Perodb wlU extra wrlahtb n7ail . mwP.atwae . %%eust.ss • uw.xrers 0 DETECTIVE DIVISION . Marysts orOtme Seasonality . ,6�PCNmIW • 3q%auti¢s 2p16NUJsi O� 1 _ Overall, Cost ReYen6e lrrlpact , ($ MilllDris) TOTAL = $0.1 Million Public-$6.:I.d..Wal Institutional $0.08 Sarvlca C=Mervlal SI.a Marino;3.4 4'.''1Jlnd01np,$7.8� S0.eta11 $].1OM= Residential -$6.7 3 1Fn_pact of. Visitors , ($ Millions) TOTAL = $4.9 Million 9ubllc-$7.4 Wutuuonal $0 Service Commercial $0.1 Madne$03 Lodging $7.8 Industrial $0 Re all $3.1 omx $0 Rwidentlal $0.9 • Economic and Fiscal Relationships in Newport Beach yyt((� ,—{i wsrormbwonbo'sv axoxv $s--:. . - ��PP $$ damw w L C Economic and Fiscal Relationships in Newport Beach_—.__- — -- s � � Y-�{>, nmormewonYasbmxoxv �x�,,, x�O..d:T'...d xwrmom. lYdhi(-1nYwL ® '--=�. L w_ m• u.lwur.nY� f en al. Nn'Buila'outtAn y is o Increased growth In retail sales and hospitality sector o Inceasing housing prices, despite emphasis on multi -family development o Does not address Infrastructure costs 0 0 r� u • I: st•Revenue Impact ofiGeneral PlaPlad Buildout ($ Millions) TOTAL = $2.1 Million Public-$$.1 ItuUenal $0.09 Sorviro Commendal $2.1 Madne$3.0 Industrial -$1.6 omm-$6.1 Residential -$6.1 $� ' _Ye�I:�2000�Cost Rever>.u� �mpaat,_ ($ Thousands) TOTAL = $771,000 Public $0 Institutional -$24 - Scrvico CommeMal;220 Eindustrial $0 R.1dentlal-$557 arino$0 Retall $96 ��`-Anaysis�of N:ewp�oor�Coast 0 illustrates Marginal vs Avenge Costs for cavi S 0 Year 2000 Deve4ment is about half of buildout e City has already Invested In some full bulldout services , i lew.pg Cpast at Buildout_ ($ Thousands) TOTAL = $1,874,000 Institutional 427. Publlc$0 Rehll$103 Resdential $255 $459 5 I APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS Building the Knowledge and Resources communities Need to Realize Their Economic Potential • 10 -----Original Message ----- From: Philip Arst [mailto:philiparst@cox.net] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 7:53 PM To: Kallikounis, Nick!; Shirley, Oborny, Cc: Wood, Sharon • Subject: Distribution to GPAC and GPUC Committees It is requested that you distribute the enclosed Position Paper and its enclosure to the members of the GPAC and GPUC Committees. Thank you n LJ n \J COMMENTS ON THE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF MARCH 2O03 AND MISSING DATA NEEDED TO PROPERLY PLAN THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE • A submittal to the GPAC, GPUC Committees and City Staff SUMMARY The first draft of the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) released in May does not include Proposition 13 and inflation -adjusted data for use in planning out to year 2025. Based on City of Irvine data and the advice of their planners, this information is essential for planning for 25-year periods. When Prop. 13 and inflation are considered, Office Buildings will lose more money for the city than shown in the FIA while Retail and Lodging land uses will provide greater returns. Of greater concern is the fact that important financial data that is needed to properly update the General Plan has not been furnished by the city. The missing data would show funding needed by the city government to provide a high level of services to the city for the next 25 years. It must include cost reduction measures. This approach is needed to serve the goal of the General Plan Update to maintain Newport Beach as an outstanding place to live and a precious natural resource. Therefore it is proposed that a General Plan Update target the development needed to maintain a high level of services instead of maximum development that could be accommodated. This is the bottom line of what the General Plan Update should produce. INTRODUCTION The first draft of the Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Newport Beach General Plan Update • (FIA) is a good start on defining aaportion of the fiscal data needed to develop the General Plan Update. Currently the FIA uses year 2003 dollars and disregards inflation. However, Proposition 13 limits long-term revenues from Property Taxes, while the cost of services rises at the rate of inflation. Therefore the use of current dollars does not provide a proper fiscal analysis of the year 2025 and intervening years for use in planning the future of the city. An example of the inaccuracy obtained by disregarding Proposition 13 and inflation is shown in the section of the FIA on Newport Coast. It attempts to project year 2025 fiscal results in year 2003 dollars producing meaningless results. \J Office bldg. Economicsl.doc I of4 5/20/2003 The purpose of this letter is to convey an early ballpark indication of how the report would change when inflation is considered. These numbers are supplied to show an overview of • trends even if there is disagreement on some of the inflation factors. These comments are based upon data in the City of Irvine General Plan. (Greenlight website www.newportgreenlight.com) and available statistical data on the web. Irvine's data agrees in principle with the findings of the FIA re office buildings losing money on a current dollar comparison basis. A summary update of Irvine's data with inflation and Prop. 13 factors added is contained in the enclosed fact sheet. Well-known Economic Consultant Al Gobar of Al Gobar & Associates corroborated the validity of the City of Irvine General Plan data used in this letter. He stated that "office buildings are at best a push" when asked about the validity of the Irvine study. Additionally, in a proposal' from the firm Applied Development Economics dated 9/10/2001 that won them the award to do this FIA study Mr. Doug Svensson, Managing Principal presented the results of a study they had done for the City of Salinas. He reported that office buildings lose money for the city. Steve Haubert, Principal Planner and other city of Irvine planners were interviewed, and corroborated the need to apply inflation factors in any long-term study and provided further useful information. OFFICE BUILDINGS The FIA seriously understates the losses to the city from