HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2004_05_10I•
May 10, 2004
7:00-9:00 p.m.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Police Department Auditorium
870 Santa Barbara Drive
7:00 I. Call to Order
7:05 II. Approval of Minutes
April 26, 2004
7:15 III. Discussion Paper 2: Guiding Principles for
Community Character
8:00 IV. Discussion Paper 3: Guiding Principles for
Affordable Housing
8:45 V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
MAY 24TH MEETING LOCATION:
OASIS SENIOR CENTER
St" & Marguerite Avenue
8:50 VI. Public Comments
I•
•
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
Carol Hoffman Nick Bobroff
Everette Phillips Kyle Weichert
I. Call to Order
Julia Lavinsky
Ace Malisos
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.
Gf
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.
0
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
0
Harriet Lai Ross led the discussion taking comments on each principle.
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
No comments offered.
•
n.
• City of Newport Beach General Plan Update
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY FORMULATION
May 4, 2004
EIP Associates
Urban Crossroads
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
"non-negotiable" rules, or benchmarks, by which all alternatives will be judged. They will elaborate
and expand upon die 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 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 Princples, 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, Ivey
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
40
and revenue, and environmental resources. The impact analyses will be presented to and reviewed
Guiding Principles for Community Character
Iswith the GPAC and at workshops designed for input from the general public in September. Based
on the input received, a Ptrfenxd Laird Use Plan will be selected during October.
The following section summarizes community character issues raised in the Visioning Process, as
described in the document, "Community Directions for the Future." The subsequent section
summarizes the consultant's technical analysis of the existing city setting. Based on these summaries,
the paper provides a set of suggested Guiding Prindples for community character, for consideration by
the GPAC.
It is useful to define "community character" to understand what influences and impacts the way a
community identifies itself. Community character relates to a place's identity- how a place or
collection of places is perceived by its residents, property and business owners, and by visitors. It
encompasses physical, social, economic, and environmental aspects of a community. Depending on
the geographic boundaries, the term "community" may refer to an entire city or several areas that
together make up one distinct area. For this discussion, we use community character to refer to the
identity of residential neighborhoods and combination residential and commercial areas, or
"villages", as they are often described, in addition to the city of Newport Beach as a whole.
Community character can be described by a place's primary function - residential neighborhood,
commercial district, or industrial district, or combination of those. The natural setting, such as
coastal and upland environment, also provides a distinctive quality. Another way character can be
• identified is by its built environment, the urban form and design of structures, roadways, landscape,
etc. A place's history also shapes its character, as does the cultural and recreational opportunities it
currently offers. Lastly, the pace of life, whether suburban or urban, can influence community
character. All of these aspects together combine to offer a unique sense of place to community
members.
Summary of Community Character 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, "Community Character," the vision
states:
We -have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique residential
community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods. We value our colorful
• past, the high quality of life, and out community bonds. The successful balancing of
2
Guiding Principles for Community Character
• the needs of residents, businesses and visitors has been accomplished with the
recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community.
The Visioning Process also gained public input on a range of more specific issues. There was broad
community consensus on some issues that influence community character, 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
defusing the City's identity as a tourist destination.
In a survey of business owners, the City's location within the County, its physical beauty,
and the purchasing power of the community are listed as exceptionally attractive
attributes.
General consensus exists that the City's harbors and beaches must be protected and
enhanced as the most cherished resou ces.
• Specific areas of the City exhibit physical deterioration, economic obsolescence, or a lack
of cohesiveness affecting the quality of the areas' image and character. People are in
general agreement that certain areas of the City need revitalization, including Balboa
Village, Mariner's Mile, Old Newport Blvd., Cannery Village, Balboa Village, McFadden
• Square, West Newport, and the mixed residential/industrial area above Hoag Hospital.
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, the
Airport Business Area and Newport Center. Mixed -use development has been used by
other communities as a method to enhance community character by integrating housing
and commercial uses in proximity to one another, and to unify fragmented areas.
Protection of public view corridors has been stated as a priority by Visioning
participants.
A divergence of opinion exists on the following issues that contribute to community character.
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.
•
Guiding Principles for Community Character
• A majority of participants are concerned with traffic congestion, but views differ over
how to mitigate the problem. Additionally, no clear consensus exists regarding the
method(s) to remedy traffic impacts on neighborhoods.
