Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2003_07_07*NEW FILE* G PAC 2003 07 07 u • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA July 7, 2003 7:00-9:00 p.m. Police Department Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive 7:00 I. Call to Order 7:05 II. Approval of Minutes June 23, 2003 7:15 III. Discussion of the Biological Resources Report 8:30 IV. Future Meeting Schedule 8:45 V. Public Comments F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, June 23, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Louise Greeley Phillip Lugar Phillip Bettencourt Tom Hyans Marie Marston Carol Boice Mike Ishikawa Catherine O'Hara Karlene Bradley Kim Jansma Charles Remley John Corrough Mike Johnson Larry Root Grace Dove Bill Kelly James Schmiesing Nancy Gardner Donald Krotee Jan Vandersloot Members Absent: Patrick Bartolic Bob Hendrickson John Saunders Gus Chabre Alex Kakavas Ed Siebel Laura Dietz Todd Knipp Jackie Sukiasian Florence Felton Lucille Kuehn Jennifer Wesoloski Ernest Hatchell Carl Ossipoff Ron Yeo Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Members of the Public Present: I. Call to Order Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. 3 U. Approval of Minutes • Mr. Lugar pointed out a correction to the minutes on Page 2, under III, last line in the fourth paragraph; the word "successful" should be changed to "accessible". The minutes of the June 9th meeting were approved with this correction. III. Discussion of the Draft Housing Element Tamara Campbell reviewed a Power Point presentation outlining the laws and requirements of Housing Elements. The presentation is attached. During and after the presentation the following questions were raised. Nancy Gardner asked about the RHNA numbers and if other considerations (such as land availability) were taken into account before assigning them. Patty Temple explained that land availability and cost have no impact on the allocation. Jan Vandersloot asked if it had to be open land or if we could incorporate existing apartments. Ms. Temple explained that RHNA numbers must be met with construction of new units; however it does not have to -be on vacant sites, rezoning is an option. Sharon Wood added that the RHNA numbers include all income levels, so they are not just low income units. The City focuses on the low income units because it is difficult to meet that need. Charles Remley asked if rezoning was restricted to industrial/commercial areas or if housing areas could • be rezoned also. Ms. Temple said all areas could potentially be looked at. Tom Hyans asked for more explanation on how employment affects the RHNA numbers. Ms. Temple indicated the State's goal is to provide housing for everyone who lives and works here, if a city has a lot of growth projection 'in jobs then the city will be expected to provide housing for those people. Ms. Gardner asked about the penalties if a city did not meet the goals. Ms. Temple indicated litigation and possible loss of building permit authority. Woodie Tescher added that legislation is pending which would add substantial financial penalties to communities that don't meet the needs. John Corrough pointed out that it is important to get the State housing people to visit and see the landscape in the area to show them some areas on maps are not suitable for building. Ms. Temple indicated that we did have HCD visit and tour our City. Mr. Remley asked what would happen if our RHNA numbers were reduced, would some other area be increased? Ms. Wood indicated that if Orange County numbers were reduced, the numbers would be increased in another county, such as Riverside County. Mr. Vandersloot asked if this need for housing is taken into account by Council when looking at a jobs rich development like Newport Center • and requiring the developer to add affordable housing in the area. Ms. Wood 2 indicated that it is an accepted practice to place the responsibility for affordable housing on residential developers instead of the commercial developers. In the case of Newport Center, the major residential developer in the area is also the developer of Newport Center so The Irvine Company was required to provide affordable units due to the residential building they were providing. Mr. Hyans asked if this policy had been affective in Newport Beach. Ms. Wood said yes it had been. Don Krotee asked if GPAC could suggest a policy requiring commercial developers to provide affordable housing. Ms. Wood said that would be possible and she had heard of in -lieu fees paid by commercial developers. Her preference would be to discuss this further during the General Plan Update process. Mr. Tescher indicated he would do some research and report back on what other communities have done. Mr. Hyans asked if there were any affordable housing units currently in the City because he had not noticed any. Ms. Wood indicated that was the plan; the units don't look any different, the rents are just lower. Ms. Campbell indicated there was a table in the Housing Element with the locations of the affordable units (page 15). Ms. Wood added there is a problem with some of the current units because covenants are expiring. Mr. Lugar asked about what happens after the covenant expires. Ms. Wood indicated that when updating the housing element all of this information is analyzed and the numbers end up reappearing in our RHNA numbers eventually. Kim Jansma asked about the resale price on affordable units. Ms. Temple indicated that most of the City's units are rentals, however with the few "for sale" units we have, there