office buildings. It shows losses to the city from office building land uses expressed in year 2000 dollars. These losses will increase significantly over time because of (a.) The Prop. 13 and inflation factors cited below. (2.) The understatement of the true costs of maintaining and building city streets to accommodate • office's rush hour traffic. The principal revenue to the city from office buildings is Property Tax. Prop. 13 limits Property Tax increases to a maximum of 2% per year. Office buildings are generally held for many years. The Irvine Company for example hasn't sold any major portion of their office buildings. An average ownership period of 25 years is assumed producing an average turnover rate of 4%. The cost of services to support office buildings is estimated as increasing at the rate of the CPI as they consist primarily of goods and services. An examination of CPI data on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website shows an average increase of approximately 4% to 6.5% over the past 50-years depending upon the time period and series used. Therefore for every 12.5-year period, the average annual cost of services for office buildings rises at a rate of 4-6.5% vs. an approximate 2% revenue increase from its property taxes. A previous Greenlight study, showing the effects of inflation/Prop. 13 in producing ongoing and increasing losses to the city from office buildings was corroborated by City of Irvine Planners. These losses are not offset by sales taxes from purchases by the office workers. The City of Irvine conducted a survey and concluded that office worker purchases were insignificant because these commuting people do their main shopping in their home city areas. Restaurant • income was considered too small to affect the overall trend of losses. As office buildings in the Airport Area do not provide easy access to shopping, they fit the model of the City of Irvine. Conversely, office buildings in Newport Center, because of their Office bldg. Economics doe 2 of 5/20/2003 close proximity to Fashion Island, will have a higher incidence of shopping by office workers. However, as The Irvine Company has formally renounced applying for General Plan • Amendments to increase its existing entitlements in Newport Center, this is a moot point. Irvine Planners stated that one of the main costs to the city in servicing office buildings was the high maintenance cost for city streets. These are subjected to excessive wear and tear because of the rush hour traffic created by commuting office workers. Additionally, rush hour traffic imposes heavy requirements to widen arterial streets and intersections, a costly capital budget charge. Also pertinent is a higher level of fire and emergency rescue support for high- rise buildings. These factors were not considered in the FIA. They would add considerably to the cost of services for office buildings over and above the services provided to residents. RETAIL AND LODGING LAND USE It is a reasonable assumption that both revenues and costs of city services from Retail and Lodging land uses will both increase at the rate of the CPI. However, since their revenues are higher than their costs to the city, the level of "profit" to the city from these land uses will increase over time. Of concern is the large increase expected in employee pension costs for the city. The State has cut back upon its payments to the PERS Fund leaving the city liable for these costs. Over time, they could result in a greater increase in employee service costs than the underlying inflation averages used. HOME PRICE APPRECIATION FACTOR Historically, detached single-family home prices have increased at a much greater rate • than underlying inflation trends. An average sales price increase for the areas of Newport Beach and Corona del Mar since 1997 of 10.2% per year is shown in data published on orangecoastrealestate.com. At an average home property turnover rate of 10% per year, this land use will readjust to the purchase price of the new owner every five years. As purchase prices have generally risen at a rate greater than inflation, it is believe that revenues from property taxes on homes will increase sufficiently to offset all or a major part of the deficit from an average 2% revenue increase vs. the 4-6.5%% increase in the cost of services. FISCAL ANALYSIS OF NEWPORT COAST An example of how lack of inflation projections can distort General Plan Update planning is in the section of the FIA on Newport Coast. • Year 2025 projections are stated in year 2000 dollars. For example, the year 2000 average property value in Newport Coast of $815,000 was used to derive 2025 revenues based upon an almost doubling of population and dwelling units. The current costs of city services, predominantly salaries, are expressed in current dollars and extrapolated to serve the increased population 25 years hence at the same dollar value. This seriously understates their true costs. The use of these current dollars does not provide the realistic image needed for planning for 2025. Office bldg. Economial.doe 3 of 4 5/20/2003 THE CRUCIAL NIISSING DATA Financial data, needed to properly develop the General Plan Update is seriously lacking a . major piece of information. While understandably not a part of the FIA, the cost of city government over the next 25 years needs to be defined. This would provide data on how much new development would be needed to maintain a high level of services for the residents. \_ J 0 The missing study on the costs of city government must include available cost reductions obtained from privatization of non-public safety services. For example the cost of tree trimming in the city was reduced 60% through privatization. Other than tree trimming, Newport Beach performs almost all other mundane city maintenance tasks with government employees rather than using the private sector to reduce government costs. The attached data sheets provide an overview comparison of Newport Beach's high per capita government costs vs. other OC cities. It was passed out to GPAC