HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2004_04_12E
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
April 12, 2004
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
March 22, 2004
7:15
III.
Discussion Paper 1: Guiding Principles for
Economic Development
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
8:45
IV.
Discussion of Future Agenda Items
8:50
V.
Public Comments
�E I p°RT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
u GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
C'QtIFog %
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, March 22,
2004, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Nancy Gardner
Phillip Lugar
Phillip Bettencourt
Louise Greeley
Barbara Lyon
Carol Boice
Bob Hendrickson
Marie Marston
Elizabeth Bonn
Mike Ishikawa
Catherine O'Hara
Karlene Bradley
Kim Jansma
Carl Ossipoff
John Corrough
Mike Johnson
Hall Seely
Lila Crespin
Bill Kelly
Ed Siebel
Laura Dietz
Donald Krotee
Ron Yeo
Grace Dove
Lucille Kuehn
Members Absent:
Patrick Bartolic
Tom Hyans (sick leave)
John Saunders
Gus Chabre
Charles Remley
Jan Vandersloot
Florence Felton
Larry Root
Tom Webber
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Conn! Pallini, EIP Planner
Harriet Lai Ross, EIP Planner
Members of the Public Present:
Jayne Jones Everette Phillips Carol Hoffman
I. Call to Order
Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order.
^)
• II. Approval of Minutes
Mike Ishikawa pointed out that he was not at the meeting on March 8t". The minutes
of the March 8, 2004 meeting were approved with the attendance correction.
III. Draft Technical Background Report
Woodie Tescher introduced his staff who helped prepare the Technical Background
Report. Mr. Tescher briefly reviewed the document, pointing out the report was
organized similar to general plan format and does not include reports previously
distributed to the group (i.e. economic, traffic, biological resources, etc.).
Don Krotee asked to what extent the document establishes precedent. Mr. Tescher
indicated the document is intended to be an objective document stating the facts
without making judgments.
IV. Issues Report
Mr. Tescher led the discussion of the report section by section taking comments along
the way.
Land Use
Don Krotee felt that the wording regarding mansionization did not reflect the feelings of
• the participants of the visioning process; he felt it was not strong enough. Sharon
Wood pointed out that West Newport had the least concern over this issue because it
was improving their neighborhood by replacing duplexes with single family residences.
Nancy Gardner stated that in the Visioning Workshop at OASIS participants had very
strong feelings on both sides of this subject. Phillip Lugar indicated that residents on
Balboa Island feel it is a very serious issue that needs to be dealt with. Ron Yeo
suggested adding "major concern" to the statement. Ed Siebel stated that the zoning
on Balboa Island has encouraged people to use the space effectively and you don't find
square boxes anymore.
Carol Boice asked why Fashion Island was listed as an exception under
Residential/Commercial Interface areas and suggested it be deleted. Ms. Wood
indicated that there were fewer complaints in Fashion Island than from the Peninsula,
Corona del Mar and Balboa Island; however, maybe the statement should say Newport
Center rather than Fashion Island.
Lila Crespin asked if the statement should be expanded to include air pollution.
Ms. Boice asked if light pollution from athletic fields should be addressed as an issue.
Catherine O'Hara asked about the six Specific Plan areas identified under Commercial
and if Banning Ranch should be added. Ms. Wood indicated that these areas are
identified in the general plan. Mr. Tescher added it doesn't preclude looking at other
areas.
2
Ms. O'Hara also asked if gymnasiums should be addressed as a recreational need. Ms.
• Gardner recalled hearing comments about indoor facilities.
Hall Seely asked about the definition of policy and framework as used in this document.
Mr. Tescher indicated sometimes it is a gray area between the two. He gave an
example using Measure S. it is a reality and we're not creating policy so it is listed under
framework. Elements we are potentially going to be generating a policy for would be
listed under policy. Some issues may switch as we get into the process.
Grace Dove indicated boats are missing in this document and should be listed under
Recreation. John Corrough agreed and added that we need to include the waterside of
the tidelands.
Mr. Seely asked about the areas listed under mixed -use development, it did not include
Old Newport Boulevard or West Newport Industrial areas. Mr. Tescher indicated that
the areas listed were the ones that came up during the visioning process; however it
did not preclude discussions on other areas.
Philip Bettencourt asked about the language under Recreation and Open Space
regarding development of Banning Ranch reducing open space resource, he felt the
open space could be enhanced through development.
Study Areas
Ms. O'Hara felt the language regarding Banning Ranch was too limiting, it only indicates
development or open space and it could be a combination of both.
Ron Yeo asked that language be added under Santa Ana Heights to include maintaining
equestrian trails.
Laura Dietz asked if we needed to distinguish between the areas in Santa Ana Heights
that has been annexed and the West Santa Ana Heights area that may be annexed in
the future. Ms. Wood stated there was no need because it was within our sphere of
influence.
Mr. Bettencourt felt we might be too limiting in regard to areas that could be considered
for mixed -use development.
Ms. O'Hara thought there had been discussion regarding marine uses in Mariners Mile.
Ms. Wood indicated it was probably listed in the economic development section. Ms.
Gardner thought it might be good to make a note in this area also.
Mr. Corrough indicated the Harbor Commission had just reviewed a study of a possible
pedestrian walkway along Mariners Mile. Ms. Wood indicated there would be a
presentation to the City Council regarding this report at the Study Session on March
23'd.
Ms. Boice asked if the language should be added regarding streetscape improvements
in Corona del Mar indicating it was contingent on the City's acquisition of Coast
Highway. Ms. Wood felt that regardless of the acquisition, the residents and business
• owners still have the desire for improvements.
3
S
Ms. Boice asked if Measure S would be triggered if Newport Center and Fashion Island
• went beyond their zoning capacity. Ms. Wood stated it was actually the General Plan
capacity and it would depend on the size of the additional development.
Population & Demographics
Ms. Dietz suggested adding the demand for senior related housing to this section.
Housing
Ms. Gardner asked that the next time we go through this process there should be
discussion on how to challenge the RHNA allocation.
Mr. Krotee asked about the language about Banning Ranch and if it was limiting the
development of affordable housing because of the environmental constraints. Ms.
Wood thought the statement indicated the land may not yield as much housing because
of the environmental constraints, not just affordable housing.
Mr. Siebel asked who generated the RHNA numbers. Mr. Tescher indicated SCAG made
the determinations. Bob Hendrickson asked if there were penalties if housing was not
developed. Mr. Tescher indicated there are bills currently being considered which may
impose severe penalties. Ms. Wood added that the penalties would be imposed for not
having a certified housing element. Cities are not required to produce the housing, we
are required to have policies and programs that facilitate the development of housing.
• Kim Jansma asked why West Newport Industrial area wasn't listed along with Newport
Coast and Newport Ridge for new housing units. Ms. Wood indicated that the 476 units
were for the 1999 City limits and Newport Coast/Newport Ridge were annexed after
that and the numbers listed are those we negotiated with the County.
Circulation
Karlene Bradley thought the word "generally" should be deleted from the first section
about traffic/congestion. Ms. O'Hara agreed that the statement was too soft.
Ms. O'Hara commented on the next section regarding exploring less restrictive level of
service. Previous discussions on this topic included accepting some lower LOS
intersections because there was nothing that could help with the congestion and some
areas where more congestion would be accepted, like Corona del Mar because traffic
speed are lower. Ms. Gardner questioned if this came out of the visioning process. Ms.
Wood thought this comment related to the airport area.
Mike Ishikawa stated an issue to be addressed was protecting residential
neighborhoods from cut -through traffic. Mr. Tescher indicated it was mentioned on
page 3.
Marie Marston commented on Public Transit, if ridership is the deficiency then the
existing networks aren't sufficient and need to be examined further.
Mr. Corrough commented on the second item in the Visioning column under Air and
Maritime Travel stating that it should say water based transportation which would
include the ferry to Catalina. Also in the Technical Background Report column it
0
u
suggests the potential for traffic problems related to maritime uses; however one of the
• solutions is to use the water and things that float in place of things with wheels as a
means of moving people.
Ms. Boice asked about encouraging use of the 73 toll road instead of Coast Highway.
Mr. Tescher indicated that was policy.
Jayne Jones commented on Pedestrian & Bicycle Mobility/Accessibility and suggested
including the equestrian trail system.
Ms. Dietz asked if de-emphasizing use of automobiles on Coast Highway came out of
the visioning process. She also questioned how congestion could be decreased in
Corona del Mar when 5 lanes of traffic merge into 2. Ms. Gardner pointed out the
statement is based on what people want.
Ms. Jansma commented on Public Transit indicating she thought if we had a system like
the Blue Bus in Santa Monica it would be used by residents as well as people who come
here to work for residents. Ms. Gardner pointed out that was also a policy. Ms. Wood
pointed out that there was a strong interest in transit during the visioning process. Mr.
Kelly asked if there was a way to address the size of buses. Ms. Gardner indicated that
would also be policy.
Ms. Boice asked about the status of the Centerline project. Mr. Tescher indicated he
would check with Carleton Waters.
01 Water System
Ms. Marston indicated it was odd that we don't know if it can accommodate future
growth. Mr. Tescher indicated the water management plan serves a larger area and it
doesn't break down by city.
Mr. Corrough indicated desalinization should be addressed as an opportunity that needs
to be explored.
Ms. Marston thought conservation efforts should be added also.
Wastewater
Ms. O'Hara stated we should know the future capacity.
Storm Drain System
Mr. Bettencourt pointed out there is no mention of water quality in this section. Ms.
Gardner indicated some storm drains do have filters.
Ms. Dove asked if some local diversion might have to take place.
Ms. Marston asked if the storm drain and sewers were interconnected. Mr. Tescher
responded that he thought they were, but he would check.
Mr. Yeo thought the urban runoff problem should be addressed.
Solid Waste
Mr. Yeo indicated he was surprised that Newport Beach only has one recycling area.
5
it
Fire Protection
• Ms. Jansma asked about relocating fire stations. Harriet Lai Ross indicated the fire
department would relocate to better serve the residents. Ms. Wood thought the final
two statements should be combined because one station relocation would affect the
other.
Ms. O'Hara asked if the City has a response time policy for fire. Ms. Gardner indicated
it was in the technical background report.
Mr. Corrough asked about the use of the term fire -prone areas when referring to
existing residences. Ms. Temple indicated that on Balboa Island and the Peninsula
there is high number of wood roofs, and in Corona del Mar there is the potential for
wildland fires. Mr. Hendrickson thought fire -prone area should be replaced by high fire
potential areas or high fire hazard areas.
Ms. Marston thought language should be added to include maintenance related to fire
protection. Ms. Gardner indicated that would be policy. Ms. Wood added that language
may need to be added about interface areas.
Mr. Krotee pointed out that in the last statement there were too many "which"s.
Mr. Corrough thought there should be something added regarding the Harbor Patrol's
firefighting capabilities.
Police Protection
Ms. O'Hara asked if the staffing level goal of 1.9 officers per 1,000 residents was a City
goal or a Department goal. Ms. Wood indicated it was a Department goal.
Ms. Jansma asked if there had been comments made during the visioning process
regarding the helicopters shining lights into houses. Ms. Wood indicated we get
complaints from time to time. Ms. Gardner stated this may come up in future
subcommittee meetings.
Education
Mr. Siebel thought the statement regarding the Newport -Mesa School District might be
better if reworded to be more positive.
Ms. Boice asked if the City can do anything regarding the traffic generated by the high
schools. Mr. Tescher indicated the City can't require them to do anything. Ms. O'Hara
pointed out that there is a task force talking about traffic at Corona del Mar High School
traffic.
Parks
Mr. Yeo asked about the definition of parkland. Mr. Tescher indicated the definition
was in the background report. Ms. Wood added that it is a City Council adopted goal.
Mr. Kelly asked if it was a realistic goal. Mr. Tescher said technically it was realistic
because there were open areas that the City could acquire.
0
t
Ms. Dove pointed out the statement at the top of page 21 that implies the tidelands
• have to balance. Mr. Corrough suggested deleting "given this imbalance" and "fiscal
imbalance".
Mr. Bettencourt pointed out that different terms were used in the document when
referring to open spaces. Ms. Dove pointed out confusion between commercial
recreation and visitor serving commercial recreation. Ms. Bradley thought didn't want
to make a generalized statement that would apply to every open space. Ms. Wood
asked to review the use of the terms.
Civic and Cultural Amenities
Ms. Crespin asked to create a policy that comes directly from people involved in the
arts. Mr. Tescher indicated it would be in policy, however there is a subcommittee that
will have a discussion on the arts and culture policy later in the process.
Lucille Kuehn asked if City Hall should be addressed in this section. Mr. Tescher
indicated it was included on page 5 under Study Areas.
Biological Resources
Carl Ossipoff stated there was no mention of the silt build up in the Upper Bay and our
desire to keep it silt free. Ms. Gardner pointed out the comment on dredging on page
23.
Hydroloav and Water Ouality
• Ms. Gardner pointed out this section talked about the Bay, however it left off the ocean
which is also impacted.
Air Quail
Mr. Seely pointed out there was no mention of aircraft emissions in this section.
Mr. Corrough asked about the 3rd statement in this section and if use of waterways
should be added as alternative modes of transportation.
Visual
Ms. Jansma asked if there were laws or restrictions in place to require setbacks to keep
areas looking natural. Mr. Tescher indicated that would be policy. Ms. Wood added
that there aren't many in Newport Beach presently.
Mike Johnson stated that trees are a large issue and there should be a City policy
regarding trees. Ms. Wood indicated there is a City Council Policy and perhaps it should
be referenced.
Fire Hazards
Mr. Bettencourt pointed out that the reference to the Orange County Fire Authority
should be removed since they no longer have jurisdiction in Newport Coast.
Ms. Dove suggested mutual aid agreements should be noted. Ms. Gardner pointed out
• that is was mentioned in the technical background report.
7
M
Mr. Johnson thought our building code should encourage the use of sprinklers in new
• construction. Ms. Gardner indicated that would be policy.
Hazardous Materials
Ms. Crespin suggested prohibiting hazardous materials. Ms. Gardner indicated many
items are household items used daily.
Ms. Dietz pointed out that hospital disposal of hazardous materials was not covered.
Ms. Boice asked who controls the toxic release inventory list. Mr. Tescher indicated it
was the State. Ms. Temple added there are requirements for these businesses through
our Fire Department and County Public Health.
Aviation Hazards
Ms. O'Hara asked if the wording could be changed to "in case of instead of
"anticipation or.
Noise
Ms. Dietz asked about the construction noise and pointed out that it only last a certain
period of time. Ms. Wood pointed out that it may not be the same property, but seems
to go on forever when everyone in the neighborhood is doing it.
Ms. Dietz also pointed out that there are plans for quieter aircraft in the future.
• Mr. Bettencourt asked if staff could provide another version of this document with
strike-outs/underlines so the committee could get a feel for the work done tonight.
V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
Ms. Gardner pointed out the new schedule distributed tonight (attached). Mr. Tescher
stated the next two meetings would include discussions on guiding principles.
VI. Public Comments
Everette Phillips provided written comments for the committee to consider (see
attached).