are covenants restricting their resale price as well as requiring the purchaser to be income qualified. Ms. Gardner asked if there is anything that helps teachers and/or City employees live here? Ms. Temple indicated that most City employees and teachers would fall into the moderate income which would be 80-120% of the County median income for a family of four. Ms. Wood indicated she just did a rental survey looking at market -rate rents for two bedroom units and most would meet the standard for moderate income households. Our focus, with the programs we are developing, is for units affordable to low and very low income households. Mr. Hyans asked about the amount of assistance government is required to provide to create these units. For example, the hotels create jobs and revenue for the City, however if the money is then going out toward affordable housing, the City is not seeing benefit from the business. Ms. Wood pointed out that the money used to help with the Lower Bayview project is not General Fund or tax dollars, the fund is entirely money paid by developers of market -rate housing. Ms. Gardner asked if Banning Ranch is identified as a future site for affordable housing and then the City buys the property, can the units be shifted to another location. Ms. Wood said yes, however we would have to find a site large enough to accommodate the same number of units. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that • the airport area had been discussed by this committee as an area that might work for affordable units. Ms. Wood added that during the General Plan Update process we could look at that area. Mr. Lugar asked if we had 5 years to build the units listed in this element. Ms. Wood explained we only have until 2005. Mr. Lugar asked if we have to build out all 1,400 units by then. Ms. Wood stated that more than half of the units are above market -rate units and the ongoing development of Newport Coast would take care of most of those. In addition, if the Lower Bayview project is successful there will be another 150 units and if we can do another project and/or use in -lieu funds to extend affordability on some existing units we would show a lot of progress. Mr. Corrough asked about Pages 46-48, which indicate many of the pre-1950's areas of the City are designated as "Residential Infill Sites". Ms. Temple indicated the analysis is intended to show areas where current zoning would allow additional housing capability which would show the State we can meet our housing needs. Bill Kelly asked if the opposite is actually true where multi -family lots are being rezoned to R-2. Ms. Temple explained that we haven't done a lot of rezoning. Some adjustments were made after the 1988 General Plan Update to correct districts zoned R-3 but where the lot size only allowed one unit. • Catherine O'Hara asked how the City could convince developers to extend the covenants on affordable units. Ms. Wood indicated the City would pay them for the extension. Mr. Remley asked if that money would be from the in -lieu funds. He felt the money should be used to get additional units built. Ms. Wood pointed out that we would do some analysis to see if it made sense before we did it. Mr. Vandersloot asked if the City had considered a program used by Huntington Beach where a developer could purchase an apartment house away from the new development and use it for the affordable units. Ms. Temple said our program could accommodate that concept. However Ms. Wood stated it would have some disadvantages because it would not be considered a new unit and would not count toward our RHNA. Ms. Gardner asked about Newport Coast and if that area counted toward the County's numbers or the City's. Ms. Wood indicated the RHNA numbers covering that area are incorporated into our housing element. Ms. O'Hara asked if there were any policies requiring developers of office or commercial buildings to contribute to housing requirements. Ms. Wood said there was nothing in place; however she would be open to talk about it. 0 Mr. Corrough asked about government programs to encourage developers to • build below market housing. Ms. Wood indicated there is not as much money as there used to be, however money and programs are available. Louise Greeley asked if the in -lieu fees affected RHNA numbers. Ms. Wood explained that the number is only reduced when a unit is built. The in -lieu fees make sense on the smaller developments where under 10 units of affordable housing would be provided. Ms. Greeley asked if mixed -use areas would be appropriate for affordable housing. Ms. Temple said yes, and indicated that the 28t' Street Marina was an example. Mr. Lugar asked how the City monitors the affordability. Ms. Temple answered that we send out annual questionnaires which are required to be completed and returned with documentation. Carol Boice asked if the in -lieu funds from One Ford Road were still available. Ms. Wood said we had all of those funds plus money collected from two other developers. Ms. Boice also asked how long the City can retain the funds. Ms. Wood didn't think there was a time limitation. Mr. Kelly asked how the in -lieu fee was calculated. Ms. Wood stated it has not been a formalized program and staff is still working on that along with an economist who specializes in affordable housing issues. Mr. Kelly asked if the City could force developers to build affordable housing instead of taking the in -lieu fees. Ms. Wood stated that if that were the case it would increase the monitoring burden on us and by • allowing in -lieu