Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2003_10_13*NEW FILE* GPAC_2003_10_13- E EWPO�, � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Cq�/FOR�`4' AGENDA October 13, 2003 7:00-9:00 p.m. 7:00 I. Call to Order Police Department Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive 7:05 II. Approval of Minutes September 8, 2003 7:15 III. Presentation on Development Review Process for Bolsa Chica Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner City of Huntington Beach 8:35 IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items 8:45 V. Public Comments • U CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, September 8, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Bob Hendrickson Carl Ossipoff Patrick Bartolic Tom Hyans Larry Root Carol Boice Kim Jansma John Saunders John Corrough Bill Kelly Jackie Sukiasian Grace Dove Lucille Kuehn Jan Vandersloot Florence Felton Phillip Lugar Tom Webber Nancy Gardner Marie Marston Ron Yeo Louise Greeley Peter Oeth Ernest Hatchell Catherine O'Hara Members Absent: Phillip Bettencourt Mike Ishikawa Charles Remley Karlene Bradley Mike Johnson James Schmiesing Gus Chabre Todd Knipp Ed Siebel Laura Dietz Donald Krotee Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Members of the Public Present: Joe Gleason I. Call to Order Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. Bob Hendrickson had a comment regarding the maps provided with the Biological Resources Report which was presented at the July 7t' meeting. He felt they were difficult to read and thought 3 aerial photographs should be provided to show the surrounding area land uses. • He added that the maps in the presentation were not provided to the group and asked that new maps be distributed. Mr. Lugar reminded everyone that this report was undergoing a peer review and he expected the maps to be distributed after that review. Sharon Wood confirmed that more meaningful maps could be produced when the report comes back to the committee. II. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the July 7, 2003 meeting were approved as submitted. III. Discussion of the Hazards Assessment Study Patrick Alford reviewed a PowerPoint presentation outlining the Hazards Assessment Study. The presentation is attached. During and after the presentation the following questions/issues were raised. Patrick pointed out that the Executive Summary provided in the agenda packets was provided to the committee because the full study would have been too costly to reproduce, however members were invited to borrow a hard copy or CD to review the entire report. He added that this is a technical document and not a • policy document, the information collected in this report will be used by staff and this committee to assist when determining policy for the General Plan. John Saunders commented that the information in technical documents could add constraints to policy, so we need to review the technical studies carefully. Tom Webber asked about the Tsunami inundation maps and how deep the water would be in the different areas. Ron Yeo added that the map does indicate an inundation elevation of 7.47 feet which might give an indication of how deep the water would be. Nancy Gardner asked about the number of buildings in the city after hearing estimates on damaged buildings after an earthquake. Ms. Wood estimated 41,000 residential structures. Lucille Kuehn asked about reviewing the Open Space element to allow more fire resistant plants (replacing coastal sage & tall grasses) in these areas to help mitigate the fire hazard. Jan Vandersloot pointed out the Orange County Fire Authority has developed a list of plants more resistive to fire. Mr. Saunders asked if we should create a policy statement encouraging the replacement of older buildings due to the fire and earthquake hazards. John Corrough pointed out the Harbor Commission had learned there has been quite a bit of cross • training between the water- and land -borne firefighting, which is a great 2 resource when the fire is either on the waterfront or access is difficult due to • damage or traffic issues. Bob Hendrickson asked about the location of the superfund sites. He also asked if there was a report showing how Newport Beach's drinking water quality compares to other cities and/or state and federal guidelines. Ms. Wood thought the City's Utilities Department produced a report regarding drinking water quality annually. Patrick Bartolic also asked about the location of the superfund sites. Mr. Alford indicated the locations could be found in the full report. Mr. Corrough pointed out the Chapter 7 subheading of Pacific Ocean talks more about the PCH Bridge instead of the ocean. He also acknowledged that the revised version of the executive summary was an improvement over the earlier version, however the examples provided in the aviation section had nothing to do with Newport Beach. Carol Boice felt Corona del Mar High School and the new school on Vista del