HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2004_04_26G PAC 2004 04 26
I*
April 26, 2004
7:00-9:00 p.m.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
7:00 I. Call to Order
7:05 II. Approval of Minutes
April 12, 2004
Police Department Auditorium
870 Santa Barbara Drive
7:15 III. Discussion Paper 5: Guiding Principles for
Environmental Conservation
7:45 IV. Discussion Paper 7: Guiding Principles for Mobility
and Alternative Transportation Modes
Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads
8:45 V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
8:50 VI. Public Comments
0
DRAFT
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
I. Call to Order
Jayne Jones
Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order.
Everette Phillips
3
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
Paoer 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
N
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.
K
9
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. Corr_ough 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.
9
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..."
Hail 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
61
density may 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.
2
• 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 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.
VI. Public Comments
No comments offered.
7
9
�E�wnoRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ok • '' °� PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Memorandum
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
cq<lron (949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3229
TO: General Plan Advisory Committee
FROM: Tamara Campbell AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: April 26, 2004
SUBJECT: Guiding Principles Discussion Papers: 1) Mobility and Alternative
Transportation Modes, and 2) Environmental Conservation
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 reports are the second in a series of discussion papers and have been
specifically designed to generate Guiding Principles for; 1) Mobility and Alternative
Transportation Modes, and 2) Environmental Conservation. These discussion papers
have been developed using Visioning Process input and by summarizing the survey
responses.
Staff is asking the General Plan Advisory Committee 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.
Attachments: 1) Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
2) Environmental Conservation.
• City of Newport Beach General Plan Update
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY FORMULATION
April 21, 2004
EIP Associates
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 -vas 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/industtial
area, Mariners Mile, West Newport Industrial area, Old Newport Boulevard, and Central Balboa.
As the first step in the upcoming process, the GPAC will define the Guiding Principles that it will use
as the basis for framing and assessing the land use alternatives. Essentially, these constitute the
• 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 Principles
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 shallrespect
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.
Once the Guiding Principles 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
0
on the input received, a Preferred Land Use Plan will be selected during October
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
• The following section summarizes the environmental resource issues raised in the Visioning Process,
as described in the document, "Community Directions for the Future." The subsequent section
summarizes the issues that were identified through technical research and analyses conducted for the
Technical Background Report. Based on these summaries, the paper provides a set of suggested
Guiding Principles for environmental conservation for consideration by the GPAC.
Summary of Environmental Conservation Issues
THE VISIONING PROCESS
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 environmental resources of the City.
The vision statement for the City under the heading of "A Healthy Natural Environment," reads as
follows:
Protection of environmental quality is a high priority. We preserve our open space
resources. We maintain access to and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves,
• harbor and estuaries. The ocean, bay and estuaries are flourishing ecosystems with
high water quality standards.
The following findings were determined based on generally broad agreement among community
members during the Visioning Process.
There is general consensus that the City's harbors and beaches are to be protected and
enhanced as a resource. Visioning participants wished to protect the harbors and beaches
as visual and recreational resources, while GPAC members felt that as harbors and
beaches are improved as recreational uses, visual and economic benefits would follow.
Most participants touted water quality and pollution control as important concerns.
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. Newsletter questionnaire respondents hoped to make the clean-up and
revitalization of the beach areas as priorities on the City's agenda.
• A majority of the participants and members of GPAC strongly agree that coastal bluff
areas are important and should be protected through stricter codes, tougher enforcement
and improved planning and design efforts. Fifty-six percent of resident survey
respondents support City protection of the coastal bluffs, while 38 percent favor the
protection of property owners' rights. Participants felt that views of and from the bluffs
• need to be preserved. Specific bluffs that participants considered particularly significant
2
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
• include Castaways, Banning Ranch, Sunset Ridge, Hoag, Newport Coast, and Irvine
Terrace. There was some support for restricting the height and size of homes,
establishing large setbacks to protect bluffs, and being more restrictive in the use of
variances. Other participants stressed the need to balance increased controls with the
property owner rights.
Residents agree that the City should preserve remaining public view corridors that
include the coastal bluffs and create more views wherever possible. GPAC members
recommended a citywide inventory of existing public view corridors be conducted,
suggested offering redevelopment incentives to enhance those corridors and create
additional opportunities for views, which other visioning participants agreed with.
Another suggestion was for the City to purchase public view corridors as public land,
while other participants wanted to protect private views as well as public views.
Approximately 75 percent of survey respondents felt that current regulations regarding
buildings, plants and trees, and business signs that interfere with views were either "just
right" or "not strong enough."
Although most participants concur that tidelands and other public lands should be
preserved as open space, there was some support, especially among business owners, for
development of these areas.
• Community members highly value the open space and parks within the City, and nearly
80 percent of participants of a visioning event wanted the City to be more proactive in
acquiring these areas, even if doing so meant bond financing.
A divergence of opinion exists on the following environmental conservation issue concerning
Banning Ranch.
Resident survey respondents were divided down the middle over whether to allow for
limited development of Banning Ranch or to preserve the entire area as open space. This
view was also held among GPAC members, where some members supported using a
portion of land for housing while others raised concerns about any development due to
environmental, safety hazards, and traffic issues.
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT
EIP prepared the sections associated with environmental conservation for the Technical
Background Report (TBR). The issues that were identified as a result of the research conducted for
the TBR are organized into larger environmental resource topics as summarized below.
Biological Resources
Protected and unprotected aquatic resources can be found along City coastlines, Upper
Newport Bay, Newport Harbor, areas of Crystal Cove State Beach, and in the vicinity of
Corona del Mar.
•
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
• A number of features and drainages within the Newport Beach could be delineated as
waters of the United States and fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of
Engineers.
• Federally- or State -listed, as well as sensitive, plant and wildlife species occur or have the
potential to occur within the Planning Area.
Wildlife corridors within the Planning Area provide valuable habitat for wildlife species.
• A total of 29 Environmental Study Areas have been identified within the Planning Area,
and potential threats to these areas include water quality, traffic, noise, public access,
encroaching development, erosion and sedimentation, stormwater runoff, and
introduction of invasive species.