Jayne Jones stated that under Parks it should be noted that an equestrian area is
supposed to be added near the YMCA and wants to make sure it is included in the
general plan.
is
\9
Newport Beach General Plan Update
PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE SCHEDULE
• Revised March 22, 2004
•
•
GPAC meetings are scheduled on Mondays preceding City Council meetings (second and fourth
Tuesdays).
Date I
Topic
2004
Mar 22
Planning Issues
Apr 7 2
Land Use Determinants -Guiding Principles I: Economic Development,
Hotels'_Motels, Harbor Development
Land Use Determinants -Guiding Principles II: Community Character, Affordable
Housing, Mobility, Conservation, Hazards _
_
Apr_26
_
May 10
To Be Determined
_
May 24
Sub -Committees: Land Use Alternatives I (Banning Ranch, John Wayne Airport
Area, Lido MarinalCivic Center, Central Balboa) _
Jun 7
Sub -Committees: Land Use Alternatives 11 (Banning Ranch, John Wayne Airport
Area, Cannery Village/McFadden Square, Central Balboa)
__ _
Jun 21
Sub -Committees: Land Use Alternatives III (Banning Ranch, John Wayne Airport
Area, Corona del Mar, West Newport Residential)
Jul 12
Sub -Committees: Land Use Alternatives IV (Mariners Mile, West Newport
Industrial, Fashion IslandlNewport Center, Old Newport Boulevard)
Jul 26
Sub -Committees: Land Use Alternatives V (MarinersMlle, West Newport
Industrla; Fashion IslandlNewport Center, Santa Ana Heights)
Aug 9
TBD
Aug 23
Full Committee Review of Land Use Alternatives
Sep 13
TBD
Sep 27
TBD
Oct 1 1
TBD
_
Oct 25
TBD
Nov 8
Alternatives Impacts I
Impact 11
_
Nov 22
Dec 13
_Alternatives
No Meeting
Dec 27
No Meeting
2005
Jan 10
Preferred Plan I
_
Jan 24
Preferred Plan II
_
Feb 7
Sub -Committees: Conservation & Natural, Public Safety, Historic Resources
Feb 27
Sub -Committees: Conservation & Natural, Public Safety _
Mar 7
Sub -Committees: Arts & Cultural, Harbor & Bay, Recreation & Open Space
_
Mar 21
Su_b-Committees: Land Use, Recreation & Open Space _
1 1
Sub -Committees: Land Use, Circulation, Economic Strategic Plan
Sub -Committees: Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management
_Apr
Apr 25
_
May 9
23
FA -ay
Sub -Committees: Circulation ___ _ _
Sub-Com_m_itt_ees: Housing, Noise
TBD _ _ — _.___
_fu_ll Committee Review of Sub -Committee Input
I Implementationl_
_ay
Jun 13
un 27
lw
1=3AuSL.1
e�
Newport Beach General Plan Update
PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE SCHEDULE
is
Revised March 22, 2004
Date
Topic
Aug 18
Oct 10_
1 Implementation II
Draft GP and EIR Review
_
Oct 24
Draft GP and EIR Review
•
•
�v
DATE: March 22, 2004
• MEMO TO: GPAC
FROM: Everette Phillips
RE: General Plan & LCP Alignment for Completing the Coastal Trail in West Newport
Dear GPAC,
As a resident following the Vision 2025 process, I would like to make sure the issue of
completing the California Coastal Trail/ bike path from 36`h St to the Santa Ana River
remains on both the LCP and General Plan Update agenda.
Attached are public comments that were submitted to the LCP and should be copied to
you because of the issue's dual nature something submitted for the General Plan Update
scooping as part of Vision 20205.
Kindest regards,
a--- 'elo
• Everette Phillips
300 Canal St.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
n
U
Bryan Speegle, Director
_ 300 N. Flower Street
COUNTY OF ORANGE
V GE Santa Ana, CA
P.O. Box 4048
M Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
RESOURCES & DEYELOPMEIVT MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
• �9LIFOR�t� Teleph834-2300
Fax. (714) 834-5188
March 15, 2004
Patrick Alford
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
SUBJECT: Draft LCP Coastal Land Use Plan
Dear Mr. Alford:
RECEIVED BY
CITY OF L 04-009
NEWPNRT BEACH
MAR 17 2004 3. t o
AM
819I10I11I12I112i3�4I5I6 ,
The above referenced item is a Draft Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan for
the City of Newport Beach. The Coastal Land Use Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies
• that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach and
its sphere of influence with the exception of Newport Coast and Banning Ranch.
The County of Orange has reviewed the Draft Plan and offers the following comments:
WATERSHED
We recommend the following changes:
a. Page 3-6, delete third paragraph down (same as second paragraph).
b. Page 4-37, middle paragraph, delete "1" after eight.
C. Section 2.8.6, consider adopting an opportunistic sand replenishment similar to
Carlsbad or San Clemente.
OPEN SPACE/RECREATION
Study Area No. 9: Buck Gully:
The text should be expanded upon to indicate "Buck Gully" is a component of Laguna
Coast Wilderness Park operated by Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks.
• Bikeways and Trails-
,a
3. We would like to complement the City on Section 2.9.2 (page 2-57). This is a thoughtful,
• well written, and comprehensive section.
4. We suggest adding a policy that specifically calls for the ultimate extension of the Balboa
Bikeway (the regional Class I bikeway on Balboa Island). By extending this off -road
bikeway 1 %s miles to the Santa Ana River Bikeway and the Huntington Beach Bikeway
(both regional Class I routes), residents and visitors would be able to walk or bicycle
from Newport Beach to the Orange County boundary with Riverside County, or along
Bolsa Chica State Beach ---completely off -road.
Bikeways can help to reduce air pollution, traffic congestion, parking congestion, and
noise. Class I bikeways in particular, because they are off -road and suitable for bicyclists
and pedestrians with a wide range of ages and abilities, serve to encourage bicycling and
walking as alternative modes of transportation.
CULTURAL/HISTORICAL
6. The language in the plan should be updated to use current standard conditions for cultural
resources management so that any recovered artifacts and fossils are prepared properly
and their disposition is addressed as needed. The County of Orange Curation Project,
funded by a TEA grant, has produced a set of guidelines and procedures as a model for
cultural resource professionals to use in the field and in preparing the collections,
including a recommended database. This information may be accessed on the California
• State University Fullerton Anthropology Department website.
http://antliro.fullerton.edu/orangecocuratio .
7. (4.5.1-4): We encourage the City of Newport Beach to follow the Board of Supervisors
example in requiring that cultural resource artifacts, which may be discovered during the
site development, be donated to a suitable repository that will maintain the collection for
future scientific study and exhibition "within Orange County." Prior to donation, the
certified cultural resources consultant should prepare the collection "to the point of
identification."
8. (4.5.1-4): The project proponent should be prepared to pay "potential curation fees" to
the County or other suitable repository for the long-term curation and maintenance of
donated collections.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft Plan. If you have any questions, please
contact Charlotte Harryman at (714) 834-2522.
Sincerely,
L22�. Tippets, Chiefojects
2
�5
Page 1 of 1
Alford, Patrick
a From: Bluhms2@cs.com
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 12:34 PM
To: palford@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Cc: everette_phillips@yahoo.com; michols@coastwalk.org; gdpace@cox.net
Subject: Newport Beach LCP
Mr. Alford,
Congratulations to you and your staff for assembling an excellent LCP.
Coastwalk is particularly pleased to see policy 3.1.1-9 that specifically mentions the California Coastal Trail, In
compliance with the Coastal Conservancy report, Completing the California Coastal Trail mandated by SB 908, it
is important that the CCT be continuous, and be as close to the shoreline as possible.
Coastwalk makes the following recommendations:
1. That the Coastal Trail route be shown along the beach from the Santa Ana River, connecting to the existing
Ocean Front trail at 36th Street.
2. That diligent efforts be made to establish a Coastal Trail route in the southeast portion of Newport Beach that
avoids exposure of pedestrians to high speed vehicular traffic along Highway 1, and connects to trails in Crystal
Cove State Park.
3, Provide connections from the Coastal Trail to inland trails within the city, and to trails in adjacent jurisdictions.
Thank you for your consideration.
•Stan Bluhm
Coastwalk, CCT Project Coordinator
310-379-1153
www.coastwalk.org
•
03/12/2004
W
FROM
0 Me
RNN BIEGUN FAX NO. : Mar. 16 2004 01:55PM P1
PUBLIC COMMENTS TO NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 18, 200-1 MEETING TO REVIEW THE LCP PROPOSED FOR SUBMISSION TO
THE COASTAL COMMISSION
Pp_
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT
SHORES l-O NEWPORT PEIR — CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR
RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES
Fill out the bottom and return to both people below
City of Newport Beach California Coastal Commission
Patrick Alford, :senior Planner Teresa Henry, Olstrlct Manager
P. O. Box 1768 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Long Beach, CA 90602-4416
Fax number:(94-9) 644-3229 TEL(562) 590-5071
E-mailmalfordJCIIN-newDOt-beach.ca.us FAX (562) 5905064
Background
The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal
Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking ,bicycle,
and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that "ideally the trails
system, should be continuous and located near the shoreline". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution
20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal. Commission and Coastal
Conservancy to collaborate to complete it. Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail
by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail
encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it.
Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP
•In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of
trails along the shore and in the Coastal Zone that makeup the California Coastal Trail.
•
1) Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36a` St to the PCH bridge
that crosses the Santa .Ana River.
a. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 36`h Street and this
violate:, the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Rcport
i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea
u. Connectivity: non -automotive alternative connections to schools, communities,
trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets
iii. integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by
traffic' _.
iv. W61e, Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach
access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The
current trail on a street does not achieve this.
b. See Image 1(next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline
Learn more about Coastwalk and the California Coastal Trail
www.coastwalk.orq
www.californiacoastaltrail.info
Please include this document as my comments on the LCP
Name ,Fr&- maces e, rye
Address 7�2 a r a I C r rr=1a
City 1l-wP0r-t--0e(NLC!-� G>L. -;�663,/96 5
Page 1 of 2
MAR-17-2004 06:20 PM HURLEY&THOMAS 949 548 2262 P.01
•
PUBLIC COMMENTS TO NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 18, 2004 MEETING TO REVIEW THE LCP PROPOSED FOR SUBMISSION TO
THE COASTAL COMMISSION
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT
SHORES TO NEWPORT PEIR — CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR
RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES
Fill out the bottom and return to both people below
City of Newport Beach California Coastal Commission
Patnok Alford, Senior Planner Teresa Henry, District Manager
P. 0. Box 1768 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92655-8915 Long Beach, CA 90802-4416
Fax number:(949) 844-3229 TEL(562) 590-5071
E-mall:oalford(Mcltv.newnort-basch.ca.us FAX (562) 69MO84
Background
The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal
Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking, bicycle,
and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the eoasf' and that "ideally the trails
system should be continuous and located near the shoreline", In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution
20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal
Conservancy to collaborate to complete it. Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail
by 2008, In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's. Millennium Legacy Trail
encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it.
Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP
In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate .the alignment of
trails along the.shore and in -the- Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail.
1) Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36'" St to the PCH bridge
that crosses the Santa Ana River.
a. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 36a' Street and this
violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report
i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea
u. Connectivity: non -automotive alternative connections to schools, communities,
trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets
iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by
traffic
iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach
access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The
current trail on a street does not achieve this.
b. See Image 1(next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline
Learn more about Coastwalk and the California Coastal Trail
www.coastwalk.org
www.californiacoastaltrail.info
Please Includo this document as my comments on the LCP
Name Q,VIYI� ` q_bvY)Gt5
Address 41•0 C eiN/ t: ST
City AJFiAaeT 6•C4 y/ C4 fZ.6g
Page 1 of 2
t�
E
MRR.1e.2004 2:26PM HORG NEWPORT SURGCRE NO.626 P.1/1
PLEASE SUPPORT THE COASTAL TRAiL
Newport: Shares to Newport Pier
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO
NEWPORT PIER ^ CYCLING TO SCHOOLr FRIENDS AND If OR RECREATION WILL Be
SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES Try to send by March 18r 2004
Fill out the bottom and return to both people below
City, of Newport Beach California Coastal Commission
Patrlok Alford, Senior Planner Ter sa HenoceangDistrict
Floor
Manager
P, 0. Sox 1768
Newport Beach CA 92658-8915 Long Beach, GA 90802-4416
Fax number,(949) 644-3229 TBL(562) 590p5071
c .....:u...,,,....1f.7,nNv nawnnH.haarh.raus FAX [562) 590,5084
Background
The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an 41i ent for the California Coastal
Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LOP) and Proposition 20, 1972 p bvides that "A hiking, bicycle,
and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast' d that "ideally the trails
system should be contingous and located new the shoreline", In 2001 Alsembly Concurrent Resolution
20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official ,state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal
Conservancy to collaborate to complete it, Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) regt4red a plan to complete the trail
by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail Was designated Californiafs Millennium Legacy Trail
encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it,
Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP
In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of
trails along the shore and in the Coastal Zone that mare up the Califomiia Coastal Trail.
1) Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36�b St to the PCI-1 bridge
that cro $e$ the Santa Ana River. I
a, The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 36� Street and this
violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in jhe Coastal Trail Report
i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea
ii. connectivity: non -automotive alternative come ions to schools, communities,
trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets
iii. Integrity, The Coastal Trail should be conti4uois, and not compromised by
traffic
iv, Whole Beach access: moving the trail along theeach will provide whole beach
access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, The
current trail on a street does not achieve this.
b. See Image 1(next page) for a graphic of the beach path tkiat the LCP should outline
Learn more about CoastWalk and the California Coastal Trail
PI se inc dle this document as my comments on the LCP
Name a i� ob��
Address 332
City r� a
Page 1 of 2
MAR-IS-2eO4 11:5-e AM HURLEY&THOMAS 949 548 2262 P.01
. � "7"' 3 • t'S
PUBLIC COMMENTS TO NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION tp� A161'
MARCH 18, 2004 MEETING TO REVIEW THE LCP PROPOSED FOR SUBMISSION TOE
THE COASTAL COMMISSION
•
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT
SHORES TO NEWPORT PEIR — CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR
RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES
Fill out the bottom and return to both people below
City of Newport Beach California. Coastal Commission
Patrick Alford, senior Planner Teresa Henry,.Distrlct Manager
P. O. Box 1768 200 oceangate, loth Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Long Beach, CA 90802-4416
Fax number:(949) 644-3229 TEL(562) 590-5071
E-mail,nalfordrincitv.newDort-beach.ca.us FAX (582) 590.5084
Background
The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal
Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking ; bicycle,
and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that "ideally the trails
system should be continuous and located near the shoreline". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution
20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal
Conservancy to collaborate to complete it. Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail
by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail
encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it.
Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP
•In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of
trails along the -shore an6 in -the, Coastal Zone that makeup the California Coastal Trail.
1) specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36u' St to the PCH bridge
that crosses the Santa Ana River.
a. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 361h Street and this
violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report
i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea
ii. Connectivity: non -automotive alternative connections to schools, communities,
trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets
iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by
traffic
iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach
access facilitating compliance with the Americans WithDisabilities Act. The
current trail on a street does not achieve this,
b, See Image 1(next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline
Learn more about Coastwalk and the California Coastal Trail
www.00astwalk.ora
www.californiacoastaltrail.info
Please include this document as my comments on the LCP
Name
• Address y , e7
Q C 4N�
city Poe- sc'i fz66 _?
Page 1 of 2
a°
MAR-J2-04 FRI 08:29 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 1
%4
11
•
DATE: March 12, 2004
MEMO 'l.Y):
.City of Ne'wport:Beach
Patrick Alford; Senior•Planner
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92558-8915
Fax number (949) 644-3229
E-mail:palford@city.newport-beach,ca.us
Catiforriia.Coastal Commission
Teresa Henry, District Manager
2o0 Oceangate, 10th Floor
Lohg Beach, CA 90802-4416
TEL(562) 590.-5071
FAX (662) 590-5084
FROM: Bverette Phillips
Rb:: Catifornia Coastal'I"rails and ccnnpleting the trail along the beach from 36`h St to the River
I)ear Patrick,
Thank you fur your work on the L•C:P. I will send comments on different sections. Here I just wanted
to show my support for the Calil:ornia Coastal'1'rail and the hard work of Coastwalk.
Attached please find comments to Support the Coastal Trail in the LCP by specifying the completion
of the trail along the beach between 36"' St and the Santa Ana River.
Kindest regards,
1.
Iavarette -Phillips
300 Canal St.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
ryt
MAR=121A FRI 08:29 PM CMN
FAX:9e98624967 PAGE 2 114
PUBLIC COMMENTS TO NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 18, 2004 MEETING TO REVIEW THE LCP PROPOSED FOR.p_,��
SUBMISSION TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION at 3 t5
f
Background
The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California
Coastal Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (I.CP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A
hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and
that "ideally the trails system should be continuous and located new the shoreline". In 2001
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 ('Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges
the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it. Senate Bill
908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008, In 1999, the California Coastal Trail
was designated California's Millenium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in
developing it,
Pubiic,Comment to the Newport Beach LCP
In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach-LCP needs to more clearly designate the
alignment of trails along the shore and in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal
Trail.'
1). Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36th St to the
•PCIi bridge that crosses the Santa Ana River.
a. The bicycle path current tuns on a street from the Santa Ana River to 36`h Street
and this violates the principles of the.Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal
'frail Report
1. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea
ii. Connectivity: non -automotive alternative connections to schools,
communities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets
iii. integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised
by traffic
iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will Provide
whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With
Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this.
b. See .Image 1 for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline
2) The trail alignment should include connections to Banning Rauch, Sunset Ridge Park
-and -Newport Salt Marsh (Semeniuk Slough)
3) The LCP should outline the sphere of influence trail alignments proposed for Newport
Coast, although Newport Coast is not part of this J.CP, this area has been annexed by
Newport Beach and lies within its sphere of influence for planning purposes
4) Currently the City. of Newport Beach collects encroachment funds from beachfront
properties in West Newport that have moved their property boundaries onto public state
beaches. Newport Beach should more diligently monitor tidal and beach encroachment
in public lands and should use the encroachment funds to improve the Coastal Trail
alignments in'Newport Beach and spheres of influence (Newport Coast and Banning
Ranch). funds should be used first to complete the beach trail from the Santa Ana
River to 36a` St along the beach. j
• NAME: & irl e Pe #e � �/ �! !�� ®B /
ADDRESS: 306 Cone St aAOW � l��e+� r1.�«�
Page i of 1
`V�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
°y
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Memorandum
G
is oq<�roaNP
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3229
TO:
General Plan Update Committee
General Plan Advisory Committee
FROM:
Tamara Campbell AICP, Senior Planner
DATE:
April 12, 2004
SUBJECT: Guiding Principles for Economic Development
As the attached report explains, beginning in May 2004, GPAC will initiate its discussion
and deliberations to determine the appropriate land use plan for the City. As the first
step in the upcoming process, GPUC and GPAC will discuss and define "Guiding
Principles" for a number of topics that it will use as the basis for framing and assessing
land use alternatives.
The attached report is the first in a series of discussion papers and is specifically
• designed to generate Guiding Principles for Economic Development. It was developed
using Visioning Process input and by summarizing the earlier retail commercial market
analysis and fiscal impact analysis. In addition, the City's Economic Development
Committee (EDC) has been involved and reviewed this discussion paper at its meetings
in February and March. EDC's discussion and recommendations should be used by the
GPAC in its task of balancing the production of positive economic benefit while
preserving and protecting the quality of the City and its residents.
Staff is asking the two General Plan committees to review these Guiding Principles, and
identify any principles that may be missing or misstated, as well as any principles that
the committees feel should not guide the General Plan update. After discussion of all
the Guiding Principles by GPUC and GPAC, they will be reviewed by the City Council
and Planning Commission before GPAC begins the job of developing land use
alternatives for further study.
Attachment: Guiding Principles for Economic Development
40
ON
April 2, 2004
EIP Associates
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Applied Development Economics
Introduction
Beginning in May 2004, the Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) will
initiate its discussion and deliberations to determine the appropriate designations for land
use throughout the City. These will indicate the areas of the City in which existing uses and
densities will be conserved and those areas in which change is anticipated or may be
encouraged. General direction regarding these areas was received from the public during the
Visioning Process. As a result, a number of specific sub -areas have been identified by the
General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) as "targeted areas" for which the GPAC will
• consider one or more land use alternatives. Illustrative of the areas to be considered are
Banning Ranch, the John Wayne Airport business park/industrial area, Mariners Mile, West
Newport Industrial area, Old Newport Boulevard, and Central Balboa.
As the first step in the upcoming process, the GPAC, in its April meetings, will define the
Gtridittg Principles that it will use as the basis for framing and assessing the land use
alternatives. Essentially, these constitute the "non-negotiable" rules, or benchmarks, by
which all alternatives will be judged. They will elaborate and expand upon the Vision
Statement that was defined through the public process during the past year and a half. These
Prnciples may apply to environmental values that can influence the location and density of
development, such as a principle that "no development shall be permitted in riparian coastal
canyons." They may apply to values regarding community character, such as a principle that
"new development shall respect and maintain the scale, character, and quality of the
community." Additionally, they may apply to specific economic sectors such as supporting
economic activities associated with the harbor or supporting the revitalization of older
commercial areas.
In terms of the level of detail for the Guiding Principles, they may be thought of on a level with
General Plan goals, from which more detailed policies and implementation measures will be
developed. Many, if not all, of the Guiding Principles will be expressed in some form as goals in
the draft General Plan, but for now the focus is on their function as benchmarks for
developing and evaluating the land use alternatives.
0
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• Once the Guiding Ptittciples have been defined, the GPAC will identify one or more land use
alternatives for the twelve "targeted" sub -areas of the City in its May through July meetings.
For each sub -area, Discussion Papers will be distributed that summarize its existing conditions,
key planning constraints and opportunities, and possible land use strategies. Following their
identification, the alternatives will be evaluated for their comparative impacts on traffic,
fiscal costs and revenue, and environmental resources. The impact analyses will be
presented to and reviewed with the GPAC and at workshops designed for input from the
general public in September. Based on the input received, a Pivfeand Land Use Plan will be
selected during October.
The following section summarizes the economic issues raised in the Visioning Process, as
described in the document, "Community Directions for the Future." The subsequent
section summarizes the consultant's earlier retail commercial market analysis and the fiscal
impact analysis. Based on these summaries, the paper provides a set of suggested Guiding
Principles for economic development, for consideration by the Economic Development
Committee and by GPAC.
The EDC is integral in these steps; the committee's discussion and recommendations are
timed specifically to refine those principles, producing value-added effort that can be used by
the GPAC in their task of balancing the production of positive economic benefit while
preserving and protecting the quality of life of the City and its residents.
•
•
Summary of Economic and Fiscal Issues
The YisioningProcess
The City initiated a Visioning Process in January of 2002 that culminated in publication of
the Community Directions for the Future report in January 2003. The Visioning Process
included a series of events, meetings and public information gathering programs and resulted
in a vision statement for Newport Beach and substantial public input on a wide range of
issues for consideration in the General Plan Update. The summary information presented
here is limited to statements and issues related to economic development or the fiscal health
of the City.
The vision for the future of Newport Beach describes the City's desired end state and what
the community hopes to have achieved by 2025. Under the heading, "Growth Strategy, Land
Use and Development," the vision states in part, " We have a conservative growth strategy
that emphasizes residents' quality of life — a strategy that balances the needs of the various
constituencies and that cherishes and nurtures our estuaries, harbor, beaches, open spaces
and natural resources. Development and revitalization decisions are well conceived and
beneficial to both the economy and our character... "
2
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• The Visioning Process also gained public input on a range of more specific issues. There was
broad community consensus on some economic issues, and more diverse opinion on others.
The issues with consensus include the following:
■ The vast majority of residents view Newport Beach as primarily a residential beach town.
While most recognize the City's attractiveness to tourists, they were less interested in
defining the City's identity as a tourist destination.
■ In a survey of business owners, the City's location within the County, its physical beauty,
and the purchasing power of the community are listed as exceptionally attractive
attributes.
■ General consensus exists that the City's harbors and beaches must be protected and
enhanced as the most cherished resources. GPAC members posited that as harbors and
beaches are improved as recreational areas, visual and economic benefits would follow.
■ People are in general agreement that certain areas of the City need revitalization,
including Balboa Village, Mariner's Mile, Old Newport Blvd., Cannery Village, Central
Balboa Peninsula, McFadden Square, West Newport, and the mixed
residential/industrial area above Hoag Hospital. GPAC members agree that the City
should be proactive in creating a revitalization vision to help guide future private
• development.
■ A couple of the visioning events raised the issue of mixed use, integrating housing and
commercial or office space. Areas deemed appropriate for mixed use include Balboa
Village, Mariner's Mile, Cannery Village, Lido Marina Village, McFadden Square, and the
Airport Business Area and Newport Center.
■ GPAC and others strongly agree that the City should consider re -zoning excess and
underutilized commercial lands for residential or mixed -use development.
A divergence of opinion exists on the following economic development issues.
■ People expressed mixed opinions about the potential impact of economic development
on the City; with business owners being slightly more in favor of economic development
than residents. The concern here is whether economic development will detract from
residents' quality of life. However, when asked if the City should encourage growth in
the local economy to help pay for, municipal services 67 percent (224) of those who
responded to the newsletter questionnaire said yes, although there was disagreement
about how that should be done.
■ Participants were divided on whether the City should continue to accommodate job
growth. Many felt it is a question of the type of jobs and associated impacts. Those who
0
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• did express support for growth state that the City should "accommodate" but not
"promote" additional employment opportunities.
■ Participants in the visioning program events were overall in favor of tourism, but divided
on providing more tourist accommodations, including lodging. However, if new hotels
are to be built, most respondents agree they should be concentrated in the Airport
Business Area and Newport Center.
■ While people want the City to set firm constraints on development, including expansion
of employment centers and hotels, additional development may be acceptable in certain
areas under certain conditions.
Fashion Island.•A majority of residents and businesses support keeping retail space
at current levels, but many are still willing to back expansion of existing stores and
moderate increases for new businesses.
Newport Center. A majority of residents and businesses support little or no change
to Newport Center. But some are willing to allow growth for existing companies.
Airport Business Center. • Participants are split on support for development, but
some agreement exists over the appropriate types of development. People ate
comfortable with low-rise office buildings, but would not like to see high rise offices
• or mote industrial development, The groups were split about adding more retail
space, including big boxes, in this area.
Economic Studies by Applied Development Economics, Inc. (ADE)
ADE has prepared a commercial market study, published in December 2002, and a fiscal
impact analysis, published in revised form in January 2004. In this process, ADE has also
interviewed a number of business people in the community. The following is a synopsis of
issues and information gained from this work.
Retail Commercial
■ As an overall conclusion, it can be fairly stated that the City does very well in serving
the retail shopping needs of both residents and visitors. Although the balance
between demand and sales is very close, the city actually captures large amounts of
spending in some categories from the surrounding region, while losing local
spending in other categories.
■ The City's retail base is particularly strong in boats, autos, restaurants, furniture,
apparel and specialty retail stores.
■ Conversely, relatively large sales leakages occur in other general merchandise, family
clothing, discount department stores and home improvement store categories. Most
0
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• of these spending categories represent "big box" retail store categories that require
large tracts of land and seek more central locations than tourist oriented coastal
areas. Such uses could possibly be located in the Airport area and in the other areas
near the Highway 73 corridor, along with additional service commercial/flex space
and car dealerships.
■ The commercial centers in the coastal area largely serve the visitor market and do not
capture a large proportion of residents' spending, with the exception of Corona del
Mar, which has the broadest base of local -serving retailers.
Except for the Balboa Village area, most of the coastal commercial centers perform
adequately in terms of sales per square foot among existing businesses. In Balboa
Village, the average is relatively low in a number of the visitor -serving store type
categories, reflecting the less accessible location and attractiveness of this older
commercial area. Questions have been raised about possibly reducing the amount of
commercial zoning in this area.
■ In terms of opportunities for new retail establishments in the coastal subareas, the
focus should be on retail categories that have sales leakage throughout all of
Newport Beach and would also be at the appropriate scale of commercial
development. Certain specialty retail categories such as music and bookstores would
• fit these criteria.
■ In Mariners We, there may be some pressure to transition sites devoted to boat
sales to more intensive uses.
■ Lido Marina Village may see pressure for redevelopment as retail uses underperform.
Hotels/Motels
■ While Newport Beach has a variety of meeting facilities, major convention centers
are mainly concentrated in Anaheim. More recently, Huntington Beach's new
waterfront development poses competition for Newport at the small to mid -size
business meeting scale. The lack of larger facilities in Newport limits the City's
business trade potential
Marine Industry
■ Economic pressure continues to replace shipyards and non -water dependent
manufacturing/repair services with residential uses.
Marine proponents would like to see greater use of limited public shore access sites
to increase visitorship
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• ■ The Harbor Commission proposes a proactive -sustainable growth option for marine
uses that projects a diversification, consolidation and more efficient grouping of
marine uses and water -dependent activities (see attached letter from the Harbor
Commission).
Office/Industrial Uses
■ Potential exists for transition of older properties in the Airport Area to more
intensive use, as well as the addition of major retail uses in the Airport Area on sites
currently occupied by industrial or office uses.
■ Economic pressure threatens the viability of light industrial uses in the West
Newport area
■ There may be the possibility for expansion of medical uses in the hospital area,
particularly medical R&D.
■ The City would benefit from an economic transition in existing office and industrial
spaces toward businesses that generate greater sales tax through off -site product
sales. The sales tax is such an important component of the City's fiscal picture, it
would be important to consider ways to encourage firms that generate taxable non -
retail sales and taxable business -to -business transactions.