Oro needed to. be added under Schools. Mr. Hendrickson felt the report lacked historical information for the hazards and thought the information would be important to take into consideration when determining future General Plan policies. Catherine O'Hara asked if the editorializing found, in the executive summary was also in the full report, and if so, would that language be cleaned up? She felt it takes away from the professional quality of the document. Ms. Wood acknowledged that some of the • descriptions could be changed, however the information in the report is technically correct and it would not be worth paying extra for staff or the consultant to go through the document again. Mr. Corrough agreed with Ms. O'Hara and is concerned that because as a public document, someone could sensationalize bits of the report by pulling out sound bites instead of reading the complete report. However, he indicated if staff was satisfied with the report he was okay with it also. Carl Ossipoff asked if there was a previous hazardous assessment study to determine if the hazards are increasing or decreasing. Mr. Alford did not believe there had been a previous report that went into as much detail on hazards as this report. Kim 7ansma felt the report covered hazards that may or may not occur, however did not cover the erosion problems we are currently experiencing. Mr. Ossipoff asked if the erosion problems were being exacerbated by the structures in the areas and if current regulations would allow those buildings to be built today in the same locations? Mr. Alford pointed out that current setbacks do protect the bluff areas in the planned community developments. Ms. Wood added that the issue of protecting our coastal bluffs was discussed during the visioning process and it is an issue that can be addressed during policy development. Grace Dove asked if sediments in the bottom of the bay were listed under the • hazardous materials section of the report. Mr. Alford thought this issue was included under the "water quality" section of the report. Ron Yeo recommended 5 committee members look at the full report; it includes some very interesting • information. Mr. Saunders felt there should be a hazard regarding the possibility of a terrorist attack in Newport Beach or at San Onofre which could affect the City. Mr. Alford indicated that "public enemy" is an unknown factor and the question is if we want to address scenarios in this document which would outline potential weaknesses in the City. Ms. Wood did not see the need to include this issue for general plan purposes. Mr. Webber commented that the consultants who write these studies/reports are in a better position to recommend mitigation measures for all the hazards and should present them with the studies. Lucille Kuehn asked if global warming should be considered as part of the hazards report. Mr. Lugar asked if a copy of this report could be put at the main library for the public. Ms. Wood agreed to put a copy at the library as a reference document. At the end of the presentation/discussion, Ms. Wood discussed the future agendas for the committee. For the next meeting, staff is trying to arrange for a guest speaker to discuss how other cities are dealing with similar issues. In November, staff will return to the Committee with additional information on traffic issues, and then Woodie Tescher will lead a discussion regarding guiding • principles for the General Plan process. Also in November, EIP may be ready to present the peer review on the biological report. After a break for the holidays the Committee will be asked to review issue papers by working in subcommittees to determine what alternatives should be looked at using the traffic and fiscal impact models. IV. Public Comments No comments offered. M a n U n u 118 State Law Requires General Plans To Include A Safety Element Government Code Section 65302 (g) A safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction and other seismic hazards... and other geologic hazards known to the ,legislative body; flooding; and wild land and urban fires. The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards. Section 65302 (G) of the Government Code Unreasonable risks associated with: Seismic hazards - surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure Coastal hazrds — tsunami, seiche Geologic —slope instability, subsidence, liquefaction Flooding Wild land and urban fires 2 B Coastal ■ Tsunamis ■ Rouge Waves ■ Storm Serge ■ Seiches ■ Hurricanes and Tropical Storms ■ Sea -level Rise ■ Erosion • Tsunamis — 3 scenarios (mean, high, extreme sea levels) Rouge Waves — sources not clearly known, but may occurred Storm Serge — abnormal water level rise due wind or storms Seiches — wave oscillation in enclosed basin (ANALOGY) Hurricanes/Trop Storm — Don't come up here (1939) Sea -level Rise — No immediate threat, but should consider Erosion — Beaches and coastal bluffs 0 3 J a, , . • Y •, .-' �tt.