Hydrology and Water 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 and affect the all water resources within the Planning Area.
Some bay beaches are impacted by urban runoff, which brings pollutants such as trash,
oils, pesticides, pet waste, and trace metals, all of which may impair wildlife 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.
• Urban activities such as the use of fertilizers within the Planning Area contribute to the
degradation of existing groundwater quality.
• Natural activities such as storm events, as well as man-made activities, cause
sedimentation within the Bay and require dredging. Dredging activities are used to
remove sediment.
Air OualitX
n
U
Continued development will increase the amount of air pollutant sources within the
Planning Area. The primary source of mobile source emissions will be from motor
vehicles and water craft while stationary air pollutant sources will be primarily from
construction activities, implementation of industrial or manufacturing uses, and boilers
that provide heat.
The segregated, low -density, auto -oriented pattern of development does not facilitate the
expansion of public transit services or alternative modes of transportation within the
Planning Area.
11
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
• Vehicles capable of using alternative fuels and possibly electricity may be commercially
available and economically viable in the near future, and will need a large infrastructure
to support and refuel these vehicles before the public can accept them.
Visual Resources
• 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 City has Shoreline Height Limitation regulations, expansion of existing and
development of new homes upland from the coast may affect the community character
of certain neighborhoods and have secondary visual impacts. In addition, the City has no
specific 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.
State Route 1 (SR-1) is identified as Eligible for State Scenic Highway designation and
could be nominated for the State Scenic Highway program.
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.
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.
Suggested Environmental Conservation Guiding Principles
1. Protect terrestrial and marine habitats located within the City through careful
siting of future development.
Discussion. -
Potential impacts to biological resources located within the City can be affected by future
development and need to be minimized. The Biological Resources Addendum dated
December 4, 2003 ranks habitat quality within certain undeveloped areas in the City. Areas
with a rank of 1, indicating a high biological resource value, would require a resource permit
from federal and/or State agencies prior to development. Obtaining these permits for
development could be difficult and/or the permit process could be lengthy. Areas with a
ranking of 1 are located within the following study areas: Semeniuk Slough, MacArthur and
• San Miguel, Buck Gully, Morning Canyon, and Banning Ranch. While no extensive new
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
• development is anticipated in any of these study areas except for Banning Ranch, there is the
possibility that expansion of existing uses could occur. Within Banning Ranch, given that it
is primarily undeveloped, new development could also affect biological resources. Thus,
new development may need to be located outside of areas with a rank of 1, or buffers
between development and habitats need to be incorporated to protect resources.
Additionally, expansion of existing uses and indll development within other areas of
Newport Beach need to consider the presence of biological resources in order to reduce
adverse impacts. Implementing measures such as strictly controlling encroachments into
natural habitats to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade the habitat, and limiting
encroachments into wetlands and mitigating any losses can also minimize impacts to
biological resources.
2. Protect existing water quality within the bay, estuaries, tidelands, and ocean.
Discussion: The continuation of urban activities and future development within Newport
Beach can affect the water quality of the bay, estuaries, tidelands, and ocean. However, water
quality of the Planning area is monitored regularly, and there are numerous Federal, State,
and local regulations in place to protect water quality. The City will also continue to comply
with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) that requires
preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, as well as implementation of best
• management practices during construction. Additionally, as new development on private
property is proposed, onsite controls to reduce runoff into drainages should be required, as
wellas the incorporation of capital improvements such as filters and swales on public land
by the City. Water quality impacts to the bay, estuaries, tidelands and ocean can be
minimized through these measures. This Guiding Principle would support the views of the
Visioning participants and GPAC members.
3. Minimize air quality degradation through land use practices and circulation
improvements that reduce reliance on the automobile.
Discussion. Implementation of land use approaches that include transit oriented
developments, live/work situations, and higher density development that contain a mix of
uses, such as housing and retail, can discourage automobile use and minimize air quality
degradation. In addition, encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation through
expanding infrastructure to support vehicles using alternative fuels such as electricity, or the
use of water transportation can further minimize air pollution within the Planning Area.
Lastly, the use of public transit can be encouraged by expanding infrastructure and
improving existing service.
4. Encourage the maintenance of natural landforms.
Discussion: The Planning Area contains significant topographic features such as the
Newport Mesa, the San Joaquin Hills, bluffs associated with Newport Bay and the Pacific
• Ocean, and canyons abutting stream courses. These natural landforms should be maintained.
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
• Generally, The Newport Coast Local Coastal Program grading standards tend to locate
development on ridges in order to maintain and protect the environmental resources in the
coastal canyons. In addition, while the City has policies to minimize the alteration of natural
landforms and bluffs, and density limits have been established omitting slopes from the
calculation, specific regulations in these areas have not been adopted. The City does,
however, have very specific regulation in regards to floor area, height and building bulk.
Over half of the visioning participants and most GPAC members agree that coastal bluff
areas should be protected through stricter codes, tougher enforcement, and improved
planning and design efforts, while some visioning participants favor the protection of
property owners' rights. By implementing more restrictive siting limitations for new
structures on significant topographic features, and not giving variances from these
ordinances, impacts to natural landforms could be reduced. However, such restrictions in
already subdivided areas could severely reduce, or even eliminate, future development on
these lots.
5. Encourage the protection of public viewsheds within the City.
Discussion: Visioning participants indicated the desire to preserve remaining public view
corridors and for the City to purchase these areas as public land. Many participants also
wanted tidelands and other public lands to remain as open space to preserve views. GPAC
. members recommended that a citywide inventory of existing public view corridors be
conducted, suggested redevelopment incentives to enhance those corridors, and to create
additional opportunities for views.
Implementation of policies associated with coastal views, bulk and height limitation, and
coastal bluffs within the City's Draft Local Coastal Program (dated February 2004) can help
to protect public viewsheds within Newport Beach. Protective measures include designing
and siting new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public coastal view
corridors. In areas where the coastal bluffs remain essentially unaltered, development is
prohibited on bluff faces. Where coastal bluffs have been altered, employing site design and
construction techniques to minimize alterations that include clustering of buildings and
requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site can reduce impacts
to viewsheds.