• Fiscal Analysis
■ The fiscal analysis estimates the current cost/revenue balance generated by existing
broad land use categories. In general, existing residential, office and public land uses
represent net cost centers for City government, while retail, lodging and marine
industry land uses generate excess public revenues and help the City maintain an
overall fiscal balance. It should be noted that much of the adverse fiscal impact of
existing residential units stems from the fact that their assessed values are depressed
well below market value due to limits imposed by Proposition 13. New residential
units, or even most existing units that are resold in the current market, do pay
sufficient property taxes to cover City service costs. This was demonstrated in a
focused analysis of Newport Coast mentioned below. The report points also out that
the residential population supplies much of the purchasing power that generates sales
tax from retail businesses, and the office -based businesses and industrial uses create
much of the household income that also feeds this economic activity. Therefore, the
bottom line fiscal cost/revenue balance should not be viewed as the only economic
dimension for evaluating the City land use mix.
■ The analysis of the Newport Coast development illustrates the fact that many
residential neighborhoods can be a positive fiscal contributor to the City with
sufficiently high property values. Although only Newport Coast received a special
0
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
. area analysis, similar results could be expected in other neighborhoods with high
property values.
Visitor -serving land uses overall generate a positive fiscal benefit for the City,
primarily due to increased sales tax and TOT revenues from visitors. This analysis
factors in the added cost to the City of maintaining services to the beach areas, as
well as demand for other services generated by tourists.
The projection of fiscal impacts for buildout of the existing City General Plan
indicates that the potential exists for substantial increases in commercial uses,
generating a more favorable fiscal balance than exists currently.
Suggested Economic and Fiscal Guiding Principles
1. General Plan policies will maintain the City's positive fiscal balance.
Discussion. The fiscal analysis describes the fiscal relationships among the various
land uses in the City. It underscores the need for a strong commercial sector to
balance the service demands exerted by residential neighborhoods and businesses in
office and industrial spaces that provide quality jobs and high incomes but not high
tax revenue. In the current fiscal environment, the property tax has subsided as a
primary revenue source for local government in favor of sales taxes, transient
• occupancy taxes and various direct user charges and fees that have better capacity to
grow with the inflation in City service costs. This guiding principle, therefore, mainly
speaks to the need for a balanced land use plan that provides sufficient opportunities
for fiscally positive land uses (retail, lodging, marine industry) to generate revenues
for services to other land uses included in the plan. The principal may also be applied
to major development projects or broader revitalization efforts to ensure that new
development is designed and implemented in the most cost-efficient manner
possible.
•
2. General Plan land use policies will facilitate a critical mass of marine uses.
Discussion. The fiscal analysis concludes that marine uses as a whole generate a
positive cost/revenue balance for City government. In part this is due to the added
property tax that boats generate, but mainly results from the fact that the marine
environment in the City constitutes the major visitor attraction, and visitor spending
contributes to the fiscal benefit of commercial and lodging uses. The fiscal analysis
also points out, however, that there is significant economic competition in the
waterfront area and that the number of marine businesses in Newport Beach has
declined over at least the past ten years. Local business owners in this industry have
raised the issue of whether the marine industry presence in the City may decline
below sustainable levels, resulting in a general loss of the economic benefit of
7
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• boating and other marine activities in the City. There is not sufficient information
currently to determine whether this is a likely threat or to define what the threshold
of critical mass should be for this industry, if any. However, this could be evaluated
as part of the General Plan alternatives process. This guiding principle would
confirm the City's recognition that marine uses are an important part of the City's
economy that should be supported in the updated General Plan.
3. General Plan policies will encourage the revitalization of older commercial
areas.
Discussion. Both the Visioning Process and the Commercial Market Analysis have
identified areas of the City that are approaching economic obsolescence or which are
underutilized. The GPAC has suggested that the City should proactively establish
guidelines for the private sector to transform older properties into viable business or
residential uses that provide a fresh vitality to these areas while maintaining their
essential character. The GPAC suggested some parameters for revitalization in
Newport Beach, such as making commercial areas nicer without making them bigger,
respecting historic places and ambiance, and creating pedestrian -dense areas with
high quality restaurants. Many of the areas identified for revitalization are also
appropriate for mixed -use development. This is consistent with the suggestion in the
Visioning Process that underutilized commercial land may be rezoned for residential
• or mixed -use development.
4. The General Plan should encourage mixed -use development.
Discussion. Participants in the Visioning Process as well as the City's Economic
Development Committee (EDC) have indicated support for increasing opportunities
for mixed -use development in Newport Beach. Mixed -Use development can take the
form of multiple uses, in which residential, retail or office uses may be sited adjacent
to each other, or be in the form of single development projects that combine mixed
uses into multiple stories of development, such as retail commercial on the ground
floor with residential or office space above. It is important to encourage land use
combinations that are mutually supportive. Residential development creates local
spending power to support retail development. Office uses also create daytime
spending power as well as creating jobs for residents who may occupy the same
building or adjacent units. Light manufacturing or marine uses may also be combined
with commercial or residential uses in the proper setting, provided such uses are free
of impacts from noise, oders, etc. For Newport Beach, it is also critical to maintain
the proper scale for mixed -use development. There are many good mixed -use urban
design projects in smaller city downtowns, which are appropriately scaled to the
residential community environment desired by Newport Beach residents. Examples
in Santa Barbara, Los Gatos and Brea have proven that it is critical that these
0
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• developments maintain very high quality standards to avoid overcrowding or other
negative aspects of higher development intensities that have occurred in older forms
of mixed use development, particularly in some of the eastern cities.
5. General Plan policies will support City efforts to minimize retail sales leakage
from the community.
Discussion: The Commercial Market Analysis demonstrates that Newport Beach
not only serves Cityresidents relatively well but also draws substantial retail sales
from non-resident shoppers and visitors to the City. However, certain sales leakage
categories were identified that signal additional retail development opportunities,
particularly in older commercial areas that no longer serve local needs as well as they
once did. The EDC has also suggested that the City's economic development
strategy should focus on the City's regional market share and the additional
opportunities that may exist to provide a wider range of commercial establishments;
particularly those which capitalize on new markets being created both regionally and
in adjacent cities. Moreover, the retail market is dynamic and it is important to
provide sufficient land use flexibility for businesses to upgrade and change their
storefronts, building sizes and product offerings to stay abreast of consumer tastes
and market trends. Along these lines, participants in the Visioning Process supported
the notion of allowing for expansion of existing businesses, while limiting the
• magnitude of new commercial development. Yet many respondents also recognized
the opportunity for larger retail uses in the Airport Area that would capture some of
the sales currently lost to surrounding communities. In addition, Newport Center
and Fashion Island will continue to serve as major retail centers for the City and will
likely need some flexibility to evolve over time to better meet consumer needs.
Finally, the fiscal analysis points out that sales tax is the second largest single revenue
source for the City, and is a prime contributor of funds needed to provide services to
the residents of the City.
C�
G. Land shall be designated for commercial use and regulated in a manner that
can be supported by the market.
Discussion: The Commercial Market Analysis found that some commercial areas
are underutilized and underperforming, such as the Balboa Peninsula and West
Newport. Participants in the Visioning Process strongly agreed that the City should
consider re -zoning these areas fox residential or mixed use. It does not serve the City
or the business community to retain commercial zoning when the market will not
support commercial use of that land. The EDC has also pointed out examples where
older office buildings and even some lodging facilities no longer adequately serve
market demand due to their location or functional obsolescence. Other areas of the
City are better positioned to support newer buildings that do respond to current and
M
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
0
future market requirements. As this occurs, existing, older buildings should be
permitted to redevelop into uses more compatible with their surroundings, which in
many cases may be residential or mixed -use development. This principle can also
apply to some City land use regulations, especially in Mariner's Mile. Specific marine -
oriented uses are required in a, certain percent of the floor area. When the market
does not adequately support these uses, commercial space remains vacant and
unproductive.
7. General Plan policies will facilitate the development and retention of a variety
of business types that strengthen the vitality of the local economy.
Discussion. The fiscal analysis discusses the fact that the various components of the
local economy are interrelated, and while not all land uses generate high tax revenues
by themselves, they often do provide part of the economic foundation to support the
City's high revenue producers. This occurs on a couple levels. For example, business
and professional services firms often do not generate much sales tax directly, but
they typically offer higher wage incomes that support housing prices in the City and
generate retail spending that does result directly in sales tax revenues for the City. On
another level, local firms need access to quality business and professional services in
order to compete effectively in the marketplace. The ability of Newport Beach to
support a variety of both business and personal services makes it a superior business
location and increases its attractiveness to high revenue producing businesses.
Another example of this phenomenon would be Hoag Hospital and related medical
offices and facilities in the City. The jobs provided in these facilities are generally
very well paid and in addition, medical supply firms can be significant sales tax
generators. Further concentration of medical facilities could help to attract new
research facilities with the potential for substantial economic benefit.
8. Additional development entitlement will provide significant fiscal, economic
or other community benefit.
Discussion. While Newport Beach is currently a substantial job center, the
Visioning Process enunciated the position that job growth is not an important goal
by itself. Economic development must support the community's broader goals and
provide net benefits that outweigh the potential impacts of growth and development.
This principle establishes the City's position that the benefit of new development is
not assumed as a matter of right, but must be demonstrated explicitly. This principle
also recognizes the fact that significant opportunity exists to upgrade, revitalize, and
enhance the City business base within its existing built environment. For example,
fiscal goals can be met by recruiting "point of sale" firms (e.g. "e-commerce" firms)
to existing office space, increasing the non -retail sales tax base in the City without
necessarily increasing the impacts associated with new office development. As the
10
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• GPAC suggested, commercial revitalization can mean making places better without
making them bigger. The key is the quality and character of the development.
0
9. General Plan policies will protect the high value of residential property.
Discussion: This principle confirms the idea that Newport Beach is primarily a
residential community, and that economic development should preserve and protect
that quality, not diminish it through inappropriate or excessive development. It also
relates to the need to ensure that commercial and business development is in
appropriate scale to nearby residential neighborhoods. This principle further
reinforces the conclusion of the fiscal analysis that higher value residential units do
pay for themselves in terms of generating sufficient tax revenues to pay for
neighborhood services. The EDC has recommended that the General Plan process
also explore opportunities for higher density residential development as a means of
providing high value development with positive fiscal benefits. Such developments
may be appropriate in the Airport Area or other at Newport Center.
10. General Plan policies shall prepare the City to capitalize on market changes
and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community.
Discussion: The market analyses and the Visioning Process have identified areas of
the City where change is likely due to economic pressure from growing business
sectors or the presence of key market opportunities. For example, the Airport Area
could support new retail developments that require a larger scale than would be
suitable in many areas of the City. At the same time, the Visioning Process
participants were concerned that the intensity of development in this area not exceed
the carrying capacity of the road systems and other services. Similarly, the West
Newport Industrial Area is adjacent to the Hoag Hospital area, which may
experience pressure to expand medical services, supply outlets and research facilities.
Some of the marine -related industries that occupy this area formerly were located
nearer the waterfront and have experienced the need to move due to real estate price
escalations in the past. There is a need to plan for change in a number of areas of the
City, so that important new economic opportunities can find locations in the
Newport Beach while viable existing businesses continue to thtive in the community.
11. The General Plan shall support the careful expansion of visitor -serving
businesses and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities.
Discussion: The fiscal analysis documents the benefit the City gains from visitor
trade. Visitor spending on taxable goods and services, as well as transient occupancy
taxes on lodging revenues, is estimated to generate $4.8 million in net revenues to the
City, which help support City services above and beyond those provided to visitors
themselves. As with retail commercial development, the market for tourist trade and
11
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• business travel evolves and changes, reflecting not only national and international
consumer trends, but also regional changes in the type and variety of visitor
experiences that are offered. Therefore, it is important for the General Plan to
provide opportunities for this economic sector to maintain and enhance its vitality as
it keeps pace with changing market conditions. Similarly, the City must provide for
accommodations and other services needed by visitors to the coast. On the other
hand, the Visioning Process outlines clear limits to the growth and development of
the tourist trade in Newport Beach, indicating that the city is a residential beach
community, not primarily a tourist destination. While most participants were in favor
of tourism, many felt any major expansions of lodging in particular should be
concentrated in the Airport Area or Newport Center. Furthermore, it may not be in
the City's interest to pursue market opportunities already substantially captured by
other localities in the county. For example, while a larger convention center may help
attract some more business travel, this market is well saturated currently and the
public financial subsidies necessary to maintain such a facility may not bear adequate
returns.
12. The General Plan shall offer a distinct land use concept and policy framework
for the Airport Area.
0
Discussion. The Airport Area is distinct in many ways from the balance of the City
due to its regional centrality, proximity to the airport, and primary orientation to
business and commerce. This area may offer unique opportunities for a scale and
type of development that would permit the realization of commercial and even
residential developments not appropriate in other areas of Newport Beach. The
location of this area adjacent to the regional freeways may reduce the potential for
development in the area to directly impact neighborhoods and local commercial
districts in the rest of the City. The area also exhibits a distinct design character that
is generally more consistent with the regional business center concentrated at the
freeway and is not identified with the beach front character of much of the rest of
Newport Beach. Therefore, from an economic development and land use
perspective, this area may benefit from more tailored planning concepts.
12
•
E
0
oAtaEWP0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Memorandum
P NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
'941r T% (949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3229
TO: General Plan Advisory Committee
FROM: Tamara Campbell AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: April 12, 2004
SUBJECT: Revised Planning Issues Report
As requested by GPAC at its last meeting, EIP Associates has prepared a revised
Planning Issues Report, incorporating changes suggested by GPAC. Added text is
shown as underlined while deleted text is shown as lined -through.
For your information, the City Council and Planning Commission will be conducting a
study session on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 at 4:00 in the City Council Chambers to
discuss the Planning Issues.
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING ISSUES REPORT
This document presents a summary of the issues that have been identified through the public Visioning
Process, and technical research and analyses as conducted by City staff and their consultants during
preparation of the Technical Background Report (TBR) prepared for the update of the General Plan. Issues
defined here represent opportunities, constraints, and challenges facing the City of Newport Beach as related
to each of the General Plan elements. These are an important component of the planning process as they
provide a basis for which goals, policies, and implementation programs will be incorporated into the
updated General Plan. Issues identified by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and participants
of the Visioning Process are shown in the first column, while issues identified based on research for the TBR
are shown in the second column. Checkmarks are placed under the column headings "Policy" and/or
"Framework" indicating the statement may be addressed by policy, or provides a fact that should be
considered in the update of the General Plan.
Land Use. and Growth
Visioning participants desire an
✓
appropriate mix of uses that sustains
Newport Beach as primarily a residential
beach town with broad appeal as a tourist
destination.
There is concern over the potential
✓
impacts of new development on the City's
community character.
As the City's available vacant properties
✓
planned for development are built out, any
additional development will occur as infill
or re -use of existing properties, possibly
including structures that integrate housing
with commercial uses (mixed -use).
The Greenlight Initiative (Measure S)
✓
requires residents to vote on development
proposals that exceed limits established in
the General Plan (i.e., 100 homes, 100
peak hour car trips, or 40,000 square feet of
commercial building space)
General Plan Technical Background Report
•
•
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
Visioning Technical Back round Report pollc Framework
Residential
Opportunities for new housing units are
✓
limited as there are few vacant parcels
available for development. Assuming
development of Banning Ranch, Southern
California Association of Governments'
(SCAG) projected housing need for the
City of 1,421 new households of varying
income levels for 2000-2005 could be
accommodated.