in 2002. Its data is still relevant. Again, this is a ballpark overview based on City of Irvine and other publicly available data. The professional economics consultants can develop a more refined model to provide the final data needed for the General Plan Update, hopefully following these suggested approaches. Philip L. Arst Office bldg. Economicsl.doc Some Facts about the City of Newport Beach Value of different classes of developments to a city • The source of information on the Benefit/Cost tradeoffs of different types of developments is in the General Plan of the City of Irvine. Two independent consultants have corroborated its estimates for office buildings. Net surplus of revenues per acre (average)* Commercial/Industrial First year* loth Year*** Hotel +$62,000 Increases per CPI Retail +$29,014 " Mfg. / Warehouse +$5,479 " Office (-)$70 (-)$732 Medical Office (-)$463 (-)$1650 R&D (-)$496 (-)$1377 Residential Land Uses (First Yr.)* High Density (-)$9,053 MedHigh (-)5,685 Medium (-)$2,939 Low (-)$1,725 Rural/Est. (-)$374 Therefore, General Office, Medical Office, R&D and most Residential land uses lose money for the city at an increasing rate as their property taxes rise at a 2% annual rate and their costs to the city rise at the historic rate of the CPI increase or 5%. See www.newportereenlight.com, Click on project studies button for a full copy of this analysis Efficiency of government operations of the city of Newport Beach (Official State 2002 report on FY 1998-99)# -Newport Beach has the highest total revenue per capita in OC - except for three special cases:* 1998-99* Anaheim (Disneyland, Electric Utility) $2,022 • - Brea (Small, Redevelopment Funds) $1,643 - Laguna Beach (1/3 our population) $1,605 - Newport Beach (Beaches, etc.) $1,571 - County Average $ 772 -The City has the second highest Per Capita Expenditures of any city in OC* - Anaheim (Disneyland, Elect Util.) $2,588 - Newport Beach (Beaches, etc.) $1,526 - County Average $ 745 1. Brea (Small, RDA funds) - 84 e city is second -highest in theCounty in 2. Newport Beach - - 89 the level of staffing it provides for city services. 3. Laguna Beach (Small) 91 Other cities have reduced this overly expensive 4. Anaheim (Own Elect. Util.) - 106 metho of operations by subcontracting County Average 200 non -essential services to the private sector) ** Source: League of California Cities — OC Division —Directory. # City accounting practices and services provided vary. These figures must be considered as showing trends, not absolutes *** 10 year projection made by Greenlight using Prop 13 tax rates and the history of CPI annual increases City Government Staffing Overhead The city manager has increased the number of high paid managers on the city staff without a commensurate increase in population. The average total annual compensation of the 12 managers is $144,000(FY02-03.) Citv Government operations are more costly than those of other comparable OC cities • The city ranks near the bottom of subcontracting for non -essential services of all of the cities in OC. Major cost reductions are being missed because of this excessive government buildup. For example, the cost to trim a tree in the city was reduced from $89 per tree to $39 per tree by subcontracting the service to an outside contractor. Privatization of non -essential services can be accomplished with no reduction in services. "I think it safe to say that Newport Beach cmnracts for fewer services than most cities. "H. Bludau, City Manager 1111312001 7/18/02 Greenlight PO Box 319, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 #982030 www.newportgreenlig—ht.co 949-721-8227 Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Overview The TPO is an ordinance that had served to control traffic congestion for over 25 years. Basically it required developers to pay the full cost of mitigating the traffic congestion their projects generated. • TPO terms are defined in the "Highway Capacity Manual 2000," issued by the Transportation Research Board. The definitions of different levels of traffic congestion are: Level of Service % of intersection capacity Average time to transit intersection A,B, C 0% to 80% D 80.1 % to 90% one traffic light change E 90.1 % to 100% two traffic light changes F Greater than 100% more than two traffic light changes The TPO set a citywide requirement that no intersection was to be allowed to operate at greater than a Level of Service (LOS) "D." In 1999 the city council, claiming that the ordinance was unconstitutional, lowered the payments required from the developer to the percentage of the capacity improvement in the intersection that their traffic created. For example, the huge Koll Center Project had to pay only $70,000 under the TPO to improve an intersection that would cost $2 Million initially and $15 - $20M long term to satisfactorily accommodate increased traffic loads. No source for the remainder of that money was provided in the newly weakened TPO as was required before. Other cities may get around this so-called constitutional problem by requiring the developer to bond for the full cost of improving intersections it renders unsatisfactory. Then other future developers are required to help pay off the bonds. The public benefits by not having to wait in congested traffic for years or possibly forever until all the money is collected to improve these unsatisfactory intersections. While they were at it, the then city council also made wholesale changes to the TPO. These included many other undesirable features such as: • Empowering the City Council via a majority vote to not improve i.e. permit excessive traffic congestion in any intersection in the city if it were "infeasible" to correct. • Grandfathers exemptions for Irvine Company properties in Newport Coast as it applies only to subsequent new construction. • Not requiring the needed improvements to actually be constructed. • Permitting a developer in some instances to gain full credit for mitigation by restriping intersections in lieu of paying for meaningful improvements. • 16 of the 19 