fees for the smaller developments it gives the City funds to use as incentives to larger affordable housing projects. Ms. Jansma asked if the One Ford Road development didn't want affordable units included because it would reduce the value of their project. Ms. Temple indicated she did not work on the project, however said the decision was made by the City Council to accept the in - lieu fees. Mr. Hyans asked if the City would consider rezoning areas where there are buildings not being used (PacBell building on the Peninsula) to allow for housing. Ms. Wood said that kind of idea is what we need to talk about during the General Plan Update, so we've got a more realistic list of sites for the next update of the Housing Element, Ms. Temple added that she and Ms. Wood had talked to 40 or 50 different groups regarding housing on Superior when the property was available but no one was interested in developing housing there. Mr. Johnson asked about trailer parks and if it was the most efficient way to use the land. Ms. Wood indicated she had referred people to the owners of the properties on Coast Highway however they have not met with success. Also, there is a whole body of State law surrounding the closure of a mobile home park. 1.1 Mr. Lugar asked if we could add a requirement for residency in affordable units. • Ms. Wood indicated we cannot do that, the only criteria that can be used is income. Ms. Gardner asked why we are focusing on a senior housing project if we are not supposed to give bonuses for people who live here and are we sure that seniors are in need of affordable housing. Ms. Wood indicated that seniors are one of the defined special needs groups in the State housing law and the census data backs up the fact that we have a large number of seniors that are at low and very low income levels and are overpaying for their housing. Mr. Hyans pointed out that it seems like the terminology "Senior Housing" and "Affordable Housing" are interchangeable in the document. Ms. Wood indicated that was not the intent and she would look into it. Once we get the Lower Bayview project done we will be focusing on a family project, which is also the message from HCD. Mr. Lugar asked about the in -lieu fees paid by the Cannery Lofts project. Ms. Temple pointed out that the project was designed as individual lots, each building will house one commercial and one residential unit, so in -lieu fees seemed to make sense with this project. Ms. Wood added that because this development is in the coastal zone, we had the developer do an economic feasibility study which showed affordable housing was not feasible because of • the very high property value. Ms. Boice asked about the Domingo Drive apartments and whether the affordability will be extended beyond 2005. Ms. Wood indicated that unless the owner agrees to extend it, the covenant expires and the City has no authority to force its continuance. Ms. Gardner asked about Page 52 where it refers to buildings higher than three stories. Ms. Wood indicated the point we were making is that for Newport Beach higher density, which often means going up, doesn't necessarily make for greater affordability like it does in other communities. Mr. Johnson asked if the word was out about the Lower Bayview project or if it was being quietly marketed locally. Ms. Wood explained that the word was probably out and by law you can't restrict those units to people who already live here, although the developer has indicated they will focus marketing efforts in Newport Beach to draw the greatest pool of applicants from this area. Ms. Jansma asked if the view would be blocked with the Lower Bayview project. Ms. Wood pointed out that the housing project and view park would be done simultaneously and the view will actually improve after the projects are complete. C: Fi Ms. Boice asked about Appendix 2, and wanted to know why the Assistance • League of Newport -Mesa was not listed. Ms. Wood said we didn't know about it and asked Ms. Boice to provide some information to Tamara so it can be added. Ms. Greeley asked for a revision of the zoning for Banning Ranch, she feels it is out of date. Ms. Wood said this was a little premature at this time. Banning Ranch will be discussed during the upcoming studies, as well as when we get into alternative land use scenarios. Ms. Temple pointed out that language recommended by GPAC is being forwarded to the LCP Committee regarding Banning Ranch. Phillip Bettencourt asked to go on record that he would not be a participant in any action this Committee may take on the Banning Ranch due to his professional relationships. IV. Public Comments Allan Beek stated he thought the focus is wrongly being placed on supplying housing instead of population control. He feels a requirement for the affordable housing units should be employment in Newport Beach instead of only income level. 7 13 • HOUSING ELEMENT LAW HISTORY ■ Housing Elements have been required since General Plans were mandated. (1937) ■ 1967— State specifically required separate Housing Elements but only had informal review of informal guidelines. ■ 1975 - HCD was granted authority to review/comment, formally adopts guidelines. ■ 1980— State started mandating adoption of guidelines which makes them statutory requirements. (cont.) Fundamental Basic Requirements of HE Law i. HE's are subject to detailed statutory requirements regarding content. x. Must be updated every five years. 