Some older residential areas (e.g., Corona
✓
del Mar and Lido Isle) have been developed
with two housing units built on three legal
lots. Legally, these homes could be
demolished and replaced with housing built
on each legal lot of record, increasing
overall development densities.
While larger residential homes and their
✓
effects is a trend of major concern to
many in Newport Beach, residents have
mixed opinions on whether existing
regulations are sufficient for now. Some
residents feel "mansionization" should be
controlled while others feel larger homes
contribute to higher property values in
the City. The appropriate scale varies by
neighborhood and geographic area.
Mixed=Use
Development'
Specific areas appropriate for mixed -use
In addition to the specific areas identified
✓
in the Visioning process, other areas within
development include Mariner's Mile,
the CiW may be suitable for mixed -use
Central Balboa, Cannery Village,
development.
McFadden Square, Lido Marina Village,
the Airport Business Area, and Newport
Center.
Rezoning of underutilized commercial
✓
lands for residential or mixed -use
development should be considered,
particularly Central Balboa and
McFadden Square.
City of Newport Beach
•
•
•
Land Use
Visioning Technical Background Report I Policy Framework
Commercial
Six areas have been identified as Specific
✓
Plan areas in the existing land use element:
Mariner's Mile, Cannery Village/
McFadden Square, Newport Shores, Santa
Ana Heights, Central Balboa, and Old
Newport Blvd. In addition, it is the intent
to formulate a Specific Plan for Corona del
Mar.
Programs have been developed for the
✓
improvement of several community areas,
including the Balboa Sign Overlay,
Mariner's Mile Design Framework, Central
Balboa Public Improvements, and Corona
del Mar Vision 2004 Plan.
The impact of traffic on residential With the exception of the Airport Business ✓
neighborhoods throughout the City is an area and Newport Center, most
ongoing concern. commercial areas are in close proximity to
residential neighborhoods, which can create
conflicts due to traffic, parking, air and
noise pollution.
Recreation and Open Space
The ability to increase parklands is
✓
✓
constrained by the land costs and lack of
availability of developable properties.
Opportunities for park space acquisitions
exist in West Newport and the Banning
Ranch area. Active parks are a particular
need on the west side of the city.
Gymnasiums represent a need as some
✓
facilities are currently rented from private
sources.
Lighted athletic fields have been identified
✓
as a particular recreational need.
Banning Ranch eenstittires-strincludes open
✓
space resanreeogportunities, which could
that rM,be reduced through development.
Development of tidelands or other public
✓
lands is opposed, while many favor the
preservation of such areas.
General Plan Technical Background Report
•
•
0
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
Visioning
Technical Back round Report
_EELL
Framework
The City's ecologically sensitive areas are a
✓
critical natural resource that limit active
recreational opportunities and provide
more passive use of these areas.
Residents are divided over the need to
preserve Banning Ranch as an passive
open space mxe 2pport�niry or to develop
itf for needed housing. Development
would potentially affect the aesthetic
value ,.c .... — i
afford
Some
comrr
reside:
Marin
Study Area;,
Banning Ranch
GPAC members feel that the discussion ✓
regarding the future of Banning Ranch
future should not be limited, and also
include assessment of more options.
•
•
Land Use
Visioning
Technical Background Report
22!lcL
Framework
Mixed -use represents an opportunity for
development,
Portions of Mariner's Mile are vacant and
underdeveloped and provide opportunities
for new development. Impacts of new
development on Coast Highways traffic are
of concern.
✓
In Mariner's Mile, some marine -related
✓
uses are leaving the area. There may be
some pressure to transition sites devoted to
uses such as boat sales to more intensive
uses.
Multiple property ownerships may
complicate coordination of a cohesive
pattern of development.
✓
There has been discussion of developing —a
✓
boardwalk aloes the waterfront area. Issues
associated with a new boardwalk would
involve access and parking as well as
economic feasibilirv.
Old Newport Blvd./West Newport Industrial
The expansion of Hoag Hospital offers
✓
opportunities for the development of
medical -related uses within the West
Newport Industrial area and Old Newport
Boulevard.
Old Newport Boulevard contains a
✓
fragmented mix of uses resulting from its
evolution as a retail thoroughfare to a
secondary roadway with increased
development of medical offices.
An issue is the character of the West
✓
Newport Industrial area —whether it
should change to accommodate residential
or other uses, or remain a small-scale
industrial area.
Multiple ownership of individual parcels
✓
inhibits the area's cohesive and integrated
development.
Lido Marina Village/City Hall
Mixed -use represents an opportunity for Lido Village has experienced a high number ✓
development. of building vacancies. At issue, is the
appropriate type and scale of development
that will enhance its character.
General Plan Technical Background Report
is
•
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
VIsforring
Technical Background Report
Pollc
Framework
Parking in the area may be inadequate to
✓
support full occupancy of the commercial
uses.
Multiple ownership of individual parcels
✓
inhibits the area's cohesive and integrated
development.
There is question whether City Hall is
City Hall is considered to be too small to
✓
still located centrally for its residents.
function as the administrative center of the
City.
Cannery Village
Mixed -use represents an opportunity for
Requests for large-scale, multi -lot
✓
development.
developments in Cannery Village could
impact the area's character with increased
traffic and parking demand.
Mixed -use issues such as building design,
✓
type of commercial uses, and ensuring the
compatibility of residential uses need to be
addressed in new development.
Multiple ownership of individual parcels
✓
inhibits the area's cohesive and integrated
development.
Mixed -use represents an opportunity for
development.
Year-round tourism on Balboa Peninsula
is inadequate to support all commercial
areas and interest has been expressed to
rezone areas for residential or mixed -use
The business community and residents
have expressed a desire to improve or
enhance the Corona del Mar's village
character through installation of
streetscape amenities or other
improvements.
11
McFadden
Central Balboa
Corona Del Mar
Traffic congestion on Pacific Coast
Highway may conflict with the intended
pedestrian nature of the Corona del Mar
area. In addition, parking deficiencies
present conflicts with adjacent residential
neighborhoods as customers encroach upon
residential street parking.
City of Newport Beach
•
•
Land Use
Visioning I Technical Background Report Policy Framework
Newport Center/Fashion Island
Fashion Island: a majority of residents
There is zoning capacity for additional
✓
and businesses support keeping retail
development, though, there is a question
space at current levels, but many are still
regarding the adequacy of demand for
willing to back expansion of existing
office and/or hotel uses to support
stores and moderate increases for new
additional development.
businesses.
Newport Center: a majority of residents
✓
and businesses support little or no change
to Newport Center, but some are willing
to allow growth for existing companies.
Newport Center: adding residential uses
✓
represents an opportunity for future
development.
Airport Business Area
Support for land use strategies that
✓
prevent the expansion of John Wayne
Airport.
New mixed -use and residential uses
The Airport Business area has a number of
✓
represent an opportunity for
under -performing land uses, which may
development.
present an opportunity for re -use or
redevelopment. The City's Economic
Development Committee has studied the
redevelopment of the airport area in order
to maximize productivity of the area for
property owners and the City. New
development could have impacts on the
residential community, and/or require
circulation improvements.
Multiple ownership of individual parcels
✓
may constrain new development proposals.
A portion of the city is located immediately
✓
adjacent to John Wayne Airport and is
therefore subject to compliance with the
Orange County Airport Land Use Plan.
General Plan Technical Background Report
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
Vislonln Technical Back round Re d Folic Framework
•Economic Development
General
•
Appropriate mix and scale of uses based
on the vision of Newport Beach as
primarily a residential beach town that,
while attractive to tourists, should not be
identified primarily as a tourist
destination.
There is strong demand for development
✓
based on the City's physical beauty, and
resident's purchasing power.
Protection and enhancement of harbors
✓
and beaches is a priority, including
improvement as recreational areas,
resulting in economic benefits.
Areas of the City needing revitalization:
Opportunities for infill development may,
✓
positively contribute to the revitalization of
Balboa Village, Mariner's Mile, Old
an area.
Newport Blvd., Cannery Village, Central
Balboa Peninsula, McFadden Square,
West Newport (Newport Shores), and the
mixed residential/industrial area above
Hoag Hospital (West Newport
Industrial). The City should be proactive
in creating a revitalization vision to help
guide future private development.
Mixed opinions regarding the potential
✓
impact of economic development on the
City, with business owners being slightly
more in favor of economic development
than residents. The concern here is
whether economic development will
detract from residents' quality of life.
However, when asked if the City should
encourage growth in the local economy to
help pay for municipal services, a
significant majority of those who
responded said "yes", although there was
disagreement about how that should be
done.
•
8 City of Newport Beach
0
0
0
Economic Development
Visioning
Technical Background Report
Pollc
Framework
Participants were divided on whether the
City should continue to accommodate
job growth. Many felt it is a question of
the type of jobs and associated impacts.
Those who did express support for
growth state that the City should
"accommodate" but not "promote"
additional employment opportunities.
While people want the City to set firm
constraints on development, including
expansion of employment centers and
hotels, additional development may be
acceptable in certain areas under certain
conditions.
0
0
L .J
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
v1sioning
Technical Background Report
22SL
Framework
The commercial centers in the coastal area
✓
largely serve the visitor market and do not
capture a large proportion of residents'
spending, with the exception of Corona del
Mar, which has the broadest base of local -
serving retailers.
Except for the Balboa Village area, most of
✓
the coastal commercial centers perform
adequately in terms of sales per square foot
(so. In Balboa Village, the average is
relatively low in a number of the visitor -
serving store type categories, reflecting the
less accessible location and attractiveness of
this older commercial area. Questions have
been raised about possibly reducing the
amount of commercial zoning in this area.
In terms of opportunities for new retail
✓
establishments in the coastal subareas, the
focus should be on retail categories that
have sales leakage throughout all of
Newport Beach and would also be at the
appropriate scale of commercial
development. Certain specialty retail
categories such as music and bookstores
would fit these criteria.
In Mariners Mile, there may be some
✓
✓
pressure to transition sites devoted to boat
sales to more intensive uses.
Lido Marina Village may see pressure for
✓
redevelopment as retail uses underperform.
10
While Newport Beach has a variety of ✓ ✓
meeting facilities, major convention centers
are mainly concentrated in Anaheim. More
recently, Huntington Beach's new
waterfront development poses competition
for Newport at the small to mid -size
business meeting scale. The lack of larger
facilities in Newport limits the City's
business trade potential.
City of Newport Beach
•
0
•
Economic Development
111sloning
Technical Background Report
_E2EL
Framework
Participants were generally in favor of
✓
tourism, but divided on providing more
tourist accommodations, including
lodging. However, if new hotels are to be
built, most respondents agree they should
be concentrated in the Airport Business
Area and Newport Center.
Additional hotel development in the City
✓
is an issue for future consideration, as it
could have traffic, noise, and visual
impacts, and could diminish open space.
Marine Industry
Economic pressure continues to replace
✓
✓
shipyards and water -dependent
manufacturing/repair services with
residential uses.
Marine proponents would like to see
✓
greater use of limited public shore access
sites to increase visitorship or marine
industry.
Marine uses, such as the harbor and
✓
boating, provide economic benefits to the
City as well as recreation and leisure
opportunities. Balancing the benefits with
the impacts associated with noise, water,
and natural resources is important.
The Harbor Commission proposes a
✓
proactive -sustainable growth option for
marine uses that projects a diversification,
consolidation, and more efficient grouping
of marine uses and water -dependent
activities (see letter from the Harbor
Commission).
061ce/Industrial
Uses
Potential exists for transition of older
✓
properties in the Airport Area to more
intensive use, as well as the addition of
major retail uses in the Airport Area on
sites currently occupied by industrial or
office uses.
Economic pressure threatens the viability of
✓
✓
light industrial uses in the West Newport
Industrial area.
General Plan Technical Background Report
11
•
U
•
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
Visioning
Technical Background Report
Pollc
Framework
There may be the possibility for expansion
✓
of medical uses in the hospital area,
particularly medical R&D.
The City would benefit from an economic
✓
transition in existing office and industrial
spaces toward businesses that generate
greater sales tax through off -site product
sales. The sales tax is such an important
component of the City's fiscal picture, it
would be important to consider ways to
encourage firms that generate taxable non -
retail sales and taxable business -to -business
transactions.
Population
and Demographics
The housing element indicates a trend of
✓
increasing population size for seniors aged
65 and above. This will place greater
demand on the City to provide senior -
related services and housing.
Housing
As population within the City increases in
the future the density of residential
development might increase. This is likely
to take form as infill development because
there are limited amounts of undeveloped
land not committed to open space.
✓
Mobile home units for affordable to low
and/or moderate income households have
been converted or are in the process of
converting to market rate status.
✓
The demand for housing points to a trend
of declining housing vacancy rates.
Coupled with rising prices for housing in
Orange County, housing affordability will
be further reduced for the local work force.
✓
✓
A significant percentage of senior citizens
live at or below the Federal poverty level.
There is insufficient amount of affordable
housing for senior citizens (age 65 and
older) in the City.
✓
✓
12
•
•
Circulation
Visioning
Technical Background Report
Pollc
Framework
Consistent with the Regional Housing
✓
Needs Assessment (RHNAI allocation for
the City, Newport Beach will need to
develop approximately 476 new housing
units within its 1999 City limits and 945
new housing units in the Newport Coast
and Newport Ridge annexation areas to
accommodate projected growth in the
region by 2005. Specifically, 53 Leevlow
and $moderate income kausing needs
_ . for _ _telly-5aJ __o0
will v
residential units, will be
needed within the 1999 City boundaries.
Within the Newport Coast and Newport
Ridge areas, 2Llow and -moderate -income
housing needs vvill aecount
approximately 95 and zero residential units
will be needed; respeetively.
Banning Ranch is currently designated for
✓
single-family development under Orange
County's General Plan. While affordable
some housing may be able to be developed
under this polity, the site may have
environmental constraints that limit the
potential for development.
As SCAG projects future job growth in the
✓
City in the next decade, additional housing
may be required -needed to accommodate
the future workforce.
A limited supply of vacant land will
✓
continue to put pressure on housing
prices.
Circulation
Input received during the visioning Encouraging other modes of transportation ✓
process germrakly-suggests that additional such as public transit would decrease traffic
traffic/congestion should be discouraged. and congestion.
General Plan Technical Background Report
13
•
•
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
Visioning
Technical Background Report
_E222L
Framework
The City may need to explore less
There are intersections with ICU values
✓
✓
restrictive level of service (LOS) standards
greater than 0.90 (LOS "E" or worse) and
for unique areas or intersections (e.g..
considered deficient per the current
Circulation Element for buildout of the
adopted General Plan in either peak hour
in the City.
Airport Areal that are already
ex.periencing, congestion and where
congestion is expected to occur.{fer
-iftstanee, ng - LGS during
allav worse
Some residential areas experience
✓
✓
congestion from cut -through traffic.
Additional grade separations are
✓
considered to be undesirable.
Growth in areas surrounding the City,
✓
✓
combined with the growth included in the
currently adopted land use element, will
result in increased congestion, even with
the full construction of the Circulation
Element roadway system.