objections raised by the residents were not accepted by the city council. NOTE THAT SUMMER TOURIST TRAFFIC FOR UP TO 100,000 VISITORS A DAY IS NOT NORMALLY INCLUDED IN CITY TRAFFIC CALCULATIONS. A proposal is currently being considered to increase airport passenger operations from 8.4 Million Annual Passengers (MAP) to 9.8 MAP. Other alternatives for 2015 and beyond or even in 2005 if the current passenger cap is allowed to expire increase passenger loads to as much as 13.9 MAP. As Newport residents must drive on Bristol, MacArthur, Jamboree, Irvine and Route 73 to get in or out of the city or even to cross the city, these additional airport traffic loads need to be considered in any analysis of the airport Area. The same considerations apply to Newport Blvd and PCH. • Route 73 is already the most congested arterial in the city and getting worse. Its mainline operates at LOS F' in both directions near Route 55. Off ramps at Campus/Irvine also operate at LOS 'F'. The Campus on ramp to the 73 Freeway operates at an astonishing LOS 'FFFFF. " 7/18/02 Greenlight PO Box 319, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 #982030 www.newoortgreenlight.com 949-721-8227 1 REPORT FROM GPAC LPC SUBCOMMITTEE • Members: Karlene Bradley, Gus Chabre, John Corrough, Laura Dietz, Nancy Gardner, Jan Vandersloot. Prepared by Nancy Gardner PROCEDURE: The subcommittee reviewed the LCP and submitted comments which were distributed by e-mail, then met in person with Patrick Alford on June 2. It was agreed that the various comments would be discussed, and that those proposed alterations which garnered consensus would be forwarded to GPAC for its approval. OUTCOME It is proposed that in section 2.7.3-6, p. 2-33, the word "structures" be changed to "methods." COMMENTS There was a steep learning curve for some of us regarding land use. It was explained that the LCP has to be based on the General Plan. This means that if we want the LCP to reflect land uses that differ from those in the current General Plan (Banning Ranch was the example we were using) we have to either delay the LCP until after the development of our new General Plan -- which might reflect such changed land uses --or go through General Plan amendments for the areas we wanted to change. It was decided that such decisions were beyond the scope of the subcommittee and a fuller discussion could take place at the GPA meeting. • ATTACHMENT Attached for your review are the various comments made by the subcommittee members. Comments regarding Banning Ranch come under the land use provisions discussed above. Some areas were voluntarily discarded after discussion (3.1.8-1, for example) while in others consensus could not be reached (ESHAs, dedicated accessways). 0 P.1-3, 5.1.4 • Comment: Spelling is Acjachemem Indian nation p. 2-9, s. 2.2.1Special Planning Areas —Banning Ranch COASTAL ACT POLICY "New... development... shall be located... where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources." Comment: The development of Banning Ranch would, indeed, have such adverse effects. Comment: I recommend that the Banning Ranch be designated as a "special study Zone on the City' General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan" with consideration given to the environmental requirements and the public input from the Community Visioning Events... The Banning Ranch is comprised of four very diverse areas or zones... each must be considered and researched separately while focusing on protection and enhancement of the resources of the Coastal Zone... 2.2.1-2 "Require the approval of a planned community development regulations for the Banning Ranch prior to the approval of any development to insure that necessary infrastructure and services will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively on coastal resources..." Comment: There is interest among segments of the community in preserving some or all of Banning Ranch as open space. The CLUP and the subsequent LCP should not be written so as to mandate development of this area but rather to allow flexibility in its eventual use. Comment:... if the whole area is unacceptable for development because of traffic impacts, contamination due to oil and oil wells, earthquake faults, endangered habitats, and the • desirability of maintaining open spaces, such approval should not be sought. 2.2.1-3 "Prior to annexation of Banning Ran, prepare and adopt a pre -annexation LCP that would become effective after annexation. Request Coastal Commission approval of the processing of a pre -annexation LCP for Banning Ranch. Comment: Seeking such approval assumes that development of such land is a priorityfor Newport Beach. Such interest not been exhibited (see Visioning Process). The citizen interest should precede seeking approval... it should be stated in the LPC that all possible avenues for retaining the property as open space must be vigorously pursed before any development alternatives are sought. 2.2.3 "Urban land areas shall ... be excluded from the permit provisions of the chapter [if] there is no potential for significan adverse effects ... on coastal resources..." Comment: Pursuant to section 30610.5 of the Coast Act... coastal bluffs, lots immediately adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat area, and all lands and waters subject to the public trust are not subject to the exclusion. " This statement definitely includes Banning Ranch. Comment: What provision of section 30610.5 enables the following residential areas shall be excluded from the requirements of coastal development permit processing: (all the ones listed). P. 2-25, s 2.6 "Nothing in this division shall exempt local governments from meeting the requirements of...flow and moderate income housing. Comment: Banning Ranch has been mentioned as a site for "affordable housing. " A more appropriate location is the West Newport Industrial area which is in great need of renovation. • P. 2-33. s 2.7.3, 2.7.6 "Encourage the use of alternative shoreline protective structures such as dune restoration and sand nourishment." • Comment: The purpose of this section would be strengthened by changing "structures" to methods. 