6. Integrate open space amenities within Banning Ranch.
Discussion: Through the visioning process, participants were divided on whether to allow
for limited development or to preserve the entire area as open space. The development that
participants were supportive of include housing and public facilities, as well as sports fields, a
hotel, and some commercial development. Some GPAC members also support using a
portion of the area for affordable housing as this one of the few undeveloped sites within
the Planning Area, while others wanted to preserve the entire area. An open space element
Iswithin Banning Ranch can also provide opportunities for passive and active recreational
7
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
• uses. The presence of high value biological habitat, as well as existing oil production
activities that would be costly to remediate, provide opportunities to preserve habitat within
the Banning Ranch area.
7. Minimize the exposure of people and property to structural and wildland fire
hazards.
Discussion. As determined through the TBR analyses, the undeveloped canyon and hillside
areas where native vegetation and trees predominate within the eastern portion of the
Planning Area are most susceptible to damage from wildland fires. The management of
vegetation within a 100-foot wide setback of a structure, as well as establishing a fuel
modification zone that establishes a ribbon of land surrounding the structures to diminish
the intensity of a wildfire, are methodologies used to reduce the wildland hazards in
urban/wildland interface areas. Implementation of both of these methodologies, as well as
enforcement of the City's Uniform Fire Code, can minimize fire hazards. In addition,
development within high wildland fire hazard areas are limited.
Newport Beach is also susceptible to structural fires, especially in the older portions of the
City, such as Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar. The structures in these
areas tend to be older and built to dated building standards and fire codes. As redevelopment
within these areas occur, enforcement of existing fire codes, in addition to encouraging
• owners of non-sprinldered structures to retrofit their buildings, can reduce fire risks.
8. Minimize the exposure of people to noise hazards.
•
Discussion. Currently, there are existing noise conflicts located primarily in dense
residential areas near the ocean, harbor and bay. Infill development in these areas will be
exposed to the noise conflicts, as well as potentially contributing to the ambient noise levels.
Additionally, nighttime restaurant operations will continue to generate noise throughout the
Planning Area, particularly in close proximity to the harbor, and affect sensitive uses. There
is also the potential for mixed -use developments to be implemented in the City, which has
the potential to increase additional populations to noise. Further, if air traffic at the John
Wayne Airport increases, despite the fact that most residents are not in support of this,
ambient noise levels would also be affected.
Noise impacts can be partially mitigated through retrofitting existing buildings containing
sensitive receptors with new windows and ventilation systems, as well as insulating these
structures and new buildings. As there will always be edges within the City where sensitive
and noise -generating uses interface, conflicts can be reduced by including more stringent
noise standards or enforcing the existing noise ordinance. In addition, limiting hours of
operation, not allowing loitering after business hours, or strategically locating delivery areas
are additional measures that can reduce ambient noise levels. Where there are opportunities,
buffers such as walls or berms, or setbacks can also be used to minimize noise levels.
0
• City of Newport Beach General Plan Update
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY FORMULATION
April 20.2004
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, will define the Guiding Principles that it will use
as the basis for framing and assessing the land use alternatives. Essentially, these constitute the
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 Prineiples
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 Principle ,they maybe thought of on a level with
General Plangoals, £torn which more detailed policies and implementation measures will be
developed. Many, if not all, of the Guiding Pvzatciples 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.
Once the Guiding Priucples 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
40
identification, the alternatives will be evaluated for their comparative impacts on traffic, fiscal costs
G u I d I n g P r I n c i p l e s f o r Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
• 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 Ptvfernd Latd Use Plan will be selected during October.
The following section summarizes the circulation issues raised in the Visioning Process, as described
in the document, "Community Directions for the Future." The subsequent section summarizes the
major circulation issues identified in Section 3.1 Circulation, of the Technical Background Report,
and the Newport Beach Planning Issues Report, both prepared by EIP Associates based upon the
work of the general plan traffic consultant Urban Crossroads, with review and comment by City
staff. Based on these summaries, this paper presents a set of suggested GiddingPrincples for
circulation and alternative transportation methods for consideration by the GPAC.
Summary of Mobility and Alternative Transportation Mode Issues
THE VISIONING PROCESS
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 reflects the
• statements and issues related to circulation issues such as traffic congestion, parking, traffic impacts
to neighborhoods, and alternative transportation modes that were expressed during the visioning
process.
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, "Efficient and Safe Circulation,"
the vision is stated as follows:
"Traffic flows smoothly throughout the community. The transportation and
circulation system is safe and convenient for automobiles and public transportation,
and friendly to pedestrians and bicycles. Public parking facilities are well planned for
residents and visitors."
The Visioning Process also gained public input on a range of more specific issues related to
circulation impacts. There was broad community consensus on some circulation issues, and more
diverse opinion on others. The issues with consensus include the following:
While there was broad support among Visioning Festival participants for a wide range of
solutions to address parking impacts to residential neighborhoods, GPAC members cite
that remedies to parking problems must be evaluated in relation to specific sites and
neighborhoods.
• GPAC members specifically emphasized the importance of improving sidewalks and
• pedestrian walkways in the West Newport area.
2
Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
• There was support for the City to encourage the use of alternative transportation modes,
including public transit and improved bike and pedestrian trail connectivity, and signal
synchronization, especially during peak hours. Other transportation solutions that
received support included improving roadway signage, especially for tourist destinations;
eliminating street parking along Mariner's Mile during peak hours; and providing shuttle
service for senior citizens, students, and tourists.
A divergence of opinion exists on the following issues related to circulation.
A majority of participants are concerned with traffic congestion, but views differ over
how to address the problem. Fifty-seven percent of resident and business respondents
rated traffic as somewhat congested. Roughly a third of businesses and a quarter of
residents rated it very congested. When asked how to remedy congestion, however,
participants have not reached consensus on any one proposal. A majority of respondents
opposed all the suggested options to improve traffic circulation. The level of support for
most options was low, with business respondents generally showing higher levels of
support than residents. Suggested potential improvements include widening Jamboree
and Mac Arthur; an overpass at Jamboree and MacArthur; and widening Coast Highway
through Mariner's Mile.