Through traffic on key roadways (Coast
The levels of through traffic are fairly
✓
Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, etc.) has
typical. At the same time, the potential for
been identified as a perceived issue.
additional through traffic is directly related
to the ability of the regional highway
system to accommodate ongoing growth in
regional traffic. The areas where through
traffic have higher occurrences include:
Coast Highway in the southernmost
portion of the City to MacArthur
Boulevard, and the Airport Business area.
On Coast Highway, the role of
Traffic volumes will increase on Coast
✓
✓
automobiles should be de-emphasized,
Highway resulting from development
with enhanced accessibility for other
accommodated by the existing General
modes (e.g. pedestrian access from the
Plan.
beach to Mariner's Mile), and traffic in
Corona 44el-de_ l Mar should be decreased.
Peak season volumes have been raised as
Roadway volume traffic count data
✓
an issue, especially on the Balboa
indicates that summer weekend daily traffic
pPeninsula.
volumes increase by more than 30% on
Newport Boulevard south of Coast
Highway and Balboa Boulevard east of
20th Street on the Peninsula. The increases
in traffic on other roadways throughout the
City are relatively modest.
14
City of Newport Beach
•
n
U
•
Circulation
VIsloning
TechnlcalBackground Report
_EELL
Framework
Roadway volume traffic count data
✓
indicates that summer weekday daily traffic
volumes increased based on data collected
on Newport Boulevard in front of City
Hall. The increases on mid -week weekdays
(Tuesday through Thursday) compared to
shoulder season weekday conditions are
approximately half of the increase observed
for summer weekend day. Summer traffic
volume increases on Mondays and Fridays,
however, are very similar to the summer
weekend day increases.
Parking in the coastal areas (Balboa
Peninsula, Balboa Island, etc.) is generally
viewed as inadequate.
The parking issues on the Peninsula d ✓
Balboa Island are well -recognized issues.anA
parking study was completed by MMA that
identifies issues and potential policies to
address those.
Public Transit
2
The City of Newport Beach is committed
An established network of bus routes
✓
✓
to ensuring that public transportation
remains a viable alternative to the
automobile for residents. Expanding
operated by Orange County
Transportation Authority provides access to
employment centers, shopping and
public transit received some support from
recreational areas within the City.
visioning participants.
Alth_ ough. `wh:l_ _x4sd__ .......__kt-
-- be su . cien,e ridership is low, future
public improvements can be designed to
promote the use of ublic transportation as
an alternative to the automob&—the
apparent '—defi_ iene=n.;. Ridership patterns
could be assessed to determine if habits or
preferences as opposed to network
adequacy is the contributor to low public
transit use.
The Centerline project, ' , nmy
✓
✓
run near -to-
the City of Newport Beach and provide
access to John Wayne Airport. This may
provide an opportunity for enhanced
alternative mode (non -automotive)
accessibility/mobility within the airport
area of the City.
General Plan Technical Background Report
15
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
Visioning Technical Background Report Polic Framewoda
• pedestrian_& Bicycle Mobility/Accessibility
The Newport Beach bikeways and trails
✓
system contains off-street bike paths,
sidewalk bikeways, and on -street bike trails.
However, the current master planned
system is not complete at this time; many
linkages remain to be completed.
Additionally, an equestrian trail system
exists in Santa Ana Heights.
Efforts could be made to provide frequent
✓
pedestrian access points from Coast
Highway south to Newport Bay.
Pedestrian access is vital to encouraging
alternative travel modes. Mariner's Mile
Coast Highway is heavily auto -oriented.
No comprehensive strategy for pedestrian
✓
(Coast Highway between Newport
improvements exists.
Boulevard and the Back Bay Bridge) and
Corona del Mar has been raised as a
particular concern.
Air and
Maritime Travel'
Expansion of John Wayne Airport (SNA)
✓
•
has recently been approved to increase
capacity from 8.4 (7.8 of which is used) to
10.8 million travelers (an increase of 38.5
percent over current passengers). SNA will
continue to be a regional airport, acting as a
secondary facility to Los Angeles
International Airport.
Concern for retaining the maritime
industries (i.e., passenger service to
Balboa Island,7=4 Balboa Peninsula, and
The proximity of Newport Beach to the
Pacific Ocean creates unique transportation
opportunities and conflicts. Specifically, the
✓
✓
Catalina Island, as well as water taxi_
maritime uses around Newport Bay
service in the harbor) in the City was a
topic of visioning discussions.
increase traffic congestion in the area.
However. the City's proximity to the
Pacific Ocean also allows for alternative
travel modes such as 4-idcengh-there is at
between Balbea is!
pliqsieal separation
and Balboa enknSU63 -the Balboa Ferry,
Catalina Ferri and water taxi service.
leeations is
eanneets the two and used as an
alter -native mode of Ermsport,
Transportation related to maritime uses
around Newport uul'
•
16 City of Newport Beach
•
Pi
Water System
_ Visioning Technical Back round Report Policy Framework
Truck Mobility
The City does not have policies and
✓
supporting resources (i.e., truck route map)
within the Circulation Element that
memorialize the City's truck routes and
restrictions.
Water System
The Diemer and Weymouth Filtration
✓
Plants currently have remaining capacity,
but it is not known whether this is
sufficient to accommodate future growth.'
In addition to the existing groundwater
✓
treatment plant, a new one is being
constructed to serve existing development.
Although there is currently adequate
capacity to serve existing development, it is
not known at this time whether these
plants can accommodate future growth.
The imported water supply for the portion
✓
✓
of the Planning Area served by the City of
Newport Beach is sufficient until 2010, but
future improvements to meet the City's
imported water demand beyond 2010 will
be needed.
Orange County Water District (OCWD)
✓
has indicated that groundwater supplies are
expected to meet any future demand
requirements in Newport Beach for the
portion of the Planning Area served by the
City until 2020.
Both stater treatment plants currently serviagh1c3mport Beech also serve much of 1. s Angeles and Orange mind s Thus determining whether
. them 4S sufficicot capa�jtyto smeftture develogrucar within the Planning Area is not possibic.
General Plan Technical Background Report 17
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
WslonIng
Technical Background Report
Poltc
Framework
•
Under normal conditions, Irvine Ranch
✓
Water District's (IRWD) Water Resources
Management Plan indicates that there
would be an adequate water supply to meet
average and maximum day future demand
through 2025. Under drought or source
outage (emergency) conditions, maximum
month demands under all supply outages,
with the exception of two scenarios, would
be met. If there were supply outages at the
Diemer Filtration Plant or Dyer Road Well
Field, IRWD would be unable to provide
maximum month demands in any given
year through 2025.
The Water Master Plan identifies the
✓
✓
opportunity for increasing recycled water
through provision of recycled water from
neighboring water districts.
The City needs to prepare and adopt a
Recycled Water Ordinance, as required by
✓
the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan.
•
There is an opportunity for the City to
✓
consider the implementation of
desalination plants.
The City participates in many local and
✓
regional water conservation programs such
as the Countywide Low Flush Toilet
Retrofit and Rebate Program. and
Conjunctive Use Programs. The CiW also
implements urban water conservation
rap cttces.
As water infrastructure continues to age
and deteriorate, capital expenditures will
✓
have to be made for repair and
replacement.
•
18
City of Newport Beach
0
•
Wastewater System
Vlslonln
Technical Back round Re ort
Pollc
Framework
Wastewater
System
The three wastewater treatment plants have
✓
adequate capacity to serve existing
development within the Planning Area. It is
not known at this rime whether adequate
capacity existing to serve future
development 2
The City of Newport Beach 1996 Master
✓
✓
Plan of Sewers identifies deficiencies, which
have yet to be upgraded. As a result of
existing system deficiencies, the City has
experienced the occurrence of sanitary
sewer overflows.
Storm
As wastewater infrastructure continues to
age and deteriorate, capital expenditures
will have to be made for repair and
replacement.
Drain Systems
Portions of the City's existing stormwater
facilities are insufficient to convey the
runoff for the 10-year or 100-year storm
events. In addition, 14 percent of the
analyzed streets and existing drainage
facilities are insufficient to convey runoff
for the 2-year design storm.
✓
✓
Although there are no known deficiencies
in the areas of Newport Coast, Newport
Ridge, Bay Knolls, and Santa Ana Heights,
the Storm Drain Master Plan needs to be
updated to include the recently -annexed
areas of the City.
✓
Maintenance of the stormwater facilities
needs to be increased in order to limit
periodic street flooding --era sevver—P.
slakes•
✓
' The wa tcw ter treatment plants r
determ'ningwhetherthereissuflicier
General Plan Technical Background I
•
•
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
VISIOnIng
Technical Background Report
_!EEL
Framework
Stormwater runoff in the City is impacted
✓
✓
✓
by urban uses and can contain pollutants.
Implementation of best management
practices designed to prevent and control
the contribution of pollutants to the storm
drain system are required, as well as many
other Federal. State, and local regulations.
Solid Waste
The three landfills serving the City have
capacity to serve current development for
several years. Specifically, closure dates are
estimated to be in 2013 for the Olinda
Alpha Sanitary Landfill, 2040 for the Prima
Deschecha Sanitary Landfill, and 2024 for
the Bowerman Sanitary Landfill.
Currently, the City's nonexclusive solid
waste franchise program requires all
commercial haulers to recycle at least 50
percent of the waste they collect from the
City, which is consistent with the State -
established goal.
✓
Fire
In 2001. the City diverted 49.5 percent of
✓
✓
✓
✓
its overall solid waste stream.
Energy
With new development and expansion of
existing infrastructure, there is an
opportunity for the City to improve upon
existing energy conservation programs, as
well as pursuing alternative forms of eneW
sources.
Protection
With development of the Newport Coast
area, the City may need to relocate an
existing fire station in the area to meet
anticipated needs at buildour. Response
presents a challenge for both fire and
emergency medical services, as emergency
access is limited in portions of the area to
Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) only.'
• ' Riley, Timothy.
20
Police Protection
Visioning
Technical Back round Report
Policy
Framework
Relocation of Station 1, which serves the
✓
•
Balboa Peninsula, may be required to better
serve the area. If the Banning Ranch area is
developed, relocation of ftn--e==tr-�fi
a
atstiafr{Station 2} may be necessary.
Station
Relocation of , which serve
Peninsttift, be better
Balboa may recittired to
__.�crvc'the ar a.
in fire prone -Areas; such as Balboa
Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del
Mar contain dense development that have
old structures, which may not contain fire -
rated building materials or be fitted with
fire sprinklers. Thus, these areas present a
hifh-fire hazard, to be subject to
rehabilitation and/or additional regulations
that increase fire -resistance in these areas.
Future increases in growth in the City
could result in increased traffic congestion,
✓
which would affect the ability of the
Department to respond to emergencies.
•
The Orange County Sheriffs Harbor Patrol
✓
currently_ provides firefighting services in
the Harbor and ocean, which augment
land -based firefighting services.
Public safety should be a funding priority,
✓
though the issue was not explicitly
prioritized, which the issue, w ieh may
indicate an overall satisfaction with the
current level of safety service.
Police
The existing staffing level of 1.8 officers per
✓
1,000 residents is below the NBPD's goal
of 1.9 officers per 1,000 residents.
The City administers the Volunteers in
✓
Policing Program and there are
opportunities to expand their presence in
the field.
•
General Plan Technical Background Report 21
•
is
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
Visioning
Technical Background Report
-ML
Framework
With increased population in the future,
the City may need to expand the services
that the NBPD provides in the area of
Crime Prevention.
✓
With increased population in the future,
✓
the services of the Orange County Sheriffs
Harbor Patrol may need to be expanded.
The City and County have initiated
discussions on whether the City should
assume these services.
Residents have indicated through the
visioning process that public safety should
be a funding priority. Participants did not
explicitly prioritize the issue, which could
indicate an overall satisfaction with the
current level of safety service.
Education
Significant issues pertaining to schools in
✓
✓
✓
✓
Newport Beach are not identified by the
Newport -Mesa School District, —does —ate
Parkssehools in Newport Beaelt.
The City of Newport Beach is not
currently meeting its goal for parkland. As
of January 1, 2002, the City was 0.8 acre
per one thousand residents below its goal of
5.0 acres of parkland per one thousand
residents.
The City has identified a 2010 parldand
need of 455 acres based on population
projections; this is 115 acres more than the
existing inventory, and approximately 77
acres more than what is expected to be
available in 2010.
✓
✓
Additional population increases are
expected, spurred by infill development and
annexations. The demand for recreation
facilities will continue to grow and this
demand will be compounded with current
parkland deficiencies.
✓
22
•
•
•
Parks
VISIOnIng
Technlca/Background Report
Pollc
Framework
Although the City is largely urbanized,
there are still several existing vacant parcels
✓
of varying size, some of which could be
developed for active or passive recreational
uses.
There are several environmentally sensitive
✓
areas identified by the City and discussed
throughout this document, some of which
may provide opportunities for passive
recreational uses such as nature observation
and hilcing. It may be a challenge to
enhance the recreational and open space
qualities of these, while focusing on their
sensitivity and overriding need for
preservation.
Environmental Study Areas located in and
✓
around the Upper Newport Bay and
tideland, canyon, and natural areas away
from the Upper Bay, such as those found in
Newport Coast and Banning Ranch, could
be protected and open to the level of public
access consistent with this protection.
Recreational and commercial use of the
tidelands generates $6 million of annual
revenue while yearly expenditures range
from $11 to $12 million. Given this
imbalanee—,�However, the City has
approved some development on tidelands
(e.g., Balboa Bay Club), and is considering
additional development at Marina Park.
✓
—reereatccox,s
in tidelands available —for
purposes'
Residents have expressed a strong desire for
additional beach and harbor facilities, such
as boat launching and sailing facilities.
✓
Genet
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
Visioning
TechnlcalBackground Report
Polic
Framework
The 1998 Recreation Element identified a
✓
•
deficiency in lighted sports fields. Meeting
this need will be challenging due to the
large amount of area required for this park
type, the lack of available, suitable land,
and the high cost of such land. Regional
recreation resources in the City, such as
public beaches and the Upper Newport
Bay, are not suitable for general park use or
for meeting these active sport -recreational
needs.
The 1998 Recreation Element identified a
✓
deficiency for indoor facilities. Additional
indoor facilities could be planned, located
preferably within a community -level park.
The 1998 Recreation Element identified
✓
✓
that community centers are at maximum
capacity during peak hours, which limits
the ability to offer additional classes.
The statewide effort to reduce class sizes has
✓
✓
generated the need for additional classroom
space at the local level. This could cause the
•
Newport Mesa Unified School District to
reactivate "dormant" school sites presently
leased to the City for recreational purposes
and could impact the availability of sports
fields for group sports such as soccer,
softball, and little league.
The upper Newport Bay is a major
✓
✓
environmental and recreational resource for
the City and the surrounding region.
Although located directly in the City of
Newport Beach, the Upper Bay is
considered a regional resource. Increased
and initial preservation of adjacent parcels
could contribute to satisfying open space,
passive recreation, and resource protection
needs for both the region and the City.