3. Subject to mandatory review (and certification) by State HCD. WHAT IS A HOUSING ELEMENT? "A comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community. It includes policies for providing adequate housing and action programs that set forth specific methods for achieving State Housing goals." HISTORY (CONT.) ■ 1991— Provision that HCD review was advisory was eliminated. ■ Today - All local governments are required to revise their housing elements pursuant to HCD review of the draft element or to adopt specified findings responding to HCD's review. State Housing Goals 1.Availability of housing is of vital statewide importance. Early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest order. 10 • • State Housing Goals (cont.) 2. Early attainment of this goal requires cooperative participation of government with the private sector to expand housing opportunities and accommodate housing needs of Californians of all economic levels. State Housing Goals (cont.) 5. The Legislature recognizes, in carrying out this responsibility, that each local government must consider and balance the need for housing with other goals in its general plan. Specific Requirements of Housing Element Law t. Quantify the projected housing needs. Cities must plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs including their share of the regional housing need (RHNA). State Housing Goals (cont.) 3. Provision of housing affordable to low -and moderate -income households requires cooperation among all levels of government. 4. Local and State governments have a responsibility to use powers vested in them to facilitate improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for housing needs for all income levels. State Housing Goals (cont.) 6. Cities must cooperate with other local governments and the State in addressing regional housing needs. What ate heck is a RHNA777 Regional Housing NeedAssessnieut: the projected housing need for the planning period for a specific community. To accommodate the RENA, the element must demonstrate site development capacity equivalent to, or exceeding the projected housing need, and to facilitate development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels 2 It • How is RHNA Determined? a) Iterative process conducted among state, regional, and local levels of government driven primarily by population projections. b) Dept. of Finance (DOF) prepares population projections by county, including current population statistics, households and housing units. c) Population projections are prepared using demographic methodology of cohort survival and net migration. RHNA (cont.) t) In consultation with the COG and DOF, HCD distributes RHNA's back to COG, COG distributes to cities. g) RHNA's are created by analyzing regional population and economic models as well as adjusting for market demand, commuting patterns, site and public facility availability and (rousing type and tenure. Back to Specific Requirements (Cont.) 1. Quanta the projected housing needs (RHNA). 2. Review and Revise the previour 8leuteut for: a) Effectiveness of the Element. Cities must review the results of the previous element's goals, objectives, and programs. b) Progress in implementation. Cities must compare what was projected or planned in the previous element to what was actually achieved. RHNA (cont.) Household projections are prepared using "headship rates" (historical rates of household formation relative to age and ethnic composition of the population) along with adjustments for existing housing stock conditions. The housing need is then allocated by income category pursuant to the state income limits. RHNA (still) h) Cities have 90 days to request revision to the RHNA. > COG may revise the allocation based on acceptance by HCD. p HCD must approve any reductions in RHNA's. q RHNA must then be adopted in the HE as quantified objectives. Specific Requirements (cont.) c) Appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies. Cities must describe how the goals, objectives, and programs in the updated element have been changed to incorporate what has been leamed from the results of the previous element. ti- • • Specific Requirements (cont.) 3. Public Participation. Cities must describe how the jurisdiction made a diligent effort to achieve public participation from all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element. Specific Requirements (cont.) e) an analysis of assisted housing development at -risk of converting to market rate uses. Housing Program (cont.) b) Assist in development of housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate income households. c) Address, and where possible, remove governmental constraints on the development, maintenance and improvement of housing. The program shall also remove constraints or provide reasonable accommodation for housing for persons with disabilities Specific Requirements (Cont.) 4. Assessment of Needs. Assess housing needs and analyze resources and constraints, including: a) an analysis ofpopulation, household characteristics and needs b) governmental and non -governmental constraints c) an analysis of special housing needs d) an analysis of energy conservation opportunities Specific Requirements (Cont.) 5. Housing Plan. Establish a housing program that sets forth a five-year schedule of actions to achieve the goals and objectives of the element (pages 66 — 78). The Program should: a) Identify adequate sites wig) appropriate zoning, development standards and public facilities that encourage and facilitate a variety of housing types for all income levels of the local share of regional housing needs, including multi -family rental, factory -built housing, emergency shelters and transitional housing. Housing Program (cont.) d) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock. e) Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons. t) Preserve for lower -income households the assisted housing developments at risk for conversion to market rate uses. Ld • L Specific Requirements (cont.) 6. Quantify objectives by mcorne level. Quantify needs for the construction, rehabilitation and conservation of housing. 