• There was agreement that current conditions need to be improved, but some participants
• stated that capacity should not be added to encourage new development.
• No clear consensus emerged as to how to remedy traffic impacts to neighborhoods. In
surveys, only 37 percent of residents and 29 percent of business support traffic calming
measures such as stop signs, narrowed streets or roundabouts. Some have suggested
stricter enforcement of speed limits and improving transit options and school
transportation.
Overall people want the City to set firm constraints on development, including
expansion of employment centers and hotels; however, additional development may be
acceptable in certain areas under certain conditions. Concerns were expressed regarding
traffic impacts that may result from additional development activity in the following
potential development areas:
o Fashion Island. Some GPAC members were concerned that any
expansion, however limited, would increase traffic congestion.
o Newport Center. Visioning Summit participants expressed concerns
about traffic impacts and parking safety around Newport Center. Of
particular concern is the congestion in the areas of San Miguel,
MacArthur, and Avocado.
o Airport Business Area. Some GPAC members expressed concern about
. traffic impacts in this area since it is being targeted for revitalization and
Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
• some suggested that the City consider transferring development rights as
a trade-off between building heights and the amount of remaining open
space in the area.
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT(TBR)AND NEWPORTBEACHISSUESREPORT
The TBR is a comprehensive documentation of the existing conditions in the City relevant to
preparing an updated general plan. The Newport Beach Issues Report is a summary of the issues
expressed in the visioning process and the issues identified as a result of the research conducted for
the TBR. The circulation issues in the TBR and the Issues Report prepared by EIP Associates are
based on technical traffic analysis conducted by Urban Crossroads, the traffic consultant for the
City's general plan update. The summary below reflects circulation related issues such as traffic
congestion, parking, traffic impacts to neighborhoods and alternative transportation modes such as
transit, bicycle, pedestrian and water transportation.
Based on technical analysis, growth from the current land use element combined with
growth in areas surrounding the City will result in increased congestion even with build -
out of the roadway system in the Circulation Element. A combination of enhanced
roadway improvements, changes to the level of service standard, and reductions in
current land use intensity will be requited to achieve consistency between the Circulation
and Land Use Elements.
• Through traffic on key roadways is typical for the region, even though traffic on key
roadways (Coast Highway, MacArthur, etc) is perceived as an issue based on comments
from the visioning process. However, the potential for additional through traffic is
directly related to the ability of the regional highway system (e.g. I-5, I-405, SR-55, and
SR-73) to accommodate ongoing growth in regional traffic.
0
Parking issues in the coastal areas in general and Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and
Corona del Mar, in particular, are well -recognized within the City. Potential future efforts
to address this issue include a permit -parking program, parking time limits, consolidation
of public parking, increased public parking, shared parking programs, shuttle systems,
and valet services.
• An established network of bus routes serves current employment, shopping, and
recreational areas in Newport Beach, although bus service is an issue in Newport Coast.
Bicycle paths and trail systems in Newport Beach have been designed to accommodate
commuters, pedestrians, and recreational cyclists. Ongoing efforts to expand this system
should include completing the master plan and identifying opportunities to provide
linkages that connect complementary land uses.
Ell
Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
• Pedestrian facilities are an important component of the standard roadway classification
cross -sections in the Circulation Element. Inclusion of these facilities is consistent with
policies to support incorporating pedestrian features into future development projects.
Pedestrian access points from Coast Highway south to Newport Bay and pedestrian
facilities in Mariners Mile were also raised as particular areas of concern.
Suggested Circulation and Alternative Transportation Mode Guiding Principles
1. Establish General Plan land uses and density/intensity limits that will have less
impact on peak hour traffic.
Discussion. The currently adopted General Plan land uses, in concert with regional traffic,
result in congestion levels that exceed the currently adopted standards. Considering land uses
with reduced peak hour traffic generating characteristics could improve this situation, or
could allow new development that doesn't worsen the situation.
2. Consider the potential benefits and costs (housing, social, community character,
fiscal and economic) of land use and circulation system alternatives before
adopting goals regarding acceptable levels of service for the circulation system.
Discussion. During the visioning process, people said they want the City to set firm
constraints on development; however, additional development may be acceptable in certain
• areas under certain conditions. People also expressed concern about traffic congestion, but
there was not consensus on how to remedy it. The traffic model shows that congestion will
worsen in the future, as a result of regional influences as well as build -out of the existing
General Plan. Although it may be appealing to set a goal of not worsening traffic
congestion, or even improving it, setting such a standard so early in the process would limit
opportunities for creative planning and for achieving other goals that may be set, such as
providing housing for people who work in Newport Beach or improving older commercial
areas. This guiding principle allows the City to use analytical tools such as the traffic and
fiscal impact models to identify the benefits and costs of new development, and then make
informed decisions regarding conflicting community goals.
3. Regional traffic will be included in the analysis of land use alternatives, but such
traffic will not be the sole reason for rejecting a land use alternative that would
have net benefits to Newport Beach.
Discussion. The traffic study shows that regional traffic is a significant contributor to
congestion in Newport Beach, due to the City's location in a coastal and urbanized area and
the goals of surrounding cities to add development. This traffic must be included in the
analysis of General Plan alternatives so that the complete picture is understood before
decisions are made. However, regional traffic is outside the control of Newport Beach, and
should not limit the City's ability to plan for future development in a way that may benefit
• Newport Beach. The existing Circulation Element recognizes this principle by determining
Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
• the Land Use Element's correlation with the LOS D standard without regional traffic
included in the analysis. Regional traffic, however, is included in determining the need for
improvements to the circulation system and consistency with regional plans. This principle
will allow the General Plan to give priority to the needs and goals of Newport Beach, rather
than constraining the City by what is happening around it.
4. In selecting land use and circulation system alternatives, greater weight will be
given to traffic congestion that is ongoing than to congestion that is limited to a
few hours of the day or a few months of the year.