The 1998 Recreation Element identified a ✓
need for public restrooms at existing beach
and harbor facilities. This is a problem for
those on boats not equipped with restroom
facilities, to visitors to Upper Newport Bay,
and on long stretches of beach land without
• available facilities.
24 City of Newport Beach
0
0
•
Civic and Cultural Amenities
V(sionin Technical Back round Re ort
PoiiC
Framework
Civic and Cultural Amenities
One of Newport Beach's amenities is the
✓
breadth of cultural and arts organizations
and events, which contribute to an
enriched cultural life for its residents and
attracts visitors.
Residents have expressed a desire for
A community cultural arts center has been
✓
additional facilities, but potential
identified as a community need.
locations for new cultural facilities within
the City have not been identified.
Biological
Resources
Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest
✓
coastal wetlands remaining in southern
California, and is an ecological resource of
national significance. It also provides
habitat for threatened species.
Areas of Crystal Cove State Beach and
✓
Corona del Mar have been designated a
Marine Life Refuge and an Area of Special
Biological Significance.
Sensitive marine mammals and plants occur
✓
or potentially frequent the nearshore waters
along the City coastlines.
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a *amie
✓
marine resource in Newport Harbor and in
Upper Newport Bay that provides
important nursery and foraging habitat for
a variety of invertebrate and fish species.
Sites within Newport Harbor and Upper
✓
✓
Newport Bay have been identified as
eelgrass enhancement sites for a joint U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers/County of
Orange/City of Newport Beach plan to
enhance between 5 and 10 acres of eelgrass
in Newport Bay. These sites can also be
used to mitigate losses of eelgrass that occur
as a result of City harbor projects, as well as
individual homeowner dock and seawall
construction and/or renovation projects.
General Plan Technical Background Report
25
•
•
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
VislonIng
Technical Background Report
Pollc
Framework
Federally or State listed (as endangered or
✓
threatened) plant species and wildlife
species occur or have the potential to occur
within the City. Additional nonlisted, but
"sensitive" wildlife species and "sensitive"
plant species occur or potentially occur
within the City.
Wildlife corridors within the City of
✓
Newport Beach and the SOI provide
extretxely—valuable habitat for many
terrestrial wildlife species.
A number of features and drainages within
✓
the City of Newport Beach could be
delineated as waters of the United States
and fall under the jurisdiction the COE,
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
Hydrology
A total of 29 Environmental Study Areas
have been identified within the City or
SOI: 20 within the Coastal Zone and 9
outside it. The current potential threats to
Environmental Study Areas within the City
or SOI include water quality, traffic, noise,
public access, encroaching development,
erosion and sedimentation (i.e. dredging
and filling), stormwater runoff, invasive
species introductions (i.e. weeds or feral
domestic animals).
Quality
Future development is likely to increase the
amount of impervious surfaces, thereby
increasing stormwater runoff and
sedimentation. This could result in
potential deterioration in water quality
within the Planning Area, and affect the
freshwater wetlands, estuary, anA-upper and
Lower Newport Bay, and the ocean.
✓
✓
Residents would like to make pollution
✓
clean up and the revitalization of beach
areas a priority.
26
Hydrology and Water Quality
Visioning
Technical Background Report
_EELL
Framework
Urban activities such as the use of fertilizers
within the Planning Area contribute to the
✓
Some bay beaches are impacted by urban
runoff, which brings pollutants such as
trash, oils, pesticides, pet waste, and trace
degradation of existing groundwater
metals, all of which may impair wildlife
quality.
habitat and limit bay users' enjoyment of
swimming and other water contact sports.
Specifically, degraded water quality of
Newport Bay and Semeniuk Slough could
increase the number of days the beach is
closed.
New federal and regional regulations may
✓
require the City to adopt new water quality
provisions.
Improving water quality was identified as
a funding priority during the City's
visioning process.
Water quality within Newport Beach is
✓
enhanced through implementation of
various proerams such as the National
Pollution Elimination Discharge System
(NPDES). Under the NPDES. the City is
required to obtain and adhere to the
municipal storm sewer system permit by
implementing best management practices.
•
Natural and man-made activities cause
✓
sedimentation and require dredging in
order to improve water quality. As San
Diego Creek feeds into Newport Bay, it
was channelized so that sediment could be
routed to the bay. Three major dredeine
projects of Newport Bay have occurred,
with the last one being in 1998. The Army
Corps of Engineers performs annual
surveys of the bay to determine if dredging
is required.
GPAC members recommend that the
✓
City define separate water quality and
conservation policies for different
categories of water resources such as
ocean/bay and drinking.
Business owners consider the City's water ✓
quality a very important attribute in
having a business located in Newport
Beach.
•
General Plan Technical Background Report 27
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
Wslonln
TechnlcatilackcyjRgajL&ort
Policvj
Framework
•
Air Quality
Continued development will increase the
amount of air pollutant sources within the
✓
Planning Area. The primary source of these
emissions will be motor vehicles from travel
within the Planning Area, as well as
commuters within the South Coast Air
Basin. These emissions could be reduced
through planning programs that reduce the
length and or number of vehicle trips, and
encourage residents to work locally,
rideshare, or use alternative forms of
transportation. Other sources of mobile air
emissions could be from aircraft and
recreational water craft operating within or
in the vicinity of the Planning Area.
Continued development will increase the
✓
amount of stationary air pollutant sources
within the Planning Area. These sources are
from construction activities,
implementation of industrial or
manufacturing uses, and boilers that
provide heat. These emissions will be
•
limited and regulated by the SCAQMD
through their New Source Review (NSR)
permitting procedures.
The segregated,
development does faeilitate
patient of not
the expansion of publie transit serviees ep
alternative mades pf—mnsportation within
c{&Naftnitt�-
Vehicles capable of using alternative fuels
✓
and possibly electricity may be
commercially available and economically
viable in the near future. These vehicles will
need a large infrastructure to support and
refuel these vehicles before the public can
accept them.
Topography
The existing topography provides a
dramatic backdrop that helps define the
✓
visual form of the City. Significant
topographic features include the bluffs.
28 City of Newport Beach
Visual Resources
Visioning
Technical Background Report
Policy
Framework
✓
• Visioning participants indicated the desire
to protect and preserve the bluffs located
within the City. Bluffs that were
mentioned as particularly significant
include Castaways, Banning Ranch,
Sunset Ridge, Hoag, Newport Coast, and
Irvine Terrace. Some support was
expressed for restricting the height and
size of homes, establishing large setbacks
to protect bluffs, and being more
restrictive in the use of variances. Some
participants wanted to balance increased
controls with the rights of the property
owners.
In general, the Newport Coast Local
✓
✓
Coastal Program grading standards tends to
locate development on ridges in Newport
Coast and Newport Ridge areas in order to
maintain the existing topographic form.
Visual
Resources
Protection of public view corridors has
• been stated as a priority by Visioning
participants.
As the City contains significant visual
resources —coast, bluffs, hillsides and
canyons —and much of Newport Beach's
character and visual quality derives from its
✓
natural setting, it becomes important to
protect views and encourage development
that enhances such views. While the Draft
Local Coastal Program has established
design guidelines and setback standards to
protect views these may not be applicable
to other areas of concern within the
Planning Area.
Mansionization of homes may also affect
While the City has Shoreline Height
✓
views of bluffs from lower lying areas.
According to Visioning participants,
development on or near coastal bluffs
needs to balance land use controls with
the rights of property owners.
Limitation regulations, the
"mansionization" of homes upland from
the coast may affect the community
character of certain neighborhoods and
have secondary visual impacts. In addition,
the City has no regulations that determine
the placement of development on bluffs.
There is an opportunity to provide vista
turn out points and interpretative signs to
✓
add to the quality of life for residents and
visitors.
•
General Plan Technical Background Report 29
•
•
•
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
Wstoning
Technical Background Report
_E2aL
Framework
State Route 1 (SR-1) is identified as
✓
Eligible for State Scenic Highway
designation and could be nominated for the
State Scenic Highway program.
Trees are an important visual resource
✓
within the Planning Area. City Council
Policy -1 requires trees categorized as
landmark, dedicated, or neighborhood
trees, which contribute to and give
character to an entire neighborhood, be
retained.
Artificial light and glare impacts from
✓
existing_ development such as lighted
athletic fields, future development, and
vehicles can affect existing uses.
Visioning participants have expressed a
✓
desire for the City to preserve tidelands
and public open space, both of which
have the potential to contribute to visual
quality.
Mineral
Resources
Future development and/or recreation use
✓
✓
of the Banning Ranch area could require
remediation and clean-up, as well as be
impacted by existing oil operations.
Cultural
The City does not have an ordinance to
Opportunities exist for remediation and/or
reuse of the 33 abandoned oil well sites
concentrated along the northwest boundary
and located throughout the Planning Area.
Resources
No local historic preservation standards
✓
✓
regulate or protect historic resources,
currently exist for potentially historic
which could result in the loss of these
structures in the Planning Area that are not
resources. Some participants of the
already included on an official register.
visioning process fear that adoption of
such an ordinance would result in undue
Historical structures could be demolished
or substantially altered to facilitate new
property rights restrictions.
development (e.g., residential development)
if preservation standards are not developed.
30
•
•
•
Coastal Hazards
Visioning
Technical Background Report
Pol(c
Framework
Development could occur on or directly
✓
adjacent to Native American cultural sites
because those cultural resources, although
often associated with archaeological sites,
are not currently identified.
An ad hoc Historic Preservation Advisory
In 1992 the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation
✓
✓
Committee identified over 60 historic
Advisory Committee (AHHPAC) applied
structures and compiled the City's
for inclusion of structures on the
Historic Resource Inventory in the early
AHHPAC Historical Resources Inventory
1990's. Some residents consider the
on the City Register. This and other
inventory outdated and limited in scope,
unidentified resources in the Planning Area
and want a new inventory to be compiled.
present opportunities to recognize
significant cultural resources.
Unknown cultural resources of all types are
✓
subject to an increased risk of damage or
destruction as a result of increased human
activity (e.g., hiking and other outdoor
recreational activity).
Protection of the City's historic villages
and their unique character, such as
Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Mariner's
Mile, and Lido Marina should be
addressed. The City may address these
issues by limiting the permitted uses,
establishing design guidelines, and
establishing a design review process.
Coastal
The low-lying areas around the City's
✓
✓
harbor, including the Balboa Peninsula,
Newport Bay, Balboa Island, and Lido Isle
are susceptible to tsunamis and permanent
inundation from sea level rise.
Ocean front properties within the City and
✓
✓
the low-lying areas of Newport Bay are
susceptible to storm surges.
Natural processes such as long -shore drift,
✓
✓
storm surge, and sea level rise may lead to
coastal erosion involving the City's beaches
and bluffs.
General Plan Technical Background Report
31
•
•
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
Vislonln I TechnlcalBagk round Re ort
Po11c
Framework
Seismic Hazards
Several active and potentially active faults
✓
✓
have been mapped across or under the City
that may generate earthquakes and cause
strong seismic ground shaking.
Structures located along the City coast,
around Newport Bay, and the major stream
✓
✓
channels within the City are highly
susceptible to liquefaction during an
earthquake.
Sites in the San Joaquin Hills along the
margins of the larger drainage channels and
✓
✓
an area just west of the Santa Ana River
outlet that are underlain by alluvial
sediments may be particularly vulnerable to
seismically induced settlement.
Geologic
The central and eastern portions of
Newport Beach have steep terrain and are
subject to seismically induced slope failure.
The bluffs along Upper Newport Bay,
Newport Harbor, and the Pacific Ocean
along with the steep -sided canyons of the
San Joaquin Hills, are highly susceptible to
slope instability.
✓
✓
✓
✓
The bluffs along the beaches and bays in
the City are susceptible to erosion, heavy
precipitation, and the adverse effects of
increased runoff and irrigation from
development.
✓
✓
Small landslides, slumps, and mudflows
may occur throughout the San Joaquin
Hills during times of heavy and prolonged
rainfall.
✓
✓
The lowland areas and canyon bottoms in
the City are underlain by compressible soils
that are subject to soil settlement under
loading and are susceptible to the effects of
liquefaction when saturated with water.
✓
✓
32
•
E
Flooding Hazards
Visioning
Technical Background Report
Framework
The thick soil profiles developed on the
-Policy
✓
older marine deposits exposed west of
Newport Bay have a moderate expansion
potential.
Flooding
Areas within the City that are located
within 100- and 500-year flood zones are
susceptible to storm -induced flooding.
Approximately 75 percent of households
✓
located in the 100-year floodplain within
the City do not have flood insurance.
Potential failure of existing flood retention
✓
and water storage structures serving the
City may result in flooding of portions of
the City.
Fire Hazards
The eastern portion of the City is
susceptible to damage from wildland fire,
with the undeveloped canyon and hillside
areas classified as high fire hazard zones.
Transportation corridors cutting through
fire -prone areas have increased the potential
for fires to impact the southeastern portion
of the City.
Heavy traffic during peak hours in the City
and long travel distances in the canyon and
hillside areas of the southeastern portion of
the City can delay fire department
responses.
Orange County Fire Authority OCFA has
classified the Newport Coast area, Moro
Canyon area, and surrounding hillsides to
the east of the City as Special Fire
Protection Areas SFPA . When Newport
Coast was annexed. the City adopted
OCFA's mapping for the area. However,
due to new developments in the area, the
boundaries for SFPA are chaneine.
Gens
•
0
9)
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
VIstoning
TechnlcalBack round Report
Pol(c
Framework
As structures in older residential areas of
the City, including Balboa Peninsula,
Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar, may
not contain fire -rated building materials or
be fitted with fire sprinklers, there is a
higher probability of a structural fire
impacting adjacent structures.
As the City is divided into two regions by
✓
Upper and Lower Newport Bay, with
approximately one-third of the Fire
Department assets located west of Newport
Bay and the remaining assets located east of
the bay, the limited number of roadways
that are available to connect these two sides
make it difficult for fire stations on both
sides of the bay to support each other
during multiple alarm emergencies.
However, since the Newport Beach Fire
Department is part of a mutual aid
agreement with other fire departments
within the region. the City can receive aid
in emergency situations.
Hazardous
With development of Newport Coast in
the future, the City may consider the
construction of another fire station to serve
that area.
Materials. ..
Federal and State air quality criteria are
expected to become more stringent in the
near future.
✓
✓
There are two facilities in the Newport
Beach area that are listed in the most
recently available Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI). These include (1) Conexant Systems
Int. located at 4311 Jamboree Road; and
(2) Hixson Metal Finishing located at 829
Production Place.
✓
In addition to the two large quantity
hazardous waste generators and
approximately 115 small quantity
generators currently in the Newport Beach
area, the number of small quantity
generators is expected to increase with
additional development in the City.
✓
34
�J
E
•
Aviation Hazards
Visioning
Technical Background Report
Polic
Framework
According to the State Water Resources
✓
Control Board, approximately 29 leaking
underground storage tank sites are still in
various stages of the remediation process.
Due to the medical uses within the
✓
Planning Area, including Hoag Hospital,
medical wastes require disposal. Disposal of
these wastes is required to be consistent
with existing_ Federal, State, and local
regulations.