�'�•r Y',�;a' �, ' •. Scenario 2: Tsunami Inundation ` 1 at Mean Higher f`_ '•'P`:'r /'�;r �'I HlghWater y's .•I /� �,._+�� :Y _ •' L`t: �Yr. NewPa4 each, GIIfoMa �r���� ){� ' iMynINgYJxalf V •%Yxt � � � wv»�a.¢Iwa.OarwJ ,,iyl ��, � t i. \. ', ' t ♦• �t ' ••' , •� �„ i x.. t 1 i" ~ YFV r `•.� �•� YN•gIMIMOYMnMY ''yy i. ""1j, �t xulvlr.WJm N•Yd[tlw11WN rA4a[SpHw.65 W NnOC.Ur. .. U I uMM \�. r ... . r r aY . I i a �IWuaa01>nnpFww ✓, "l w � «w.'n...•'.N.",:•.�..+. �,.r"'..•r' •._ a oi.�Wu....wn a ��• . Y .,a% Low lying areas of the Peninsula Balboa Island Bay Island Newport Island Bayshores Mariner's Mile Newport Shores Low probability, but high -risk event Inundation maps Education Response plans V, ti,�` . �,� '! • ' f' ' ',r" "•+'E;'- Coastal Erosion Hazard Map Ncwpvrt Beach, CYllfornia Cx IOC a:�`�."a",wa""'"..� ra �,� _ ',^ i''''` �'� �. � '��+! .. Y' / n r... •• � 1MY � .w �yp.�uyM4elWi Beaches, process of erosion and replenishment, augmented by man-made protective devices and sand nourishment. Siltstone member of the Monterey Formation is very fissile and fractured and sliding and slumping is the primary mechanism for bluff retreat. - Pleistocene marine deposits prone to rilling and gullying along the blufftops. Sandstone member of the Monterey Formation in the CdM is prone to landslides and mass wasting when undercut by wave action. 0 Seismic ■ 'Fault Rupture ■ Liquefaction/Ground Failure ■ Seismically -induced Settlement ■ Slope Failure ■ Structural Vulnerability • No comments • ki 7.1 Magnitude Quake On SJH Fault ■ 23,720 buildings damaged ■ 445 to 2,292 injuries ■ 17 to 152 fatalities ■ $1,513 million in property damage ■ $568 million in business losses ■ 2,159 displaced households • HAZUS-99 methodology to create loss estimates San Joaquin Hills blind thrust was only discovered in the late 1990s. Due to its blind thrust geometry and location has the potential to be more damaging to Newport Beach than rupture of the Newport -Inglewood fault. Ranges are based on time of day (2 a.m./2 p.m./5:00 p.m.) VA J3 I �J Geologic r Landslides and Slope Instability ■ Liquefaction/Ground Failure ■ Compressible Soils ■ Expansive Soils n LJ No comments • •1i', .'°.�'. �. ' �i:"v° ryj. � �;____.._ Engineering Materials Map s ,. - . �, � ' : � .i"r .: f, • _.,..=r..� `-^ N�wpttt Beach. Cdifsrnia rj V n�+.: r � � j.l �3 • i ti'�.. .A ` i 5nM1•t bfdl `\ Ayr Yw�W.IWyWYi,NWVYUI �_MfA� W LnIn4..RYw�Y. IfON !` : mM.ntt rwrc a.z Landslides and slope instability — SJH area, coastal bluffs, canyons, (GREEN & RED) Liquefaction — Peninsula, islands, Bayshores, Newport Dunes (YELLOWS) Compressible Soils — Beach areas, dune deposits, canyon bottoms and bases on natural slopes (DARK YELLOW) Expansive Soils — Most of Newport Mesa and CdM (low to moderately low). 0 • Flooding ■ Storms -induced ■ Dam Failure • No comments • 10 tL r Flood Zones Map Newpaa Bench, Collf roia cw AUM ` � awmraeellv.amaww.+.a q,ms. ro+ w�en�iaau:riuww w.nww,ww�Wwv •. �dyiwma�O�hMw11wr10b \ w.e+n«nc.rowe+r 1,r���•� m.wtnv. i`��H St.4.lu01to • 11 Flood Zones Map Newpaa Bench, Collf roia cw AUM ` � awmraeellv.amaww.+.a q,ms. ro+ w�en�iaau:riuww w.nww,ww�Wwv •. �dyiwma�O�hMw11wr10b \ w.e+n«nc.rowe+r 1,r���•� m.wtnv. i`��H St.4.lu01to • 11 • 14 u ` ' .I ; .r v Dam Failure Inundation Map .. i. f u� � ExeuwsoN • wN...l.r.. I \f i �` +�js, �r r �•'a `..,�4� \ I V a \. � I •3 �bv.w Mwl M1rn .I Y �.IIM� • J � WI°i'rN.n •\` = 1 (J J , M91P INL 1tlNtlaY./m(MW� lowrCMMYyO}Y!n�Mtwonv[i/nQs� • •, «—• '^ Plate 4-3 Prado Dam — PINK DOTS • Villa Park Reservoir - BROWN HATCHES Big Canyon Reservoir - PURPLE STRIPS • 12 Fire ■ Wildland ■ Structural • 0 13 kq .,p,..; ,1,-'a•.+-;:; : �' >At$re••�,:, r. i -'�, �.,.,,,� • , y i Wildfire k iFy z �' � � ' "' • • � -_ • %-'Sw.`y,� � - Susceptibility II 't �ry•ji.;.;.5.`,' ;,..' .'{ +'� Map w � h'Pyotrn• +(+: 1 • . ' � pro• .� TI..°';:«..• • <v "4r•.�!:�X!',a.-1 \• , n..vnemroawun \` • I }� F: �'t� 1, , � \ _ ,\ J. .i� � , , a»uruaerywymw•.•no-wua .� �.aoru w.m. •uew � , . fwiM PID.M M•pvmMnY.M \ /}. plot. 8-2 Eastern portion of the City is most susceptible to damage from wildland fire due to vegetation, topography, and coastal breezes or Santa Ana winds. Hazard reduction and fuel modification are the two methods that are used to reduce risk of fire at the urban-wildland interface (UWI). Western portion of the City has the greatest risk of structural fires due to number of older buildings and narrow setbacks. Geography (Bay dividing the City) and traffic congestion impede response by Fire personnel. 