Discussion. Many of Newport Beach's congested intersections are impacted only for a few
hours each weekday when people are going to and leaving their jobs, and operate well above
the City's standard for most of the day and during weekends. Similarly, the coastal areas
suffer their worst congestion during the summer months when there is extra visitor traffic,
but operate well during the rest of the year. If the City plans to accommodate these peak
periods at its standard of LOS D, it may be necessary to consider circulation system
improvements that are inconsistent with community character goals or constrain land use
alternatives in a way that could limit achievement of economic development goals. This
principle allows the City to accept some congestion at peak hours and seasons, and to plan
for its future in a way that meets the community's circulation goal most of the time, as well
as meeting other goals.
• 5. The community will accept additional congestion when it chooses to maintain
the current urban form/community character by limiting roadway widening or
•
other circulation system improvements and urban form.
Discussion. The vast majority of residents view Newport Beach as a residential beach town
with broad appeal as a tourist destination and that the community's character is a significant
attribute. There is a sense that large-scale circulation system improvements will have a
negative affect on the community's character and lessen its charm. For example, the City
may not want to widen Coast Highway in Mariners Mile because it would increase the width
of pedestrian crossings, increase traffic speed and result in a "freeway" feel; adversely
impacting the "village" atmosphere and the success of existing businesses. Strong opposition
to widening Jamboree Road (71 percent residents/62 percent business) and MacArthur
Boulevard (68 percent residents/60 percent business) were also expressed for the same
reasons. Participants were generally opposed to overpasses anywhere in the City, although a
small contingent supported an overpass at Jamboree and MacArthur. Residents and
businesses preferred leaving roads as they currently are to widening options by a 2 to 1 ratio.
At the same time, it should be recognized that any "downsizing" must be accomplished
through a cooperative effort with the Orange County Transportation Authority and other
affected agencies. Otherwise, the City willrisk losing funding for (other) future roadway
improvements.
ri
Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
• G. Consider establishing a different level of service standard for the airport area.
Discussion: The Airport Business Area is part of sub -regional business area that includes
the Irvine Business Complex and the Airport Business Park in Costa Mesa. The area
includes intensively developed office areas in addition to smaller -scale industrial uses. The
City of Irvine uses special relaxed LOS standards in this area when evaluating development
proposals. The combination of external factors (traffic from John Wayne Airport, for
instance) and economic potential that minimizes impacts to City residents combine to
suggest that a relaxed level of service standard for this area may be of benefit to the City of
Newport Beach, as well. This could allow consideration of intensification and/or land use
changes, which could upgrade the Newport Beach portion of this area and make it more
productive for property owners and the City.
7. Improve parking supply and reduce congestion in older areas.
Discussion. Several areas of the City have been identified as being in need of revitalization,,
such as Balboa Village, Central Balboa Peninsula, McFadden Square, and Mariner's Mile.
Each of these areas experience traffic congestion and has parking issues. Shared parking
programs, consolidation of public parking facilities, free shuttles, and other approaches,
including the identification of locations to support them, could enhance these areas.
8. Consider urban scale development in areas where there is potential for
• development patterns that will minimize traffic.
Discussion: Considering the limited options available and the lack of consensus for system
improvements to address the City's traffic congestion, the City must use smart growth
concepts where possible. Approaches such as transit oriented development, mixed use, and
compact development have been successful in other communities. In Newport Beach there
is an example of mixed use development in Newport Center, which includes housing,
offices, retail, visitor accommodations, cultural and recreational uses. Use of these concepts
can provide benefits to the quality of life in communities by reducing traffic, providing
housing adjacent to employment; and creating 18-hour activity centers in the commercial
areas in which they are located. Participants in the visioning process as well as the City's
Economic Development Committee (EDC) have indicated support for increasing mixed -use
development in Newport Beach. One area which may be considered for urban -scale mixed
use is the Airport Business Area, while less intense nixed use might be considered in older
on -street commercial areas such as Mariners We. This principle strengthens support for
mixed use based upon the reduced traffic impacts of mixed -use projects.
9. Increase City strategies and programs to enhance the development and use of
alternative transportation modes and transportation systems management.
Discussion: There are many proven ways to reduce congestion and improve mobility
through the use of alternative transportation modes and transportation system management.
Transit modes such as shuttles (particularly in the heavily congested tourist areas), light rail,
G u I d 1 n g P r I n c I p l e s f o r Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes J
electric cars, taxis (both ground and water), boats, bicycles and walking are alternatives to
driving private automobiles. System management possibilities include traffic signal
synchronization, rideshare programs and carpooling.
10. Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected traffic at a level of
service acceptable to the community while minimizing neighborhood intrusion.
Discussion: Widening and improvements to the arterial roadway system can greatly reduce
the intrusion of pass -through traffic into residential neighborhoods. At the same time, such
improvements can be detrimental to the areas through which they pass, particularly small
on -street commercial districts with a strong pedestrian orientation such as Corona del Mar.
As such, there axe trade-offs which must be resolved as the circulation system is planned for
the future.
is
Is
City of Newport Beach General Plan
April 2 16, 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
Guiding Principles that it will use as the basis for framing and assessing the land use
alternatives. Essentially, these constitute the—tterrnega i " fundamental rules, or
benchmarks, by which all alternatives will be judged. They will elaborate and expand upon
the T/ision Statement that was defined through the public process during the past year and a
half. These Principles 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 Principles 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 Preefemd Laud 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 ate
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.
Is
Summary of Economic and Fiscal Issues
The Visioning Process
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 axe 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 wa:
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.
■ Ina 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 We, 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.
■ GP ^ G and others sua#gly Visioning process participants agreed that the City should
consider re -zoning excess and underutilized commercial lands
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 ftom
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
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 Islan&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 are
comfortable with low-rise office buildings, but would not like to see high rise offices
• or more industrial development. The groups were split about adding more retail
space, including big boxes, in this area.
Economic Studies byAppGed Development Economics, Inc. (ADE)
AIDE 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, AIDE 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
•
4
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 Mile, there may be some pressure to transition sites devoted to boat
sales to more intensive uses.