There are two oil fields with active wells
✓
located in the Planning Area. Hazardous
materials may be generated in association
with the activities in the one oil field
located in the City, and the other oil field
located primarily within the County, which
is considered to be in the City's Sphere of
Influence.
Natural seepages of gas occur in the western
✓
and southwestern portions of the City,
while methane gas associated with an
abandoned landfill has been reported near
the City's northwestern corner.
Strong ground shaking caused by an
✓
earthquake on one of the many faults in the
region could cause the release of hazardous
materials at any of the hazardous materials
facilities in the City.
Aviation
In--anrie4yadotcase of a potential
✓
commercial airliner crash within the City of
Newport Beach, the City may want to
formalize a Memorandum of
Understanding with JWA and the Orange
County Fire Authority regarding the
response of Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting
(ARFF) vehicles.
Direct communication between Traffic
✓
Control at JWA and Fire/Rescue Dispatch
for the City of Newport Beach currently
does not exist.
General Plan Technical Background Report
35
•
City of Newport Beach Planning Issues Report
Visioning
Technical Background Report
Policy
Framework
A formalized training program involving all
✓
different entities (NBFD, NBPD, OCFA,
OC Sheriff) currently does not exist.
Noise
Continued development will likely increase
✓
the amount of construction noise sources
within the Planning Area. These activities
will generally occur during daytime hours
in accordance with the City of Newport
Beach Municipal Code.
Continued development will increase the
✓
amount of noise sources within the
Planning Area. The primary source of
increased noise levels will be motor vehicles
(on freeways and arterials). The use of
water craft will also contribute to the
ambient noise levels. New mechanical
equipment will also generate noise,
although it will be controlled in accordance
with the City of Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
Increased noise levels at existing noise
✓
sensitive uses —particularly older homes
and facilities catering to sensitive receptors
located in close proximity to roadways —are
a challenge to address since attenuation
generally requires the construction of sound
walls and/or retrofitting the existing
buildings with new windows and
ventilation systems.
Noise from aircraft at ohn Wayne Airport
✓
contributes to ambient noise levels in the
Planning Area and may need to be
addressed if air traffic increases.
Nighttime restaurant opportunities and
✓
residential gatherings will continue to
generate noise in the Harbor area and
throughout the Planning Area, and may
warrant distinct actions as new
development both generates and is a
receptor to nighttime noise.
36
City of Newport Beach
5
•
•
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, April 12, 2004
Roger Alford
Patrick Bartolic
Phillip Bettencourt
Carol Boice
—Elizabeth Bonn
Karlene Bradley
Gus Chabre
John Corrough
Lila Crespin
Laura Dietz
Grace Dove
Florence Felton
Nancy Gardner
Louise Greeley
Bob Hendrickson
Tom Hyans
Mike Ishikawa
Kim Jansma
Mike Johnson
Bill Kelly
Donald Krotee
Lucille Kuehn
Philip Lugar
Barbara Lyon
Marie Marston
Catherine O'Hara
1
J ♦y
Carl Ossipoff
Charles Remley
Larry Root
John Saunders
Hall Seely
Ed Siebel
Jan Vandersloot
Tom Webber
Ron. Yeo
41
is
wL,
• GENERAL PLAN AAIISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, April 12, 2004
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
LI
E-MAIL ADDRESS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, April
12, 2004, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Phillip Bettencourt
Louise Greeley
Marie Marston
Carol Boice
Bob Hendrickson
Carl Ossipoff
Karlene Bradley
Mike Ishikawa
Charles Remley
Gus Chabre
Kim Jansma
Larry Root
John Corrough
Mike Johnson
John Saunders
Lila Crespin
Bill Kelly
Hall Seely
Laura Dietz
Donald Krotee
Ed Siebel
Grace Dove
Lucille Kuehn
Jan Vandersloot
Florence Felton
Phillip Lugar
Tom Webber .
Nancy Gardner
Barbara Lyon
Members Absent:
Roger Alford Tom Hyans (sick leave)
Patrick Bartolic Catherine O'Hara
Elizabeth Bonn Ron Yeo
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Members of the Public Present:
Bill Dean Jayne Jones Everette Phillips
I. Call to Order
Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order.
• II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the March 22, 2004 meeting were approved as submitted.
III. Discussion Paper 1: Guiding Principles for Economic
Development
Doug Svensson, Applied Development Economics, Inc. reviewed the Discussion
Paper and then asked for comments and questions for each section.
Introduction
Tom Webber asked about the use of the term "non-negotiable" in the second
paragraph of the introduction, he thought this was a negotiating process. Mr.
Tescher indicated he the intent of that phrase was that once there is agreement
on the principles they will be non-negotiable when determining the land use
options in the next step of the process. It was agreed that the term should be
taken out.
Summary of Economic and Fiscal Issues
Bob Hendrickson questioned the sixth bullet point on page 3, he felt the
lanugage limited the uses of rezoning excess and underutilized commercial lands.
Ms. Wood suggested deleting the end of the statement "for residential or mixed -
use development".
Principle #1
Bill Kelly asked about the statement indicating property tax had subsided as the
primary revenue source even though the cost of housing is much higher. Mr.
Svensson stated that the increasing property values are only reflected when
homes sell and with the State budget situation cities are looking at less property
tax revenue coming back to the cities.
Gus Chabre asked about the assessed value of the City over the last 10 years.
Ms. Wood indicated the information was provided in the Fiscal Impact Report.
Principle #2
John Corrough pointed out that the critical mass of marine uses does not have to
be restricted to waterfront properties.
Ed Siebel questioned the use of the concept critical mass which is quantitative,
and marine uses which is subjective. Ms. Wood suggested "facilitate an amount
of marine uses that is economically viable".
Principle #3
Philip Bettencourt suggested including some of the Coastal Act limitations. Mr.
Tescher thought that the limitations would come up during the Subcommittee
• discussions on the geo sub -areas. Ms. Wood added that the Coastal Commission
staff had been open to suggestions when changes better served the visitors.
2
• Lucille Kuehn suggested changing "nicer" to "more attractive" in the discussion
for this principle.
Jan Vandersloot pointed out that the last sentence in the discussion referred to
the rezoning statement on page 3 brought up by Bob Hendrickson, he suggested
taking out the word "strongly" on page 3. Mr. Svensson indicated he would look
at the statements and edit both for consistency.
Principle #4
Charles Remley asked about the light manufacturing referenced in the
discussion, and pointed out this type use usually causes noise and/or odors. Mr.
Tescher indicated the Economic Development Committee specifically discussed
artists who might manufacture sculptures or heavy pieces of art.
Principle #5
Mr. Remley asked the type of retail leakage this principle was referring to. Mr.
Svensson answered it was referring to some of the big box discount retail and
large scale building/hardware stores; those uses may not be appropriate for
Newport Beach.
John Saunders stated he thought leakage was a good thing, every city doesn't
have to have everything unless they need every penny in revenues. Mr. Siebel
added that there may be areas in the city that could be used more effectively.
Mr. Hendrickson suggested using "reduce" rather than "minimize". Mr. Svensson
also suggesting additional language indicating we are looking for development
opportunities that make sense.
Mr. Vandersloot asked if this principle was consistent with #1 that says that
property tax has subsided as the primary revenue source. Mr. Svensson
explained that #1 was talking about the trend between property/sales taxes and
this one recognizes the fact that property tax is the largest revenue source but it
doesn't have the same growth potential as sales tax has. Mr. Tescher suggested
using the term "diminished over time" to explain what has happened.
Carl Ossipoff asked about if there was a threshold of property tax the City is
entitled to or if it could go away in the future. Mr. Svensson indicated it could
happen because of political decisions made in Sacramento. Mr. Tescher
indicated it would be impossible to predict what would occur in the future
because it is purely political. Mr. Chabre added that it might even be possible
that the State takes the sales tax and the cities would get the property taxes.
Ms. Wood stated we may need to include in one of the policies an alertness and
flexibility to be able to shift if needed.
Ms. Kuehn suggested adding language that the City be proactive in working with
other cites in order to address Proposition 13. Ms. Wood pointed out that it's not
• something that can be addressed with the General Plan.
3
Don Krotee asked if there was anything in the principles addressing the changing
• age of the population and everything that goes along with the change. Mr.
Svensson indicated one of the affects of the age of the population is retail
spending and providing flexibility for businesses is important.
Mr. Ossipoff sees the principle as a competitive statement; we have to stay
relevant in order to capture our share of the market. Mr. Svensson pointed out
that Principle 10 covers the market changes better.
Florence Felton asked if the principle could be written in a more positive manner.
Mr. Svensson agreed that it made sense because the discussion talks about
optimizing our retail.
Principle #6
Mr. Siebel asked if the statement should say "land which is designated for
commercial use should be regulated", because it implies all the land is going to
be regulated. Ms. Wood indicated they were trying to point out the amount of
land that is designated for commercial/industrial as well as development
standards that regulate it and we don't want too much land for commercial.
Carol Boice agreed with Mr. Siebel and thought the statement should be clarified.
Mr. Tescher stated the intent was to say any designation of land and any
regulations are going to be related to the market. Nancy Gardner added "land
should be zoned and regulated in the manner that is economically viable".
• Kim Jansma asked if the high cost of the land is part of the problem making
almost impossible for businesses to be viable, specifically Lido Village. Mr.
Tescher indicated there is a planning history of over -zoning property commercial
and under -zoning residential which also adds to the problem. Mr. Svensson
added that people used to spend their money in local neighborhood centers, now
people spend in larger scale retail developments.
Ms. Kuehn asked about the possibility of adding development out near the 73
freeway in Newport Coast/Newport Ridge. Ms. Wood pointed out we are locked
into a development agreement in that area so we have no flexibility.
Mr. Chabre suggested changing the language to "land designated for commercial
use shall be regulated in a manner that can be supported by the market". Ms.
Wood thought that only addressed half the problem; the second half needing to
be addressed is the amount of land designated commercial.
Principle #7
Mr. Corrough suggested we need to consider businesses requiring certain
locations because of their unique uses (i.e. boat yards). Mr. Kelly added that the
only way to accomplish that would be to zone specific areas for marine uses.
rd
• Principle #8
Ms. Wood reported that the General Plan Update Committee suggested a change
in the language in this principle "additional development entitlement needs to
demonstrate significant fiscal..."
Hall Seely asked for examples of point of sale and e-commerce firms. Mr.
Svensson responded that software firms selling products directly would be point
of sale and the city where they are located gets the sales tax. Ms. Wood added
an example of business equipment sales where the sales person travels to their
clients; the point of sale would be where the home office is located.
Mike Johnson stated the Salvation Army just opened up in Santa Ana and they
are using E-Bay to sell their goods. He asked who would get the sales tax
because their headquarters are in Anaheim. Mr. Svensson stated it would
depend on how they report the sales to the State; it really doesn't affect the
business.
Ms. Jansma pointed out that nothing is mentioned about our proximity to UCI
and if we should encourage development of research and development firms or
let them stay in Irvine. Mr. Lugar pointed out that medical R&D is mentioned
which would be in direct competition with UCI.
Mr. Saunders stated that one of the big opportunities here was the expansion of
• Conexant, where they were willing to give their sales tax to the City, $1 or $2
million a year. Ms. Wood didn't think it was sales tax because they are a
wholesale firm; however it was a large amount of money.
Mr. Corrough pointed out auto dealerships provide sales tax with sales as well as
on parts provided with service of the cars.
Principle #9
Mr. Vandersloot asked if higher density or single family residential units provided
the higher value. Mr. Svensson stated that if you looked at a per acre basis, you
create more value on the site with higher density; however the principle is not
recommending higher density, it just suggests it be looked at.
Ms. Boice asked if traffic from higher density developments impact values on the
surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Svensson stated that it could as well as having a
fiscal impact due to the added amount of city services required for these
developments. Mr. Tescher added that there are areas of Los Angeles where
higher density developments increase land values. Ms. Wood stated the principle
is not suggesting high density, it just suggests further study through our fiscal
and traffic models.
Mr. Webber thought clarification was needed to explain whether we were
protecting the high value of residential property for the homeowner or protecting
• the tax base for the City. Mr. Svensson stated the principle deals with the
interface between economic development and residential neighborhoods; higher
5
densitymay be good in certain areas but not all areas of the City. Ms. Boice
• agreed that clarification was needed. Ms. Gardner felt the principle is clearly
stated. Mr. Webber stated he was uncomfortable with the discussion paragraph.
Ms. Wood stated the last two sentences work together; however the first
sentence of the paragraph clearly states that economic development should
preserve and protect the quality of a residential community not diminish it
through inappropriate or excessive development.
Mr. Remley asked about the State's requirement that we in -fill to meet our
housing numbers. Ms. Wood clarified that the State requires our Housing
Element to identify sites where the housing units could be accommodated; some
of those areas may be underdeveloped residential areas where zoning would
allow additional units. She also added that we can look again at the Housing
Element as part of this process.
Principle #10
Mr. Saunders thought the word "demographic" should be added in this section.
Principle #11
Ms. Gardner asked if this principle came from the Economic Development
Committee or the visioning process. Ms. Wood answered visioning.
Principle #12
• No comments.
Additional Comments
Mr. Seely asked about the process, have we just established the guiding
principles, what happens now. Ms. Wood indicated that we had just established
the principles with the changes/modifications discussed, when we complete all
the guiding principles they will be presented to the Planning Commission and the
City Council for the final approval at a joint Study Session.
Mr. Chabre asked if Principle #6 had been accepted. Mr. Svensson indicated
there would be some language change to that principle based on tonight's
discussion.
Mr. Vandersloot asked about the desalinization plant on page 18 of the Planning
Issue report. Ms. Wood pointed out that this item was not on the agenda for
this meeting; however the document would be discussed at a Joint meeting with
the Planning Commission and City Council at 4:00 p.m. tomorrow.
Mr. Ossipoff asked about revenue generating sources in addition to property and
sales tax. Mr. Svensson indicated TOT and business license tax; he added that
the complete list was in the Fiscal Impact Report.
Ms. Boice asked about follow-up answers to questions listed in the minutes of
March 22"d. Mr. Tescher indicated he would try to provide the answers at the
next meeting.
11
IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
Mr. Tescher indicated the next couple agendas would cover more guiding
principles to assist when we start the geo sub -area discussions. The next
meeting will cover environmental resources and mobility and the following
meeting will cover community character and housing.
Louise Greeley asked if we would have an opportunity to discuss variances. Ms.
Wood stated that when the community character is discussed that topic may be
included.
Mr. Bettencourt asked for a staff explanation/guidance on bluffs vs. coastal bluffs
and views vs. public views.
Ms. Kuehn stated we have a responsibility to educate the public during this
process. Ms. Wood agreed, stating the Current Conditions, Future Choices
document created for the visioning process provided a lot of good information for
the public.
Laura Dietz asked for information regarding sources/expenditures of City
revenues. Ms. Wood stated that information was included in the Fiscal Impact
Report. Mr. Chabre pointed out that the City's boundaries had changed since the
report. Mr. Svensson indicated that Newport Coast was accounted for and had a
• chapter in the report. Ms. Wood added that Santa Ana Heights would not make
a difference in the overall fiscal situation in the City.
1
•
VI. Public Comments
No comments offered.
7