0 14 IN 0 9 0 r Aviation ■ Balboa Island ■ Upper Newport Bay ■ Other Residential Areas ■ Newport Center ■ Pacific Ocean ■ Schools • Low probability, but high -risk event BI considered a worse -case scenario due to the population density, large number of wood -frame structures, close proximity of buildings and limited access. E 17 s3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION September 10, 2003 Ms. Sharon'Wood, Assistant City Manager CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Wood: The Harbor Commission has reviewed the current (May 2003) draft of the "Fiscal Impact • Analysis & Model -Newport Beach General Plan Update" process prepared by the City's GP update economic consultant, Applied Development Economics, Inc. As a result of this review,(see Summary sections below), the Harbor Commission has identified a number of harbor —related land/water-use, economic and financial factors which it wishes the City, its consultants and GPAC to seriously consider in the continuing input to, and refinement of, the update process. These factors are covered in the "Recommendations" section at the end of this letter. • Summary -Marine Industry Land Use, Economic & Fiscal Characteristics & Trends-2003 As summarized on pages 31 and 32 of the consultant's report, marine uses and the marine industry "...account for over 1000 jobs and generate nearly $2.7 million in net revenues..." to the City of Newport Beach. The report summary accurately describes the steadily -evolving reduction in numbers of Newport Beach 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. 1 The implications of the loss to the City of significant positive net revenues by • further unchecked shrinkage and leakage of Marine Uses is noted in the report and by the Commission. Finally, the (seeming) inability of the Newport Beach Marine Uses to hold position or expand/diversify in Newport Beach in the face of these larger forces is also noted. The potential cooperative roles of private and public sector in creative solutions to these problems and arresting the trend of decline are described in the report summary. Summary- Fiscal Analysis of Existing General Plan Marine Uses-2003 This analysis (Table 13-pp24&25) shows Marine Uses in 5th place (of 9�, contributing an estimated/allocated $4.6 million of City Revenues, and in 7 n 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 3`d place in this category, behind Lodging (1st0) and Retail (2"d) This role of Marine Uses is significant in illustrating their importance to the City and its citizens/taxpayers, since it is one of the very few positive - balance uses offsetting the negative -balance Residential, Office, Industrial and Public uses, and enabling the City to show a modest positive balance overall. • 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 4d' place in the 9 categories , ahead of light industrial and hotels.(p22-Fig 1) Marine Uses Gross Revenues are also 5% of gross City revenues , tied for e with public uses , and behind lodging, but still ahead of light industrial and service commercial, etc. (p22-Fig 2) Summary- Fiscal Analysis of Potential General Plan Marine Uses at GP Buildout - 2025 The projected General Plan Buildout (pp 41&42) indicates growth by 2025 in all land use categories and in visitor levels, except for Marine Uses. The consultants Fiscal Analysis GP Buildout Marine Uses Development Summary -2025 (Table 20-pp43&44) shows Marine Uses slipping to 6tn place, with an estimated $4.9 million in City Revenues, reflecting only $0.3 million increase in 22 years. It shows Marine Uses holding in 7th place in terms of City Expenditures at $1.9 million, also no change in 22 years. Marine Uses although not increasing substantially, retain their net positive balance to the City of approximately $3 million, staying in 3`d place in this category, behind • Lodging (Vt0) and Retail (2"d) 2 • The report 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." Harbor Commission Recommendations Recommendation 1-Analyze Both No -Growth and Growth Alternatives for Marine Uses The current GP update projection for Marine Uses, as noted above, assumes essentially a passive hold -the -line position for Marine Uses in the community of Newport Beach over the next 22 years, which the Harbor Commission believes to be overly conservative and not a reasonable basis for future planning based upon the current experience of Newport Beach and other waterfront/madne industry communities. The Harbor Commission believes scenarios/choices which should be the General Plan Update process, i n A. Passive -No Growth: Experience indicates that a passive, non -proactive approach to a dynamic land use and economic element such as marine uses and related activities would not maintain the status quo, as permitted in the existing General Plan. Rather there would be a significant, potentially catastrophic decline in the role of marine industry uses as a Newport Beach "economic engine", employment and visitor generator, and as an important image maker over the next two decades through complacency and inaction and through market forces. This condition should be unacceptable to the Newport Beach community, but it is important that its negative implications for City fiscal health, overall economics, image and heritage should be fully examined in the General Plan update effort, to serve as a cautionary example of potential decline. The Harbor Commission feels that this issue requires