■ Lido Marina Village may see pressure fox 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 also points 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
is property
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
diminished as a p6mairtevenue 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-eritieal mass an economically
viable concentration 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
0
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• below sustainable levels, resulting in a general loss of the economic benefit of
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 axe
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 ttieeY more attractive 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 axe also appropriate fox mixed -use development. This is consistent with
• the suggestion in the Visioning Process that underutilized commercial land may be
rezoned fer tesidential at reAmed us . However, it is important to recognize any
Coastal Act limitations on land use that may apply to some of these areas.
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 ox residential uses in the proper setting, provided such uses are free
of impacts from noise, odeors, 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
0
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• residential community environment desired by Newport Beach residents. Examples
in Santa Barbara, Los Gatos and Brea have proven that it is critical that these
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 ef-the eastern older cities. Coastal
Act land use limitations must also be considered.
5. General Plan policies will support City efforts to minimize optimize retail
sales leakage -capture €rem in the community.
Discussion. The Commercial Market Analysis demonstrates that Newport Beach
not only serves City residents 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
isstorefronts, 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, Newpett Genter
sad Fashion Island will continue to serve as major retail center 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.
G. Land shall be designated for eemmereial use and regulated in a manner tha
ean be supperted by the mar The quantity of land designated for
commercial use and the development standards that regulate such uses shall
reflect the market suunort that can reasonably be_andcinate_d durine-the
General Plan time horizon.
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
0
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
consider re -zoning these areas for 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
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, subject to any Coastal Act
land use limitations. 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
is they
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. Generally. it
would be important for Newport Beach to support unique economic uses for which
the city is the best location such as many of the marine -related activities.
•
8. Additional development entitlement will provide needs to demonstrate
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
10
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• 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
GPAC suggested, commercial revitalization can mean making places better without
making them bigger. The key is the quality and character of the development.
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
maybe appropriate in the Airport Area or ether at Newport Center.
0
10. General Plan policies shall prepare the City to capitalize on market and
demographic 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 other 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
11
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• City, so that important new economic opportunities can find locations in the
Newport Beach while viable existing businesses continue to thrive 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
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 Centex. 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.
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 beachfront character of much of the rest of
12
Guiding Principles for Economic Development
• Newport Beach. Therefore, from an economic development and land use
perspective, this area may benefit from more tailored planning concepts.
•
LJ
13
•
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, April 26, 2004
Roger Alford
Ronald Baers
Patrick Bartolic
Ph
Ca
Eli;
Ka
Gu
701
LIL
Lai
Grp
Fla
Na
Loi
Bo
— Toi
Mil
Kir
T Ba
Mil
Bil.
Do
Lui
Ph'
Bai
Marie Marston
Catherine O'Hara
Carl Ossipoff
Charles Remley
Larry Root
---John Saunders
Hall Seely
Ed Siebel
Jan Vandersloot
Tom Webber
Ron Yeo
Raymond Zartler
•
•
%��
1010 Y
2
it �mc is
GENERAL PLAN A69SORY COMMITTEE
Monday, April 26, 2004
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
�?9-d
h o r ik fnai • 4
LAv tN51�`j t i�
�l�v►v�s�C Poc,(IIML/l
L✓e���e PO .1�t
G✓La
.40%lR
GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE
Monday, April 26, 2004
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
i
E-MAIL ADDRESS
E
E
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, April
26, 2004, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Nancy Gardner
Barbara Lyon
Phillip Bettencourt
Louise Greeley
Marie Marston
Carol Boice
Bob Hendrickson
Catherine O'Hara
Elizabeth Bonn
Mike Ishikawa
Charles Remley
Karlene Bradley
Kim Jansma
Larry Root
John Corrough
Mike Johnson
Hall Seely
Lila Crespin
Bill Kelly
Jan Vandersloot
Laura Dietz
Donald Krotee
Tom Webber
Grace Dove
Lucille Kuehn
Ron Yeo
Florence Felton
Phillip Lugar
Raymond Zartler
Members Absent:
Ronald Baers Tom Hyans (sick leave) John Saunders
Patrick Bartolic Barbara Johnson Ed Siebel
Gus Chabre Carl Ossipoff
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Harriet Lai Ross, EIP Planner
Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads
Members of the Public Present:
Phillip Arst Don Harvey Julia Lavinsky
Carol Hoffman Nick Bobroff Ace Malisos
Everette Phillips Kyle Weichert
I. Call to Order
Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order. Ms. Gardner introduced the new
member of the Committee Raymond Zartler.
II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the April 12, 2004 meeting were approved after a typographical
error was corrected.
III. Discussion Paper 7: Guiding Principles for Mobility and
Alternative Transportation Modes
Ms. Gardner suggested discussing Discussion Paper 7 first. Sharon Wood led the
discussion taking comments on each principle. She noted that these principles
are drafted in a way that may be controversial, to encourage the committee to
start discussing some difficult issues.
Principle #1
Charles Remley asked if this principle would lengthen the peak periods. Ms.
Wood responded it would depend on the land uses. Mr. Waters added that if
land uses were found that do not impact the peak hour traffic there is enough
excess capacity available.
Catherine O'Hara asked if more precise wording could be used because there are
some areas of the city that are not impacted by peak hour traffic and areas
• around schools are impacted at different times. Ms. Wood pointed out that the
definition of peak hour does not refer to a particular time of the day, but the
peak traffic hour for the location being studied.
Principle #2
Jan Vandersloot feels that reducing traffic levels is the goal of this process as
expressed by the people during the visioning process and the principle suggests
we look at uses that may have adverse impacts on traffic.
Ms. O'Hara pointed out that in Corona del Mar we may want to decrease the
standard which would have a good impact on the area. Flexibility is important.
Lucile Kuehn thought this principle suggests balance between circulation and
costs for housing, community character, fiscal/economic impacts of land use, and
she agrees with it.
Karlene Bradley agreed with Mr. Vandersloot regarding traffic being a major
concern,from the visioning process.
Ms. Gardner suggested deleting "before adopting goals" and replacing it with "as
part of the process of adopting goals".