• Visioning participants have expressed a desire for the City to preserve tidelands and
public open space, both of which have the potential to contribute to visual quality, while
some participants have indicated the importance of developing some tidelands for
recreational uses and economic gain.
While larger homes and their effects is a trend of concern to many in Newport Beach,
residents have mixed opinions on whether existing regulations are sufficient for now.
The appropriate scale varies by neighborhood and geographic area.
• Larger homes may also affect views of bluffs from lower lying areas. According to
Visioning participants, development on or near coastal bluffs needs to balance land use
controls with the rights of property owners.
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT BYEIPASSOCIATES (EIP)
EIP has prepared a technical study, published in March 2004. The following is a synopsis of issues
and information gained from this work.
Natural Setting
• The City of Newport Beach is sited on a coastal plain and is bounded on two sides by
developed urban lands of Costa Mesa and Irvine. Development in Newport Beach has
been designed to capture views of the ocean, capitalizing on the ridgelines and hillsides
as vantage points. The Upper and Lower Newport Bay, draining an area of 118 square
miles via the San Diego Creek, bisects the City, creating a dominant physical land feature
that includes estuaries, beaches, coastal bluffs, and meandering waterways unique to
Newport Beach. From the higher elevations in the City, views to the north include the
rolling slopes of the San Joaquin Hills, and in the distance the Santa Ana Mountains.
This combination of hills, canyons, bluffs, and water features create a visually dynamic
landscape.
Visual Resources
Open space areas provide visual relief from urbanized areas and scenic view
opportunities for motorists, pedestrians, and residents. Open space is distributed
throughout Newport Beach including the beach, bay, and parks. Undeveloped areas
such as Banning Ranch, and canyons, hillsides and bluffs of Newport Ridge/Coast
contribute to these visual resources, although some development may occur there in the
future.
The Pacific Ocean provides the predominant visual setting for the majority of Newpores
• scenic attributes. The ocean can be seen from residences atop coastal bluffs and hilltop
0
Guiding Principles for Community Character
• ridges, from the offices of high-rise development, and can be enjoyed by visitors of the
beaches, shopping areas and from many of the major north/south corridors. Associated
with the ocean, the bay and harbor areas also provide picturesque nautical views.
While the City has Shoreline Height Limitation regulations, the construction of larger
homes upland from the coast may affect the community character of certain
neighborhoods and have secondary visual impacts. In addition, the City has no
regulations that determine the placement of development on bluffs in existing
subdivisions.
There is an opportunity to provide viewing areas and interpretative signs to add to the
quality of life for residents and visitors.
Future Development
As the City's available vacant properties planned for development are built out, any
additional development will occur as infill or re -use of existing properties, possibly
including structures that integrate housing with commercial uses (mixed -use), and
providing an opportunity to influence or enhance existing community character in
established "villages" or districts.
Mixed -use represents an opportunity to enhance community character in areas such as
• Balboa Village, McFadden Square, Cannery Village, Airport Business Area, Lido Village,
Newport Center, and Matinees Mile. Ensuring the compatibility of types of commercial
uses with residential uses, along with building design, to maintain the existing community
character will be a challenge of new mixed -use development.
Some older residential areas (e.g., Corona del Mar and Lido Isle) have been developed
with two housing units built on three legal lots. Legally, these homes could be
demolished and replaced with housing built on each legal lot of record, increasing overall
development densities and changing existing community character.
Commercial Areas
Several areas of the city have been identified as lending unique identity and function to
Newport Beach, and as such merit efforts to preserve or enhance existing community
character. Six areas have been identified as Specific Plan areas in the existing land use
element: Mariner's Mile, Cannery Village/ McFadden Square, Newport Shores, Santa
Ana Heights, Central Balboa, and Old Newport Blvd. In addition, the General Plan
designates Corona del Mat as a Specific Plan area.
Programs intended to improve community character have been developed for several
community areas, including the Balboa Sign Overlay and Design Guidelines, Mariner's
Mile Design Framework, Central Balboa Public Improvements and Design Guidelines,
and Corona del Mar Vision Plan.
is
Guiding Principles for Community Character
• Commercial areas such as Mariner' Mile, Lido Village, Old Newport Blvd/West
Newport Industrial are characterized by a wide diversity and a fragmented pattern of
uses: marine, highway oriented, local -serving retail, etc. and require consideration of
what are the appropriate type, mix, and scale of uses and future development, including
the appropriateness of marine and visitor -serving uses for the areas. Vacancies or
underdeveloped parcels provide opportunities for new development in such areas,
presenting an opportunity to influence the character of these areas by establishing
guidelines and a vision for private development of these areas. The Airport Business
Area is also subject to this condition.