7. Newport Beach RHNA's: Total1,421 86 very —low income 148 low income 83 moderate income 1,104 above -moderate income Specific Requirements (cont.) 8. City is required to distribute copies of the adopted housing element to area water and sewer providers. This is to ensure area providers provide a priority to proposed housing development projects for lower - income households. Focus of Newport Beach Program (cont.) 3) Discuss the extension of affordability covenants with owners of existing affordable apartments. 4) Offer incentives to developers of affordable housing, including density bonuses, fee waivers, expedited permit processing and the use of in -lieu fees. 5) Participate with regional agencies (Orange County) to develop affordable housing programs, including a joint powers agreement for a lease/purchase program, on a regional basis. Specific Requirements (cont.) 7. Demonstrate means to achieve internal consistency with other General Plan Elements (including an analysis of housing in the Coastal Zone). Focus of Newport Beach Housing Programs q Actively encourage the development of 3 identified affordable housing sites (Banning Ranch, MacArthur/Avocado, Bayview Landing) and assist developers with the removal of site constraints. 2) Continue to research sites and developments that could include affordable housing, including Newport Coast and other annexation areas and infill and redevelopment opportunities. Consequences of Non - Compliance ■ Vulnerability to litigation, challenging the adequacy of the entire General Plan. ■ A city is not eligible for State funding for housing assistance/programs if HE is non- compliant. ti Housing Element and the General Plan Update t. Perfect opportunity to evaluate new housing opportunities, programs, and policies 2. Consider changing land use designations 3. Consider new sites a. Consider potential in newly annexed areas THE END • • NEXT STEPS ■ Planning Commission (July 17, 2003) ■ City Council review and adoption ■ Re -submit to HCD ■ Implementation 0 1S li • • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, July 7, 2003 Roger Alford Patrick Bartolic Phillip Bettencourt 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 Marie Marston Catherine O'Hara G � � 1 Carl Ossipoff • Charles Remley Larry Root John Saunders James Schmiesing Ed Siebel L • GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE Monday, July 7, 2003 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS 6 lay o/t�a-Zw���p���� Soo ��j NQ ✓�i GENERAL PLAN AIMSORY COMMITTEE Monday, July 7, 2003 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS t .� GENERAL PLAN AIASORY COMMITTEE Monday, July 7, 2003 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS 0 Memo to GPAC THE ROLE AND FISCAL EFFECTS OF MARINE USES IN THE GP UPDATE DATE: July 7, 2003 TO: GPAC Members, City Staff, City GP Update Consultants (FYI) FROM: John Corrough, GPAC Member (Harbor & Marine Uses) SUBJECT: NB General Plan Update Fiscal Impact Analysis/Model (draft) Coverage of Marine Uses and Activities This memo is an FYI-for-GPAC-members-copy of an earlier informational and opinion memo which I wrote for and circulated to the Newport Beach Harbor Commission in June, covering my review and comments of the Draft GP Fiscal Impact Analysis which had been presented to and progress - reviewed by the GPAC at its May meeting. The Harbor Commission, as well as its predecessor Harbor Committee, had expressed great interest and concern in the economic role of marine uses and the harbor, so I thought it would be helpful to bring the HC and Harbor Resources Staff up to date on this area of the GP update process, so far. GPAC members -Please read and comment -you may find it interesting in terms of the important economic role that this modest (and at -risk) grouping of marine uses play in the overall "economic engine" of Newport Beach. (My comments (italicized) are solely mine and not intended to represent positions of the Harbor Commission, GPAC or any other group.) The GPAC Process Attached, for your information, are text sections, charts, tables of potential interest to the HC, HRD Staff and marine industry in general, focused on Marine Uses, which I have excerpted from the Draft NB General Plan Update Fiscal Impact Analysis/Model which was presented to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) on Monday night, May 12'. (This is a public document) • (Page numbers referred to below are those found at the bottom of the Draft pages, not their page sequence in this excerpt package). My own "editorial" comments are in italics. .At this preliminary point in the GP update process, the consultant and City staff have been trying to define the relative City costs and revenues generated by the various major land use categories in the GP (see page 4) in terms of the current state of the existing GP (2002/03) (Table 13-Pages 24 &25) , and the potential "buildout" enabled by the existing GP (est 2025) without any changes. (Table 20-Pages 43&44) These are considered as Baseline assumptions for the GP, against which other GP concepts which may suggest various land use changes (or not) would be measured as to fiscal "success" or infeasibility/unacceptability. As alternative General Plan concepts/scenarios are developed over the next 12-18 months of the GP process, we can then track Marine Uses (and all other uses) in terms of changes in size/location/type and in City costs vs revenues, as well as by other measures. The General Plan Update Fiscal Analysis Key Points on Marine Uses (to date-5/ 03) The key points related to Marine Uses at this preliminary point in this fiscal analysis are: 1. Boat and Marine Equipment Sales Tax Revenues represent 5% of the total sales tax revenues generated by all of the land use categories, placing Marine Uses in 4s' place in the 9 categories, ahead of light industrial and hotels.