2.7.6-4 "Permit revetments, breakwaters... and other structures altering natural shoreline processes..." Comment: This language is conducive to further armoring of our coast. Language should be added to emphasize that the structures listed are only to be approved if and when other beach replenishment and beach protective measures have failed, and only when the structure threatened cannot be moved elsewhere. P. 3-1, s 3.1, PUBLIC ACCESS "Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility..." Comment: Because of approaching deadlines that threatened the loss of some dedicated accessways, several years ago the City agreed to accept responsibility for all those accessways within the City limits. This information should be included. P. 3-6. s. 3.1.1-3 Signage "Develop and implement a uniform coastal access signing program..." Comment: As the city has acknowledged over the years that its signage regulations need to be updated, staff may wish to include the requirements in this section at the same time. Perhaps cost savings could be made in "combining messages. " P. 3-5 Access Comment: Allow Public Access to west side of bay below Dover Shores with access point at Polaris to beach next to Castaways. Public is prevented from using beach by a fence.. Remove fence that is preventing public from accessing beach at Dover Shores. • P. 3-7, s. 3.1.1-11, 12 Offers to Dedicate Comment: Require City to accept Offers To Dedicate, in addition to require Offers To Dedicate P. 3-9. S. 3.1.1-20 "Implement public access policies in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances of each case..." Comment: add "including public safety services, including lifeguards, fire and police access. P. 3-17, s. 3.1.5 Private Gated Communities Comment: While neither Shore Cliffs or Cameo Shores is gated, both communities have locked gates that prevent public access to the beach, and this should be noted. There should be a requirement that where public funds are expended for beach preservation, safety, improvement, etc. there must be public access. P. 3-21, s. 3.1.8-1 "The City may temporarily close certain streets in West Newport for a period of no more that 24 hours during the Fourth of July holiday when, in the opinion of the Police Chief or his designee, the closure is necessary to protect public safety." Comment: I would suggest that the fire chief be given this authority as well, in the event that he determines that crowds/parking violators etc. are a hindrance to his department's ability to respond in a timely manner. Also, when does the 24 hours begin and how is it determined? P.. 4-2, s. 4.1 ESHA's Comment. Add environmentally sensitive areas: No. 15: Bayview Landing, No. 16: West side Cliff Drive Park, No. 17. Avon Street Creek These areas contain coastal • sage scrub and wetlands that should be protected. Comment: I recommend the following sections be modified or eliminated as an ESHA. • Buck Gully A substantial portion of the gully has been modified by the construction of a golf course or is under private ownership... as such it will be very difficult to enforce the proposed mitigation measures 4.1.2-11 B, C,D,E,F and G. The enforcement of the proposed mitigation measures should be limited to the small fresh water wetland at the mouth of the gully.. and the middle section... where the land has not been disturbed by development. To do otherwise will cause substantial conflict with the property owners adjacent to the gully and probably will not be effective. Morning Canyon is under private ownership by the adjacent residential lot owners ... a substantial number of nan- native and ornamental tree and shrub species have invaded the canyon from the ... lots. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to restore the canyon to a natural habitat due to its fractured ownership. Comment: Study Area No. 12: Castaways. Third paragraph, replace word "drainage" with the word "wetlands". This area is a wetland and was named as such in the EIR for Castaways Park development. Insert paragraph describing "Coastal Bluff Scrub" on the slope facing Dover Drive above the walkway, which is present naturally, and the phrase "Native grassland" for the slope above Dover Drive below the walkway, which is also present naturally, and contains a large needle -grass community. Mention also that a grant from the State Coastal Conservancy and the Nature Conservancy has been approved to restore the Castaways Park. Comment: Add No. 1 S: West Side Cliff Drive Park and No. 16: Bayview Landing and No. 17: Avon Street Creek p. 4-25, s. 4.1.2-3 ESHA's "The Planning Commission and/or City Council will determine • ESHA boundaries based on site -specific environmental studies." Comment: There should be a special task force made up of individuals with the expertise to evaluate environmental studies to advise the Commission/Council. 4.1.2-10, 4.1.2-11. "Prepare ESHA protection overlays ... to ensure both the protection of the ESHA's in these areas and of private property rights." F, G2 require native vegetation on blufftops, require irrigation practices on blufftops that minimize erosion." Comment: It is unclear whether sections F and G cover private property which they should. P. 4-35, S. 4.2.2 Bulk and Height Limitation Comment: Mention should be made of the need to be very strict on height restrictions within public view corridors. 