a more comprehensive discussion of the potential negative economic impacts on Newport Beach of a decline in marine uses and revenues, supplementing the existing consultant report text and financial projections, to serve as a cautionary example for City, GPAC and consultant analysis, and to lend perspective to an alternate, preferred approach, described below. B. Proactive -Sustainable Growth: The Harbor Commission and its predecessor Harbor Committee have, over several years, had numerous discussions on the • potential evolution of the existing marine uses and activities, as well as their 3 revenue potentials, on the land and water areas of Newport Harbor. These • discussions, also incorporating the experience of other evolving waterfront communities, project a diversification and consolidation as well as more efficient grouping of the Newport Beach marine uses and related water -dependent activities on both land and water. Numbers, types, locations, and combinations of uses and activities will change and evolve, as will their primary and secondary economic, people, environmental and image benefits. Rather than a "wishful thinking projection this positive evolution of marine uses and activities would be the result of proactive efforts already underway by the Newport Beach private and public sectors to retain and strengthen this important sector of the community. Thus this active and developing trend, rather than a simple projection of existing conditions, should be considered by the General Plan update process. It is the position of the Harbor Commission that the Proactive -Sustainable Growth option for marine uses in Newport Beach needs to be analyzed and discussed in more detail among City Staff, Harbor Commission representatives, GPAC and the City's consultants during the current GP update process. It can then be refined and integrated into a updated General Plan through City, GPAC and consultants as the desirable choice/basis for General Plan policies, objectives and implementation strategies for marine uses, using the already -adopted Harbor and Bay Element, in conjunction with the other elements of a new General Plan. Recommendation 2- Expand Marine Uses SIC/NAICS Categories, Revenue • Sources The Commission feels that the sources and amounts of "Marine Industry" revenues potentially ascribable to this category, need to be reviewed as to the comprehensiveness of its SIC and NAICS subcategories(see attached list), as well as all other related revenue sources, in subsequent GPAC discussions and in GP consultant/staff analysis. Recommendation 3- Add Marine Tourism Uses and Revenue Sources to Marine Uses The Harbor Commission believes that the important existing (and potential) roles of the Marine Uses in the General Plan, and in the economic and fiscal "balance" of uses in the community are not yet fully addressed in the General Plan update process to date, and need to be expanded to encompass all harbor-telated uses, both traditional "marine", as well as marine tourism and water -related uses. Ongoing marine industry data gathering and analysis efforts and results need to be provided to the City, GPAC and consultants for use in this marine tourism analysis. Recommendation 4- Expand Consideration of Tidelands Uses to New Water - Based Uses 0 The Commission feels that the consultant's analysis of potential economic and • fiscal sources and solutions needs to be extended to the water areas of the City. General Plan options with additional implementation recommendations should be considered for City actions and public/private partnerships. These options would conserve key waterfront locations and important marine uses, enhance user -pay public access and uses atton the harbor, sustain and improve the harbor environment, improve harbor operations and sustain and create uses and activities providing secondary economic benefits to the City and harbor. The Harbor Commission sees the potential for a sustained and growing marine user base to contribute needed revenue for dredging and other harbor quality initiatives of the Commission. Absent same, the burden will fall solely upon the waterfront residential users and boaters, or in combination, a further burden on City expenditures. We stand ready to support the ongoing processes by City staff, consultants, and GPAC. Respectfully Submitted, Newport Beach Harbor Commission Timothy C. Collins, Chairman 40 5 Recommendation #2 Attachment isComments/ Questions Related to Marine Land Use Definitions by SIC/NAICS Codes (Appendix A of Fiscal Impact Analysis and Model -Newport Beach General Plan Update) Background The Harbor Commission acknowledges and is pleased that the Fiscal Impact Study consultant has provided a very useful distinction between marine and general land uses by their creation and analysis of a separate category of marine uses in the GP update. In a harbor -based community such as Newport Beach, with numerous marine services, berthing, and water -based tourism