Multiple property ownerships may complicate coordination of a cohesive pattern of
development in the older cotrunercial districts in the City.
Residential/ Commercial Interface
Rezoning of underutilized commercial hands for residential or mixed -use development
has been suggested, particularly in Balboa Village.
With the exception of the Airport Business area and Newport Center, most commercial
areas are in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, which can create conflicts due
to traffic, parking, and noise. Maintaining the compatibility between adjoining
commercial and residential neighborhoods is a challenge as parking, noise and litter from
• commercial customers can affect the charm and tranquility of residential neighborhoods.
This is of particular concern on Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar, and to
a lesser extent in Mariner's Mile.
Similarly, the impact of traffic on residential neighborhoods throughout the City is an
ongoing concern.
Special Issue Areas
Santa Ana Heights appears to lack most neighborhood serving commercial uses, such as
grocery stores, banks, gyms, and restaurants. As a recent annexation, much of the
existing development does not comply with Newport Beach's standards and municipal
code violations are frequent.
• There is question whether City Hall is still located centrally for its residents. City Hall is
considered to be too small to function as the administrative center of the City.
• Requests for large-scale, multi -lot developments in Cannery Village could impact the
area's character with increased traffic and parking demand, and a reduction in the variety
of architectural styles.
• Traffic congestion on Pacific Coast Highway may conflict with the intended pedestrian
nature of the Corona del Mar area. In addition, parking deficiencies present conflicts
•
0
Guiding Principles for Community Character
• with adjacent residential neighborhoods as customers encroach upon residential street
parking.
Marine Industry
The marine industry and maritime uses have figured prominently in Newport Beach's
history and physical development, but have decreased recently as land costs have
increased.
Suggested Community Character Guiding Principles
1. Respect the natural setting that has contributed to the character and identity of
Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors.
Discussion. Coimnunity members have noted the City's location and physical beauty are
exceptional attributes along with its harbors and beaches. Harbor, bay and coastal features
have greatly influenced urban form in Newport Beach and differentiate the city from other
coastal communities. Much of development in Newport Beach has been designed to
capitalize upon its natural setting —beaches, bluffs, canyons, harbor, bay, and ocean —
creating the urban form and character that is visible today. Large areas of open space have
been preserved to be enjoyed as amenities or to provide habitat.
• As much of Newport Beach's character and sense of place derives from its natural setting, it
is important to protect and encourage development that enhances the natural setting. This
will protect the community's character and its high property values. Alteration of the natural
setting of Newport Beach may result in change to the overall community character if it is not
managed and directed in a manner consistent with this guiding principle. Yet protecting
Newport Beach's natural resources while allowing for their use and enjoyment is a challenge.
For instance, owners of commercial waterfront property and older homes on coastal bluffs
desire to upgrade and redevelop their properties with larger buildings, which may change
public views of the water or require more alteration of the bluff face. Private development
rights will need to be balanced with the protection of natural resources.
2. Maintain and enhance the unique character of the different neighborhoods and
business districts that together identify Newport Beach.
Discussion. The City of Newport Beach has developed as a variety of small communities,
or villages. Community members recognize each of the City's distinct neighborhoods and
commercial areas contribute to the character of Newport Beach. The older coastal areas are
comprised of neighborhoods of one-time summer and cottage -type homes on small lots.
These neighborhoods have a specific community character that is unlike the newer planned
communities in the upland areas. These coastal neighborhoods in particular are subject to
the effects of the real estate market's rising land values and consumer preferences for larger
homes, resulting in tear down and replacement of smaller properties with larger homes.
. Since lots are small and structures compact, new larger structures can disrupt the rhythm and
Guiding Principles for Community Character
• feel of the existing neighborhood altering the small town, coastal community character.
Balancing the rights of property owners with the goals of maintaining and preserving
community character will be a future challenge.