4.2.3 COASTAL BLUFFS Comment: There should be language stating that in addition to preserving open space along the bluffs, new development must plan for natural erosion processes, and any development needs to be set back far enough to allow for erosion to take place without imperiling whatever development has been allowed. Bad planning cannot be an excuse for later protective alterations. Comment: Define altered versus unaltered coastal bluffs. For example, portions of the coastal bluff above the Dunes has been altered, while other portions are unaltered. P. 4-40, s. 4.3 Water quality Comment: A great deal of attention is paid to water quality in the bay. While policies • enunciated in Section 4.3.2 will impact the ocean, the way the entire section reads diminishes the importance of ocean water quality. Transposing the first two ssections • would rectify this without undercutting the water quality programs for the bay. 4.3.1 would be NPDES, 4.3.2 would be TMDLs. P. 4-50, s. 4.4.2-1,2,3 Eel Grass Comment: Establish the entire Newport Bay as an ESHA for eelgrass. Eelgrass seems to change from year to year, and therefore is not confined to certain areas of the bay. Eelgrass quantities should be increased throughout the bay, as it provides valuable habitat for fish and birds. Comment: Eelgrass.. although the eelgrass habitat has not been classified as a formal ESHA habitat, a large-scale eelgrass restoration program is currently being planned for Newport Harbor and will be accorded an ESHA-like status. Most of the areas of lower bay were developed during the first half of the 20' century. These waters have been continuously used for a wide variety of recreational activities... the development of the lower bay has been in the form of marinas, moorings and piers, providing recreational opportunities and access to the water by a large percentage of the public. Extensive eelgrass meados exist udner these conditions. The lower Newport Bay is a boat harbor an should not be treated as ESHA habitat. The recent polices of the CCC have made it difficult to maintain the lower bays docks, bulkheads and moorings when eelgrass is near the proposed dredge site. Eelgrass is abundant in several sections of the lower bay and has had an expanded distribution in the lower bay over the past several years due to favorable growing conditions caused by more stringent water quality. The implementation of mitigation measures 4.1.2-11 S and T should be restricted to the upper bay if the lower bay is to be properly maintained as a boating harbor. The continued • improvement in water quality will provide an extensive distribution of eelgrass in the lower bay even though dredging is permitted. OVERALL COMMENT ...the integrity of the Harbor and Bay Element (developed over 3+ years) is maintained in the LCP Land Use Draft. The forthcoming LCP Implementing Ordinances will require further detailed review by us and others to make sure that this continuity of integrity carries through into the action/control part of the LCP/GP. I also feel that others should comment on the landside and natural areas portions of the LCP ...I am satisfied that we have done our job well so far on the water and land/water edges of the City in the draft to date ... I consider the NB Draft LCP to be one of the best... and feel that we are well -served by this document ...I think it is both realistic and responsive to both the CC requirements and the constraints and opportunities of NB, without giving away the farm... We can do this LCP, get the agencies cooperating with us, win back our local control, and still stay independently in control of the key parts of our land use and coastal areas. 0 I GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, June 9, 2003 Roger Alford Patrick Bartolic�� Phillip Bettencourt F IQ Carol Boice Karlene Bradley Gus Chabre John Corrough Laura Dietz Grace Dove Florence Felton Nancy Gardner • Louise Greeley Ernie Hatchell Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Alex Kakavas Bill Kelly Todd Knipp Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Philip Lugar Catherine O'Hara • Carl Ossipoff f-WIMS lil. i NIR,' 1 Charles Remley • Larry Root John Saunders James Schmiesing Ed Siebel Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo M .1 aw, K"fM 2 GENERAL PLAN ADIRSORY COMMITTEE Monday, June 9, 2003 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS 11 zit yr°-�' c5`t--r Pu, g. 4�-� c•�� o J CZ-hLLCK.5 . 1J (2 e�"1 e-61G7�t �v o� [ S CM�1 i-SZfg �o5zt sa�p`�e�ce ®�a��c l�.wet %-Ne c� y y�)) LVel`j, 6'�l/�('S r 30d Ca-,j A19 Fq1 6S0 c. Qfica� G{iQ.K� a3 0 � 7�.�� r0 � �l�-��r3 � sa-Q•C�-� a GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE Monday, June 9, 2003 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE u' E-MAIL ADDRESS «. Z-c/o AWIIA Carol Boice 2945 Catalpa St Newport Beach, CA 92660 Carol Boice 2945 Catalpa Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 • June 2, 2003 Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Mr. Alford: t According to your letter to the General Plan•Advisory Committee, members can submit any comments on the Draft Local Coastal Program by June 6, 2003. The plan was very well done. The only section where there needs to be a correction (actually an addition) is in Study Area No. 5: San Diego Creek on page 4-13. In the second to the last paragraph describing the marsh sites"toyon" needs to be added as one of the revege- tated native plants•along•with southern willow scrub, willow (Salix sp.), mule fat, cattails, California bush sunflower, saltbush, and mule fat. Enclosed is a photo of the toyon along the upland area at that site bordering Back Bay Drive, which is shown on the Environmental Study Areas (ESAs) map • in area 5 - San Diego Creek. Because "toyon" is listed on page 4-19 in Study Area No. 10: Morning Canyon and Study Area No. 9: Buck Gully on page 4218, there is no reason why "toyon" is not to be mentioned in the San Diego Creek area where there are at least 100 toyon. Therefore, I hope you will definitely add "toyon" to page 4-13. Thank you so much for letting us review the draft. Sincerely, Carol Boice Enclosures: ESAs Map Study Area 5 - San Diego Creek Photos of Toyon in protected Conservation and Habitat Area n LJ :, FA S.-0N 1! OtlfKkj ry -tea. �wt rFzs.