and transportation uses which are evolving from a past dominant role, scale and mix to still -important current and future new roles, it is essential to be able to define and measure this change, see important trends and plan the future proactively in documents such as the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, HAMP, etc. It is understood by the Harbor Commission that the Marine Uses data available to the consultant for this study may not have been assembled by, or available from, the data sources in a number of the SIC/NAICS categories and subcategories of "marine uses". It is further understood that data for many specialized land use subcategories may have • been aggregated, either at the sources or by the consultant for simplification purposes, since this is only one of a number of land uses being considered in the broader scope of the overall General Plan Update process. Questions In asking these questions, The Harbor Commission does not propose to extend the scope, timing or cost of the consultant's work or City Staff effort, or to delay the GP update process, but rather to seek clarification on: 1. whether certain general categories of data were computed and analyzed including some key subcategories, 2. if other data sources were consulted to determine revenues and costs and, 3. if allocations of revenues and costs for Tidelands areas were proportionately allocated between the harbor/bay area and the ocean beaches/related areas. Question 1- Comprehensiveness of Categories/Subcategories Data Inclusion a. SIC4493/NAICS713930 Marinas & NAICS713990 Boating Clubs w/o Marinas Do these categories include data on subcategories: Boating Clubs w/Marinas, Sailing Clubs w/Marinas, Yacht Basins, Yacht Clubs w/Marinas, Recreational • Kayaking, Recreational Rowing Clubs, Parasailing, Charter Fishing? • b. SIC 7997/7999 Beaches, Piers, etc. Do these categories include data on subcategories: Bathing Beaches, Beaches, Beach Clubs, Beach Amusement/Recreation Services, Fishing Piers? Question 2 - Inclusion of Other Data Sources Are/where are the revenue and cost sources listed below included in the analysis? It is assumed that some are grouped under Tidelands, others under general retail, etc. Can we get a clarification? If not can these issues/sources be flagged for future consideration and analysis by the City, others? a. Moorings (offshore and shore), including annual and visitor sources, OC costs b. Private piers and docks (presumed estimated thru permits) c. Commercial piers and docks (" 11) d. Public piers, launch ramps, dry storage of vessels e. Beach parking, other water -related uses parking (public, lessees) f. Institutional/non-profit/educational marine uses and activities g. Waterfront/water-related tourism and retail (boat rentals, restaurants, etc.) . Has there been any research into sources of tourism data other than that from the annual NB Visitors Bureau estimates which might be able to define the magnitude of "marine/water-related tourism economic impacts? (universities, private sector?) Are any of the unique* direct and indirect revenues/economic benefits to the community of marine/waterfront land use -based events and activities included? (Christmas Boat Parade; Newport to Ensenada Race; major regional, national, international sailing & rowing regattas; other YC and BBC events; NH Nautical' Museum Events/Tall Ships Visits; OCC Sailing Center events; Scout Sea Base events; NH Aquatic Center events; Backbay Fireworks, other events; In -Water Boat Shows, BI Art Walk, etc. * (It should be noted that most of these activities are unique to a harbor community like NB with a protected water area and a varied -uses, public - access waterfront. They are seasonally/annually cyclical and economically very significant in their attendance levels, as differentiated from the general flow/levels of beach -city tourism focused primarily on the ocean beach(es) and pier(s). In the state, only San Francisco Bay and San Diego Bay have similar activity diversity/added value from an enclosed harbor/waterfront uses. The Newport Beach economy significantly benefits from these water - uses events, and is/will be increasingly dependent on their economic 0 benefits, derived from a balanced mix of key waterfront uses and activities.) • Question 3- Tidelands Areas Revenues/Costs Allocation Is it possible to differentiate or proportionally allocate between those Tidelands costs and revenues ascribable to the ocean beaches and related areas and services and those ascribable to the harbor and bay and their interior beaches, wetlands and services? This would be helpful in attempting to project and allocate future costs and services associated with both areas, setting of lease and rental rates, fees, etc. on appropriate user-pay/balanced-budget approaches. It would also be helpful in defining and weighing land use, public use planning choice -making for the Tidelands areas during the GP update process. r1L 0 r� u • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMIWEE Monday, October 13, 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 Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Philip Lugar Marie Marston Peter Oeth 9 Catherine O'Hara Carl Ossipoff r. fibV" '-* l 1 Charles Remley • Larry Root John Saunders James Schmiesing Ed Siebel Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo E is 2 • GENERAL PLAN ADOSORY COMMITTEE Monday, October 13, 2003 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS GENERAL PLAN ADOSORY COMMITTEE Monday, October 13, 2003 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE 11 E-MAIL ADDRESS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, October 13, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Tom Hyans Larry Root Patrick Bartolic Mike Ishikawa John Saunders Phillip Bettencourt Mike Johnson James Schmiesing Carol Boice Bill Kelly Ed Siebel John Corrough Donald Krotee Jackie Sukiasian Grace Dove Phillip Lugar Jan Vandersloot Florence Felton Marie Marston Tom Webber Nancy Gardner Catherine O'Hara Ron Yeo Louise Greeley Carl Ossipoff Bob Hendrickson Charles Remley Members Absent: Kariene Bradley Ernest Hatchell Peter Oeth Gus Chabre Kim Jansma Laura Dietz Lucille Kuehn Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Members of the Public Present: Everette Phillips Marice White I. Call to Order Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order. Ms. Gardner reminded everyone to park across the street for the meetings to allow room for the public to visit the Police Station. • II. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the September 8, 2003 meeting were approved as submitted. III. Presentation on Development Review Process for Bolsa Chica Sharon Wood introduced Huntington Beach Planning Director, Howard Zelefsky. Mr. Zelefsky shared experiences Huntington Beach has had over the years with the Bolsa Chica property. It is hoped that the information provided would assist Newport Beach when it is time to determine what will happen with Banning Ranch. During and after the presentation the following questions were raised. Ron Yeo asked about the City's relationship with the County Supervisors over this project. Mr. Zelefsky said both Supervisors were generally supportive of the plans over the years. John Saunders asked to compare the timeline between the Bolsa Chica project, which has gone on for so many years, and the Hyatt Hotel project, which was completed fairly quickly. Mr. Zelefsky pointed out the hotel project did take a long time, however the difference was that Huntington Beach had a certified LCP in place which called for a hotel on the property; this meant that the Coastal Commission had no say over the project. On the other hand, the Bolsa Chica property is uncertified so the Coastal is of has control. Bill Kelly asked if there was some way to take the County out of the process. Mr. Zelefsky said they had been in negotiations over the years with the owners regarding annexation into the City, however the owners did not want to become part of Huntington Beach. He also pointed out that Orange County is one of a few counties that does planning for "county islands". Nancy Gardner thought that because Banning Ranch is in our "sphere of influence" the City of Newport Beach would be doing the planning. Sharon Wood pointed out that because it is in our "planning area" our General Plan is supposed to include the property, however until the area is annexed the City does not have land use authority for permits or zoning. Mr. Kelly asked if we knew how the property owners felt about annexation. Phil Bettencourt thought it was fair to say that if the owners looked at the experiences with Huntington Beach, they would probably want to stay as far away as possible. Ms. Wood added that when the owners were working with Taylor Woodrow on a development, they did not want the City taking the lead on the review process; they preferred working with the County. Mr. Zelefsky pointed out it is generally easier to go though the County. Mr. Bettencourt added the general notion is that the County is better equipped to deal with the regional consequences of major planned community than the cities. Ms. Wood added that developers also prefer the County because they only have to convince one supervisor vs. a majority of city council. Jan Vandersloot felt that the developer made a mistake when they went against an agreement they had with Huntington Beach and went to the County instead. He felt • that if this action had not been taken, there may have been a completed project by rJ now. Mr. Zelefsky agreed and stated that Bolsa Chica is a case study on the wrong way • to proceed with a development plan. In 1992, the Council was willing to approve up to 1,500 units and now the project is down to 378 units. John Corrough asked about a plan to purchase the property and keep it open space. Mr. Zelefsky said the State bought approximately 900 acres and Prop. 50 money was supposed