Mr. Vandersloot disagreed with the sentence in the discussion starting "Although
it may be appealing to set a goal of not worsening traffic congestion, or even
• improving it, setting such a standard so early in the process would limit
opportunities for creative planning .......... Ms. Wood suggested changing the
2
sentence language to indicate the standard should not be set without having all
. of the analysis information and/or information from the models. John Corrough
suggested changing "would" to "could" in the statement.
Hall Seely suggested reversing the language; "in connection with adopting goals
regarding acceptable levels of service for the circulation system, consider the
potential benefits and costs, etc."
Mr. Vandersloot suggested changing "limit" to "provide"; however Ms. Wood
pointed out that would change the meaning of the sentence.
Bob Hendrickson asked if this principle was talking about land uses or circulation.
Ms. Wood indicated it has the flexibility to look at land use and circulation system
alternatives.
Kim Jansma thought that abandoning the goal before the process starts seems
contrary to our ideas.
Ms. O'Hara asked about the importance of the wording in the discussion of the
principles. Ms. Wood explained that the discussion is intended to be an
explanation of the principle if interpretation is needed. Ms. O'Hara suggested
deleting the sentence.
Principle #3
• Mr. Vandersloot felt that this principle defeats the purpose of having a level of
service because it disregards the regional traffic which does impact the LOS. Ms.
Wood explained that regional traffic is considered when looking at circulation
system improvements.
Mr. Seely asked how regional traffic would enter into the consideration of traffic
impacts for a new development. Ms. Wood stated regional traffic would be
included in a traffic study or EIR for new developments requiring those.
Don Krotee was uncomfortable with not being able to fail a project that would
add to regional traffic which is already horrific. Ms. Wood pointed out that in
that case the benefits of the project might not outweigh the traffic impact.
Ms. O'Hara suggested changing the language from "could not" to "should not".
Mr. Corrough asked to clarify that regional traffic would be addressed
somewhere in the process. Ms. Wood confirmed that it would.
Mr. Seely asked if there would be other factors that we cannot consider as the
sole reason for rejecting a land use alternative, such as water and/or air
pollution. Ms. Wood responded that we are only considering traffic because
water/air quality have State and/or federal standards, traffic is dealt with locally.
Ms. O'Hara asked for clarification on the following sentence, The existing
Circulation Element recognizes this principle by determining the Land Use
• Element's correlation with the LOS D standard without regional traffic included in
the analysis. Ms. Wood explained that 2 calculations were done, one to show
3
what the LOS would be at intersections including regional traffic and another
calculation was done for the purpose of correlating Land Use & Circulation
Elements without the regional traffic. Ms. O'Hara asked if this was required by
State law. Ms. Wood indicated State law requires the correlation of the two
elements.
Mr. Seely made a motion to delete the principle because it is not necessary.
After a vote, the motion was denied.
PRINCIPLE #4
Grace Dove stated that for people who live on the Peninsula traffic congestion is
a safety concern during the summer months and that any intensified or attractive
land use would only solicit more people throughout the year.
Ms. Bradley asked if the word "greater" could be deleted and also delete "than"
and add "as well as".
Ms. O'Hara pointed out that to plan/pay for improvements directed at worst
traffic periods would be very expensive. Ms. Wood added that solutions might
be widening or grade separation that would not fit the community character.
Barbara Lyon does not live on the Peninsula, however is affected by the traffic
when taking her children to summer programs and finds it very congested.
• Ms. Gardner pointed out that we are not disregarding peak/summertime traffic,
the principle is just stating we'll look at streets that are always congested before
looking at streets only impacted at certain times.
Tom Webber pointed out that these principles are negotiable and we don't have
to cover every possible alternative, he felt the group would make more progress
if that was noted.
Mr. Vandersloot stated he thought the principle would allow development which
would increase traffic congestion at peak hours and seasons. Mr. Corrough
pointed out that we don't know what affect land uses will have on traffic until we
have a chance to analyze the ideas of the subcommittees.
Mr. Yeo made a motion to make wording changes; strike the words "greater"
and "than", and add "as well as". Ms. Gardner called for discussion on the
motion.
Ms. O'Hara still feels that more weight should be given to the greatest impacts.
Mr. Hendrickson thinks that the principle allows the flexibility needed in looking
at alternatives.
Ms. Kuehn thinks giving equal weight to summer traffic is inappropriate.
Mike Ishikawa felt the term greater weight was ambiguous; to the people who
live with it seasonal/peak traffic is a major problem.
2
Ms. Bradley stated she was not in favor of greater or equal weight, only that
both should be considered. Ms. Gardner questioned whether that actually says
anything.
Ms. Marston pointed out that when she refers to traffic congestion it is peak hour
traffic, there aren't any locations in the City where there is congestion 24 hours a
day and questioned the wording. Ms. Dietz agreed with that comment. Ms.
Wood stated that as the author of this principle she intended it to mean traffic
throughout the day, which includes peak and throughout the year includes
seasonal.
Mr. Yeo commented that throughout the State the peak hour seems to be
getting longer and it is hard to separate the Peninsula and summer traffic.
Ms. Gardner called for a vote on the motion. After the vote the motion carried.
Ms. Wood indicated the discussion would be changed to match the new principle
wording.
PRINCIPLE #5
Mr. Vandersloot asked if this would be codifying what has been happening with a
planned deficiencies. Ms. Wood indicated it is not codifying; the principles are
meant to help you develop land use alternatives.
PRINCIPLE #6
• Ms. Jansma pointed out that the airport area gets away from the "village"
atmosphere mentioned in Principle #5. She is also concerned that Irvine Avenue
could be affected if the area is developed further. Mr. Vandersloot agreed and
feels that the intersection of Mesa Drive and Irvine Avenue is already at
unacceptable levels. He feels we should stick to LOS D as the standard
throughout the City. Ms. Boice feels that Jamboree Road is also affected.
Ms. O'Hara stated that in earlier reports the LOS is already less than D and
thought that previous sub -groups had thought this would be acceptable. Mr.
Waters agreed stating there are 1 or 2 locations in the area less than LOS D.
Philip Bettencourt pointed out that the area is mostly business property and the
principle only says "consider".
Mr. Seely asked about what happens with the goals in the General Plan. Ms.