(p22-Fig 1) 2. Marine Uses Gross Revenues are also 5% of gross revenues , tied for 5' with public uses , and behind lodging, but still ahead of light industrial and service • commercial, etc. (p22-Fig 2) 3. Summary of Fiscal Analysis (Existing GP Land Use Development) (Table 13- pp24&25) shows Marine Uses in 5t' place, contributing an estimated/ allocated $4.6 million of City Revenues, and in 7`s place in terms of City Expenditures at $1.9 million, with a net positive balance to the City of $2.67 million, putting it in Yd place in this category, behind Lodging (1a10 ) and Retail (T ). This is significant in illustrating the importance of Marine Uses to the City and its citizensltaxpayers, since it is one of the main positive -balance uses offsetting the negative -balance Residential, Office, Industrial and Public uses, and enabling the City to show a modest positive balance overall. 4. Marine Industry Characteristics & Trends (Existing) summarized on pages 31 and 32, "...account for over 1000 jobs and generate nearly $2.7 million in net revenues." This summary accurately describes the steadily -evolving reduction, in numbers of NB Marine Industry uses and their total revenues, as well as leakage to other market locations resulting from general marine industry attrition, consolidation, environmental regulation, and increasing land and operations costs. The implications of the loss to the City of significant positive net revenues by further unchecked shrinkage and leakage of Marine Uses is noted. Finally, the (seeming) inability of the NB Marine Uses to hold position or expand/diversify in Newport Beach in the face of these larger forces is noted. The potential cooperative roles of private and public sector in creative solutions • to these problems and arresting the trend of decline are also noted in the summary. (This analysis, however, may understate the sources and amounts of "Marine Industry" revenues potentially ascribable to this category, and needs to be • queried as to the comprehensiveness of its uses subcategories, as well as revenue sources, which will be done to subsequent GPAC discussions) (I have suggested to the City/Consultant at the GPAC meeting that their analysis of potential solutions needs to be extended to the water areas of the City and to recommended publiclprivate partnerships to conserve key waterfront locations, uses, achieve access, create secondary economic benefits, etc. Other ideas from HC members and HRD Staff are needed and I will be happy to communicate them to the GPAC process.) 5. General Plan Buildout (pp 41&42) indicates projected growth by 2025 in all land use categories and in visitor levels, except for Marine Uses. The -summary states: "We have not assumed, however, a commensurate increase in the marine industry or the number of boats moored in Newport Harbor. The general plan buildout projection does not include additional marina berths, and as discussed earlier, some elements of the marine industry are under pressure from rising real estate prices and may not be able to expand readily in Newport Beach." This would appear to present the City with a challenge- how much attrition of this important positive net revenue land use category and its secondary economic benefits, as well as its image value, is going to be allowed through inaction or missed opportunities before it becomes a negative $ use? Clearly, the GP update process needs to include creative solutions to this problem, and I feel that the Harbor Commission should be the source of some of these. 6. Summary of Fiscal Analysis (GP Buildout Land Use Developmenf-2025) '(Table 20-pp43&44) shows Marine Uses slipping to 6"' place, with an estimated • $4.9 million in City Revenues, (only $0.3 million increase in 22 years?!) and holding in 7"` place in terms of City Expenditures at $1.9 million, (no change in 22 years?I) with a net positive balance to the City of approximately $3 million, holding it in 3' place in this category, behind Lodging (l') and Retail (2"d). (At nearly $3 million, it is about 507o greater as a positive cash flow land use category than the total projected net positive revenues to the City of all land uses , totaling about $2.14 million.) A Final Observation/ Suggested Alternative Approach This projection for Marine Uses, as noted in point #5 above, assumes essentially a "hold -the -Tine" position for Marine Uses in the community of Newport Beach over the next 22 years, which I believe to be unrealistic, based upon my experience with Newport Beach and similar waterfront communities. I believe that two alternative scenarios/choices exist for Newport Beach marine uses: 1. Either there will be a significant, potentially catastrophic decline in the role of marine industry uses as an economic engine", employment generator, and image maker in Newport Beach over the next two decades through complacency and inaction. • 3 2. or there will be a diversification and expansion of marine industry and related • water -dependent /uses, types, locations, and primary and secondary economic, people and image benefits. The -first option should be unaccgptable to the Newport Beach communitu.