�xa- - w.w rid k i 4 . rc __ F r+ rt� a a ��.l FIN T r+ r W k ;yir. y ifF�'�• Y v� 'Jw* ?r d 'NAY ar',aI! i • • PoRT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0� O PLANNING DEPARTMENT U33oo NEWPORT BOULEVARD a NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92638 C�LlFOR+��r (949) 644-32oo; FAX (949) 644-3229 TO: Planning Commission Harbor Commission GPAC EQAC LCP Subcommittee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner'i DATE: April 24, 2003 SUBJECT. Draft LCP Coastal Land Use Plan Memoratin dhainn Enclosed is the April 14, 2003 draft of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). The CLUP will be a part of the City's new Local Coastal Program (LCP). The CLUP sets forth policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City and its sphere of influence, with the exception of Newport Coast. Newport Coast is governed by its own, previously certified LCP. The second part of the LCP, the Implementation Plan, is currently under preparation by staff. An implementation plan consists of the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments necessary to implement the land use plan. SB 516 requires the City to submit a LCP to the California Coastal Commission for approval and certification. Coastal staff will be conducting a preliminary review of the draft CLUP, which should to be completed in the next six weeks. It would be helpful if the LCP Certification Committee could review all comments at the same time. Therefore, your group is requested to submit any comments that you may have to the LCP Certification Committee by lune 6, 2003. If you have any questions, please call me at (949) 644-3235 or e-mail to Palford@citv.newport-beach.ca.us. Cc: City Council; LCP Certification Committee r r-, 1] 0 (- t4d ad— b6 Pair(dd(-- Local Coastal Program Certification Coastal Act • Passed by the Legislature in 1976 • Established a permanent, statewide California Coastal Commission (CCC) • 12 voting members —four each appointed by the Governor, Senate Rules Committee, and Speaker of the Assembly NORTH �� ,� •y�:C;fit \z;°/ k " LEGEND N DYlNrnwlU,M,OauNry `\; 0M 11 ] MR. Proposition 20 • Approved by voters in 1972 • Established temporary state and regional commissions • Permit required for development within 1000 yards of mean high tide line • Prepared statewide plan for coastal protection Goals of the Coastal Act • Protect, maintain and enhance natural and artificial coastal resources • Balance utilization and conservation of coastal resources • Maximize public access and recreational opportunities • Priority for coastaldependenU-relateddevelopment Local Coastal Programs • Coastal Act policies are primarily implemented through the preparation of Local Coastal Plans (LCPs) • Each local government is required to prepare a LCP for that porlion of the Coastal Zone within its jurisdiction • LCPs must be certified by the CCC • LCPs consist of a Land Use Plan and a Implementation Plan 1 a n u Coastal Land Use Plan 'Land use plan' means the relevant portion of a local government's general plan, or local coastal element which are sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and Intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies and, where necessary, a listing of Implementing actions. Coastal Act Section 30108.5 The land use plan portion of the Newport Beach's LCP was first certified by the CCC In 1982. However, the Implementation plan was never prepared CCC Retained Permit Jurisdiction • Submerged lands (lands below MLT line) • Tidelands (lands located between MHT and MLT lines) • Other public trust lands (historic tidelands that are presently filled or reclaimed — Newport Dunes, Balboa Bay Club, Beacon Bay, Marina Park, etc.) • Implementation Plan ...zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and within sensitive coastal resources areas, other implementing actions, which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, [the Coastal Act] at the local level. Coastal Act Section 30108.6 After Certification • Coastal development permit authority Is delegated to the local government • CCC retains original permit Jurisdiction over certain specified lands (public trust lands, such as tidelands) • CCC serves as an appellate authority over development approved by local government in specified geographic areas CCC Appeal Area • Lands between the sea and the designated first public road paralleling the sea • 300 feet from inland extent of any beach or of the Mean High Tide Line, whichever is greater • 100 feet of streams and wetlands • 300 feet of top of seaward face of coastal bluffs 2 Fj 0 Why certify the LCP now? • Mandated by SB 516 (Newport Coast Annexation) • Must submit LCP by June 30,2003 • Shortterm: late fee of $1,000 per month • Long term: CCC could impose LCP (Malibu) Public Access[Recreation " a Vertical access 'r Horizontal access alufhop access �. Vessel launching Support facilities Impediments CLUP Land Use Designations • No land use changes are proposed • Current Land Use Element dwelling unit and FAR limits translated into new land use designations • CLUP Map depicts location, type, densitylntensity of land uses in the Coastal Zone Land Use and Development I ` i R Visitor -serving Recreational)1�= Coastal -dependent Coastal -related Hazards Transportation Protection of Coastal Resources Sensitive habitats Scenic and visual qualities Landlorms Historic Water quality Dredging Land Use Element Statistical Area Table Wvq GnM PeMm �9 Gc.M •eMN V,nx rie.uen w.m wn .� w.a L .1. ;i n a a a a ; er/,u.9p(11J a a a xl]w AW RMa • MWww, a) a a a wim n,m i;m x, n.�myran, sm tm a o 0 l ep,wue a a alwx ,n,fea nw >. nwwmrN ex n x a a a u, e.ee.rwluw a a a ,uu N.w: nvo xmu tW Lnun D xWxn AtSu +Wy igvMlai LMi IeN N 3 • • E CLUP Map Detail What's Next • LCPCC review of comments from COG staff, EDC, GPAC, Harbor Commission • Local public hearings (Planning Commission & Council) • Formal application to the COG • COG hearings • Adoption of COG revisions -? GPAC's Role • Form a consensus on CLUP policies • Submit comments and recommendations to LCPCC • Continue General Plan update • LCP will be amended as needed after certification to reflect updated General Plan policies (CCC approval required) 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, June 9, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Bob Hendrickson Carl Ossipoff Patrick Bartolic Tom Hyans Charles Remley Carol Boice Mike Ishikawa Larry Root Gus Chabre Kim Jarisma John Saunders John Corrough Mike Johnson James Schmiesing Laura Dietz Bill Kelly Jan Vandersloot Florence Felton Lucille Kuehn Jennifer Wesoloski Nancy Gardner Phillip Lugar Ron Yeo Louise Greeley Marie Marston • Ernest Hatchell Catherine O'Hara Members Absent: Phillip Bettencourt Todd Knipp Karlene Bradley Donald Krotee Grace Dove Ed Siebel Alex Kakavas Jackie Sukiasian Staff Present: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Shirley Oborny, Administrative Assistant Members of the Public Present: John Allen Dennis Baker Carol Hoffman Everette Phillips u James Quigg Dean Reinemann Tom Wolff • I. Call to Order Ms. Gardner called the meeting to order. II. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the May 12, 2003, meeting were approved. III. Discussion of Draft LCP Land Use Plan and Subcommittee Report Patrick Alford, Senior Planner, presented an overview of the draft LCP using a PowerPoint Presentation (presentation attached). Ms. Dietz asked whether EQAC would also be commenting on the document. Mr. Alford said they have formed a subcommittee to review it. Mr. Johnson asked how unhappy the locals in Malibu were with the settlement. Mr. Alford said property owners groups, private developers, the City and environmental groups all lobbied for different aspects of the LCP. They had to adopt it by September 15, 2002, so they were rushed. They had completed their land use plan and the implementation plan at that point. Our risks aren't great but if the plans we submit are repeatedly rejected by the Coastal Commission, then we could run that risk. • Mr. Hendrickson asked what key areas the Coastal Commission might object to. Mr. Alford said he'd have a better understanding after receiving comments from their staff by the end of the month. When they reviewed our current land use plan they pointed out deficiencies in some of the environmental protection policies, water quality, and policies relating to the operation of the harbor. Ms. Jansma said a big issue in Malibu was beach access near private dwellings and had read about that being an issue here at Cameo Shores. Mr. Alford responded that there might be some isolated areas that have access issues but Newport Beach is one of the more accessible cities of the coast. Ms. O'Hara asked when the implementation of the policies would take affect. Mr. Alford explained a lot would depend on the comments from the Coastal Commission. Ms. Dietz asked what percentage of Newport Beach meets the public access criteria. Mr. Alford said it would be fairly high, as a general rule of wanting to have vertical access for every 200 feet; we come close to that on the Peninsula already. Overall, the public access requirement is more than met. Ms. Hoffman asked what process will be utilized to reconcile comments received • from various groups and/or individuals prior to any changes that may be 2 resubmitted to the Coastal Commission. The LCP Certification Committee will • review the comments and it will be up to them to reconcile any conflicts from the various reviewing bodies and public comments. There will be additional opportunity for public comment at the hearings at the Planning Commission, the City Council and before the Coastal Commission itself. Ms. O'Hara asked whether the format of this document would be changed to a similar format to the General Plan after it's adopted for ease of use. Mr. Alford responded that it doesn't have to be and it may be something to consider. Mr. Saunders asked whether the subject of flexibility has been addressed. The Coastal Commission tends to approve something and then it becomes engraved in stone. Is there anyway to build flexibility or would we need to go back to the Coastal Commission if we want to change something? Mr. Alford said we have tried to set the groundwork for that issue in this document. Regarding the implementing actions of the zoning section of the LCP, Ms. Hoffman asked whether the intent is to take just the different zoning designations and include them as sections within the implementing actions and then insure that the existing zoning implements the policies in the LCP portion. Mr. Alford said that this is something we are still formulating an approach on. • Mr. Vandersloot commented that the Coastal Zone boundary is kind of arbitrary because sometime it's less than 1,000 yards from the shoreline. Mr. Alford said the boundary was established by the State legislature and only they can change it. GPAC LCP Subcommittee Report Ms. Gardner reviewed the Subcommittee's Report and invited comments from the full GPAC. Committee members discussed the following areas of the LCP (any recommendations agreed upon by the full committee are noted): ❖ Page 2-4, Special Planning Area 1 (Banning Ranch) — the group wanted to recommend additional language be added in this section to point out the potential environmental resources and recreational value of the area ❖ Page 2-33, Policy 2.7.3-6 — the group agreed with the Subcommittee's recommendation to change "structures" to "methods" 4- Page 2-54, Policy 2.8.3-9 4- Page 2-48, Policy 2.8.1-4 :• Page 2-22, Policy 2.4.1-3 — the group discussed the phrase "Maintain the Marine & Recreational Designation" and recommended leaving the language as is ❖ Page 3-6, Policy 3.1.1.-5 • •3 Page 3-7, 3.1.1-8 3 Page 3-7, Policy 3 1 1-11. and 3.1.1-12 • ❖ Page 3-21, Policy 3.1.8-1 ❖ Page 4-13 ❖ Page 4-2, Policy 4.1.2 B• Page 4-33, Policy 4.2.1-5 Pages 4-29, Policy 4.1.3 Eelgrass — the group agreed to amend the language in the first paragraph to: "Loss of eelgrass as a result of coastal development is considered to be a significant environmental impact, and any potentially impact to this resource must be avoided or minimized (delete `or compensated for') under the provisions of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy." ❖ Page 4-37, Policy 4.2.3-1— the group agreed that they want to strengthen the language regarding the coastal bluff preservation to ensure adequate setback to avoid erosion taking up public, access IV. Public Comments No further comments offered. l_J r] L GI