Wood pointed out that the principles become goals only if this committee, the
Planning Commission and City Council approve them; if they do become goals
ordinances would be amended to reflect the goals.
Ms. Boice suggested adding wording considering the impacts to adjoining
residential areas when the LOS is changed.
Mr. Hendrickson pointed out that it says different level of service which could be
• either lower or higher which allows flexibility.
5
Ms. O'Hara added that in earlier discussions of land uses in the airport area, it
• was thought we would want to encourage non -airport uses.
Mr. Vandersloot stated he was also on the airport area sub -group and one other
suggestion was to add residential in the area. He made a motion to keep the
same level of service in the airport area as in the rest of the City. Ms. Gardner
called for a vote. After the vote, the motion was denied.
Mr. Seely stated he thought the discussion did not allow the flexibility indicated
by others, it seemed to recommend an increased level.
Ms. Kuehn suggested wording to consider establishing a LOS appropriate for the
airport area.
Mr. Krotee suggested accepting the principle as is and ask staff to change the
discussion to allow the LOS to go down as well as up. Ms. Wood thought
changing "relaxed" to "different" would address this concern.
Ms. Jansma asked for more discussion on impacts to surrounding areas as
suggested by Carol Boice. Ms. Boice indicated she would like language added
considering impacts on residential areas.
PRINCIPLE #7
Lila Crespin suggested adding Corona del Mar Village to the list of areas in need
of revitalization.
Mr. Corrough suggested adding parking in the airport areas for use on the
weekends when it is not used and provide shuttle service to the beach areas.
Ms. Dove asked why this would be tied to revitalization and older areas;
shouldn't it be tourist areas. Ms. Wood agreed that would set a better tone.
Mr. Ishikawa suggested not listing areas because it was too limiting.
PRINCIPLE #8
Ms. Dietz asked about the meaning of urban scale development. Ms. Wood
explained it would be higher density than our suburban settings —mixed use.
The principle suggests we consider mixed use only in areas where we get some
benefit from it.
PRINCIPLE #9
No comments.
PRINCIPLE #10
No comments.
IV. Discussion Paper 5: Guiding Principles for Environmental
Conservation
• Harriet Lai Ross led the discussion taking comments on each principle.
2
PRINCIPLE #1
. Charles Remley asked if the rank of 1 was determined by us or outside agencies.
Ms. Wood indicated it was our consultants. Ms. Ross added that this only
suggests the areas would require permitting by a state/federal agency. Ms.
Wood also added that this principle will only affect undeveloped areas of the
City.
Ms. O'Hara asked about the number of areas ranked level 1. Ms. Ross indicated
they were distributed throughout the study areas and it was hard to quantify.
Ms. O'Hara asked if this principle backs us into a corner. Ms. Ross answered by
stating the principle doesn't say we shouldn't develop, only that resource
permitting could be lengthy and difficult to obtain.
Mr. Bettencourt felt we should not consider the difficulty or length of time
involved in obtaining a permit. He suggested acknowledging the circumstances
of rehabilitation of the resource which may be consistent with its protection. Mr.
Corrough added that we need to be creative with mitigation programs to protect
and enhance terrestrial/marine habitats. Ms. Kuehn thought it should say
"where possible".
PRINCIPLE #2
Ms. Gardner pointed• out that the existing water quality in some areas is not very
good. Ms. Wood suggested adding "and improve".
PRINCIPLE #3
Mr. Vandersloot didn't agree that higher density discourages automobile use.
Ms. Gardner suggested changing the wording to "live/work situations that
contain a mix of uses".
PRINCIPLE #4
No comments.
PRINCIPLE #5
Ms. Dove suggested using language encouraging expansion, addition, or creation
of public viewsheds.
Mr. Vandersloot indicated that the Planning Commission had discussed the
definition of a coastal bluff in the LCP; it now relates to bluffs with marine
erosion. He disagrees with the change and feels we should go by the definition
used by the Coastal Commission. Mr. Bettencourt felt the Planning Commission
discussions were not conclusive and agreed that care should be used when
identifying coastal bluffs. Ms. Wood suggested the second paragraph in the
discussion be deleted.
PRINCIPLE #6
• Mr. Bettencourt wanted to go on record as abstaining from discussion on this
principle.
7
Mr. Hendrickson asked if open space was already a requirement and if so, why
• would there be a need for this principle. Ms. O'Hara agreed. Ms. Bradley moved
to delete Principle #6. After a vote the motion passed.
PRINCIPLE #7
Mr. Vandersloot felt that native vegetation does not necessarily constitute a
wildland.
Ms. O'Hara asked if this was already covered in the zoning code or in the
Hazards Element. Ms. Wood stated it was a pretty standard procedure and
should be in the Fire Code and is included in the Hazards Element.
Mr. Corrough thought the second paragraph was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ms.
Wood agreed it was not a big General Plan issue.
Ms. Gardner asked if this principle should be deleted also. The group agreed.
PRINCIPLE #8
Ms. Dove asked what "sensitive receptors" referred to. Ms. Wood indicated they
were schools, day care, hospitals, etc. Ms. Dove asked for clarification to let the
reader know it was not referring to homes.
Roger Alford asked about including the impacts of skateboard parks or
recreational facilities to residential areas.
Ms. Marston asked for the definition of a noise hazard. Ms. Ross indicated
anything greater than 65 decibels. Ms. Wood added that it varies, however 65
db would be for residential.
Mr. Corrough pointed out that the restaurant noise is not exclusively restricted to
the harbor perimeter, it could include the Peninsula, Corona del Mar, etc.
Ms. Boice asked to add a principle to minimize intrusive light pollution. Ms. Boice
made a motion to add Principle #9 which would minimize intrusion from light
sources. Ms. Gardner called for a vote and the motion passed.
V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
Ms. Crespin asked for a future discussion on civic and cultural arts. Ms. Wood
indicated that subject would be discussed after the geographic sub -areas.
Mr. Yeo was concerned that the subcommittee on Corona del Mar was only
scheduled to meet once. Ms. Wood indicated the subcommittees can call
additional meetings if they feel it is necessary.
VI. Public Comments
0 No comments offered.