- It should also be achieved by community action, achieving public needs and market - and -City -driven implementation potentials, using the already -developed "shoulders" of the Harbor and Bay Element, other elements of a newly -adopted General Plan, the to -be - adopted LCP as the general direction and incentives. Further, the vaunted private entrepreneurship by which NB has historically defined itself -this time with cooperative efforts and private-public.partnerships, should cooperate to achieve this around the waterfront, making the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Clearly, there are opportunities to achieve both economic/fiscal success and a host of other public values and needs implicit in the GP (the Harbor & Bay Element in particular) if an aggressively proactive approach is taken to the role of Marine Uses in the future GP, rather than simply accepting the assumptions of a passive, hold -the -line approach for these uses as assumed in the • preliminary GP fiscal analysis so far. A Harbor -Specific Plan is Needed Now Unfortunately, neither the generalized policy and comprehensive nature of an updated, adopted General Plan nor the many specific but uncoordinated individual plans of the private sector and City for the many separate. private and public pieces of the water's edge and water will provide a comprehensive look at how it could/ should all "go together". Newport Beach needs such a "how the parts can be assembled" plan with a comprehensive, intermediate -detail vision of what the harbor could/should be in 20 years, whether a Harbor Area Specific Plan or some other form of plan at this level, coordinated with the General Plan UpdatelAdoption and LCP ApprovallAdoption processes. The absence of such a plan will result in the continued proposal of, and potential implementation of, piecemeal waterfront developments, both private and public, without any interim detailed guiding concept( other than the existing GP and zoning), during the next two or more years as the General Plan and LCP become finalized and adopted realities. Many private and public projects are lined up at the door, with more to come. • Even after the adoption of the GP and LCP, a more detailed vision of the future harbor is needed to inform waterfront residential and commercial property A owners, public decision -makers, the development community and the public at • large of how it might all work together in terms of waterfront uses, water -based transportation, public waterfront areas, and in -water harbor uses and activity areas. The Harbor Commission, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, City Council, C of C Marine Committee, NB marine industries, and private sector landowners and developers need a "20-Year Harbor Area Specific Plan" or similar document. With such a guide in hand, coordinated waterfront plans and implementation actions consistent with the LCP and GP could be undertaken in parallel with the completion and adoption of .the LCP and General Plan, with some direction and assuredness of compatibility and conformance with these policy plans, related to the harbor. Such a plan could be developed largely as a pro-bono effort, with as -needed City staff assistance and with partial/minimal funding for outside consultants. This would be an excellent opportunity for joint City/private-sector funding of an effort of interest to both. rIL n n LJ r� U O��EWppR e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u r GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, July 7, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Nancy Gardner Charles Remley Phillip Bettencourt Louise Greeley Larry Root Carol Boice Bob Hendrickson John Saunders Karlene Bradley Mike Ishikawa Ed Siebel Gus Chabre Lucille Kuehn Jan Vandersloot John Corrough Phillip Lugar Jennifer Wesoloski Laura Dietz Marie Marston Ron Yeo Grace Dove Catherine O'Hara Florence Felton Carl Ossipoff Members Absent: Patrick Bartolic Mike Johnson Donald Krotee Ernest Hatchell Alex Kakavas James Schmiesing Tom Hyans Bill Kelly Jackie Sukiasian Kim Jansma Todd Knipp Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Members of the Public Present: Everette Phillips Marice White Tom Webber I. Call to Order Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order. Ms. Gardner pointed out that it has been difficult to get a quorum the last couple meetings and reminded everyone • to advise staff in advance if you cannot attend a meeting. II. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the June 23, 2003 meeting were approved as submitted. III. Discussion of the Biological Resources Report Patrick Alford reviewed a Power Point presentation outlining the Biological Resources Report. The presentation is attached. During and after the presentation the following questions were raised. Gus Chabre pointed out the report shows eelgrass throughout the lower bay, and because it seems to be so pervasive are mitigation measures necessary? He felt that if we are unable to dredge the harbor and bay areas it will have an economic impact on the City; the harbor and bay need to be maintained for boating and recreation. Woodie Tescher pointed out that the jurisdiction may not be with the City, it may be State or Federal regulations. Jan Vandersloot asked why we provide this data, instead of waiting for the government imposing the regulation to ask for the information. Mr. Tescher pointed out that data collection is required by law during the General Plan update process. Mr. Vandersloot then asked how the consultants had arrived at 19 habitats and • pointed out that the west side of Cliff Drive Park was not included. Sharon Wood asked everyone to point out areas they feel are missing or incorrect in the report. Mr. Chabre brought up the difficulty Linda Isle is having obtaining a dredging permit because of the eelgrass. Ms. Gardner asked how we balance all the elements (i.e. environmental vs. economic issues). Mr. Tescher explained that during the policy phase this group will have discussions regarding resources and impacts, and will have to determine what options/trade-offs the community is willing to live with on any issues that may be conflicting. John Corrough pointed out that many of the concerns regarding dredging and eelgrass are addressed in the Harbor and Bay Element of the current General Plan. John Saunders feels that different biologists would report different things and because these studies influence policy, we need to be careful who is selected to do the studies and what they report. Karlene Bradley pointed out that we should not be considering changing or editing the information provided in the reports. Phil Bettencourt pointed out that the characterization of the Banning Ranch property is too broad, it doesn't mention the wells, roads, pump stations, etc. that exist on the property. Charles Remley said Los Trancos has the same problem; the report fails to mention the bike and hiking trails that have degraded the area. Mr. Remley also asked where he could find the Army Corps of Engineers maps referred to on Page 5-3, Section 1, Subsection D. Mr. Corrough indicated the maps can be found at Harbor Resources. Mr. Chabre felt the language on Page 5.4 "5. The following mitigation measures shall be required..." is too strong. Ms. is Wood pointed out that these are "recommended" policies, the City can choose to 7 use them or not. Ms. Bradley questioned whether the members of the • committee were qualified to judge the studies. Ms. Gardner pointed out that reviewing data is one of the committee's roles in the process. Mr. Corrough said he had shared the studies with a couple marine biologists who felt the document contained too many open, sweeping statements with generalized maps, which seem more "boiler plate" instead of accurate research. After hearing these issues, Ms. Wood asked Mr. Tescher to have someone at his firm assist with.a peer review of the documents. She asked the committee members to submit their comments in writing which will assist with the review. Mr. Saunders suggested getting more than one peer review to balance the findings. Mr. Bettencourt agreed that a peer review was a good idea, however added that it is still our responsibility to comment on the documents. Marie Marston pointed out that the graphics in the documents were difficult to read. Lucille Kuehn felt that one of the functions of this committee was to seek balance when reviewing material presented. She also pointed out that coastal sage was probably found in most of the City before it was developed, so why is it important to preserve it now. Carol Boice asked that if an area is identified as environmentally sensitive, does that mean that no development will be allowed. Mr. Hendrickson suggested someone needs to review the maps closely for accuracy, he noted that an area of Bonita Canyon Park should have been • included as a habitat area. Mike Ishikawa pointed out the human factor seems to be missing, people have needs that need to be considered also. Laura Dietz asked why Morning Canyon was only mentioned on one document. Catherine O'Hara felt the documents should have provided information regarding the environmental laws, which would help the group determine what is required as well as areas where there is more leeway allowed. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that only half of the area behind the Central Library is listed in the document; it should list the entire property. Mr. Corrough asked Mr. Tescher about the procedure in the next phase of the process. Mr. Tescher indicated that it had been decided in preliminary discussions that position papers will be prepared which will provide the group with all the information necessary to help formulate policies. Ms. Gardner asked the group to provide comments about these studies to Patrick no later than July 14th; the comments will be forwarded along with the studies for the peer review. IV. Future Meeting Schedule Ms. Wood referred to the Revised Schedule handout and told the group that we will be taking some time off during the summer/vacation months. The July 22"d, • August 11th and August 25th meetings are cancelled. In addition, we will only be 3 meeting once in September (8t" or 22°d) and once in October (13th or 27t''). The group was asked to check their calendars and let Debbie know which dates work best by July 14th. Ms. Wood indicated that future agendas will include readdressing the biological studies as well as another technical report on hazards. Mr. Alford also answered questions regarding the LCP certification process. Ms. Wood added that we are only working to get approval of the Land Use Plan, the Implementation Plan will have to go through the same process for certification. V. Public Comments No comments offered. • • 2