to buy the rest, however it hasn't been done yet. Ms. Gardner asked if there had been a consensus from the public about what should happen with Bolsa Chica. Mr. Zelefsky said no, there were always differing opinions regarding this property. Ms. Wood asked if there had been any discussion within the community regarding a bond issue for the public to acquire the property for open space. Mr. Zelefsky didn't think that a bond issue would be supported in Huntington Beach. Mr. Bettencourt asked both Ms. Wood and Mr. Zelefsky their opinion on how much time should be spent on local consensus building when the Coastal Commission staff has the power to change/stop the project. Mr. Zelefsky recommended working with both local and coastal staff at the same time, working with just one group won't do it. Ms. Wood agreed. • Charles Remley asked about the timeline for Banning Ranch and asked if nothing was going to be done in the next 25 years, why should we worry about it. Ms. Wood answered by stating the area is in our sphere of influence/planning area and the City should have some idea of what we would like to see there. The owner(s) may someday come in and ask for a General Plan amendment, or the Coastal Commission may have another idea, however it is still important that the community have a say in what happens there. Ms. Gardner added that things are happening with that property, the owners have talked to developers and there is a Sierra Club Task Force trying to get funding to buy the property for open space. Mr. Zelefsky agreed that it is very important for the community to be involved and have a say as to what happens with property within your City. Don Krotee asked Woodie Tescher to step back and give the group a plethora of options that could happen at Banning Ranch. Mr. Tescher advised that part of the work program will include looking at options for Banning Ranch and other sites to let the group assess consequences for each option before making any decisions. Mr. Vandersloot asked Mr. Zelefsky his opinion about leaving Banning Ranch as a "white hole" because we don't have a certified LCP. Mr. Zelefsky explained that "white hole" means there is no zoning assigned to the property; this has caused some litigation in Huntington Beach because property owners can't get an answer about what can be put on their property which is very frustrating for them. He didn't see any benefit for • "white holing" the property. Mr. Vandersloot said that the City is recommending "deferred certification" for Banning Ranch. Ms. Wood explained that Mr. Vandersloot is 01 0 talking about two different issues. The LCP schedule is ahead of the General Plan because of State legislation and Coastal staff in their comments on the draft LCP Land Use Plan recommended that we "white hole" Banning Ranch because there is not time for the extensive study that should be done before a determination is made; we can address the area in the General Plan and go back to amend the LCP. Mr. Vandersloot asked if we would be stuck with some previous entitlement designation for the area. Ms. Wood responded by stating we are not stuck, however a large part of the property is within County jurisdiction and our rules don't apply. She added that when Taylor Woodrow was working with the owners, even though the County was the lead in the review process, they were always willing to meet and share information with the City. Catherine O'Hara suggested coming up with "performance standards" for the area and then see what projects fit those standards. Mr. Kelly asked if there was a way to work with the owners instead of developers on what we would like to see on the property. Ms. Wood indicated that the property owner has shown a willingness to work with the City. IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Mr. Tescher indicated that his firm has done some additional work on the Biological Report based on this committee's comments and it will be brought back to GPAC on November loth. Also, the traffic analysis has been refined to include specific evaluation of summertime conditions and will be on future agenda. Ms. Wood indicated that representatives from Hoag Hospital have also been invited to give a presentation on their master plan. Mr. Yeo asked if comments should be made on the Harbor Commission's letter that was included in the agenda packet. Ms. Wood indicated that it would be more appropriate at a future meeting when we start discussing alternatives. Louise Greeley asked that some information be provided regarding variances and modifications and tightening up the codes. Ms. Wood indicated that this issue is being heard by the Planning Commission and then will proceed to City Council; it is not an issue for this Committee. V. Public Comments Ms. Wood announced that Woodie Tescher had been recognized at the State American Planning Association annual conference where he was awarded the Planner's Emeritus Network Award from the California Planning Foundation. In