While Newport Beach residents recognize the community as primarily residential, tourism
has also influenced community character in Newport Beach. The City has a history of
tourism and benefits economically from its attractiveness to visitors. In its older commercial
villages, Newport Beach exhibits a beach cultu a representative of Southern California but
unique to Newport. Visioning participants have identified these villages as needing assistance
to maintain their physical and economic vitality. Many areas exhibit the opportunity to
maintain and reinforce districts, to make those that are fragmented, more cohesive, and to
foster a sense of place. Programs such as the Balboa Sign Overlay and Design Guidelines,
Mariner's Mile Design Framework, Balboa Public Improvements, and Corona de Mar Vision
2004 Plan, have been developed with such improvements in mind.
The general plan land use plan can be utilized to identify the villages, districts and
neighborhoods that should be preserved and maintained. Specific plans, design guidelines,
overlay zones, and special design and performance standards may be applied to appropriate
areas to ensure use compatibility and character preservation. Distinctions between different
types of development densities such as rural, suburban and urban could be recognized to
allow for a variety of lifestyle choices. This willallow for certain areas to maintain their
• existing character and have the types of uses and development that occurs there regulated.
This could allocate more urban uses to the Newport Center and Airport Business area, while
allowing Santa Ana Heights to maintain a more rural character and the planned development
areas of Newport Coast to retain a suburban character.
3. Development shall respect and maintain the scale, urban form, design, character
and quality of the community.
Discussion. A region's built urban form defines its character and sense of place, and
contributes to the overall quality of life. For example, urban form can distinguish socially
and economically vital pedestrian districts from auto -oriented districts. Urban form is
defined by the density of development; location, lot coverage, interrelationships, massing,
modulation and design of buildings; and the landscape and design of the intervening spaces
that connect buildings. Urban form allows for the differentiation of residential
neighborhoods, commercial centers and corridors, and industrial districts.
Newport Beach is recognized as an attractive community with a strong community identity.
Its villages are mostly small scale, intimate residential and commercial areas, with differing
character yet exhibiting a unifying theme of quality places to live, shop, play and work. There
also are more "urban" areas of Newport Beach, such as Newport Center and the Airport
Business Area, where taller buildings and more dense development ate the accepted norm.
Threats to community character and quality such as residential through -traffic from
0
Guiding Principles for Community Character
commercial areas, and commercial encroachment on residential neighborhoods axe
extremely important to address in existing and new development.
New, infill or re -development can be directed to reflect and complement existing community
character. If identified in the general plan land use plan, new development can be planned to
complement existing land uses. Development can also be designed to be consistent with the
scale of existing development and building massing in the surrounding area. Mixed -use
development can be employed as an infill strategy in appropriate areas of the City.
Additionally, architectural standards and guidelines can be developed for new development
to ensure quality design that is contextually appropriate for the surrounding area.
Visioning participants axe in agreement regarding the importance of regulating development
to protect the existing character and quality of the community. They have divided views on
the issue of "mansionization" in residential areas; some -residents support the increase in
property values from larger homes, while some oppose unchecked building "supersizing" as
a threat to the character of a "small town" beach community feel. The threshold for size
varies by neighborhood and geographic area.
Visioning participants have noted the need to create urban design guidelines and/or specific
plans to address design, especially in areas targeted for revitalization. Community members
have also expressed that new design and building scale should complement and emphasize
• the characteristics of existing neighborhoods and villages. New development must also
consider existing community amenities and be sensitive to those such that views remain
protected, trees and landscape are enhanced and preserved, and light pollution minimized.
4. Balance developed lands with adequate open space and recreation areas and
preserve opportunities for maintaining healthy lifestyles in Newport Beach.
Discussion: Newport Beach's natural setting facilitates active lifestyles and enjoyment of
the city's physical resources. The presence of parks, art and cultural facilities, libraries and
educational quality directly contribute to the residents' quality of life. Outdoor and indoor
recreational opportunities are bountiful and include liking, biking and aquatic related
activities. Open space provides visual relief from the urban built environment; open space
preservation allows for the enjoyment of views and supports habitat for wildlife. It is
essential to maintain the open space, park, beach, and trail areas for the enjoyment of
residents and visitors, and to ensure adequate opportunities for healthful activities.
Visioning participants emphasized the importance of meeting the needs of residents,
businesses and visitors recognizing that Newport Beach is primarily residential. In meeting
residents' needs for recreation, the city can also achieve its goals for providing a viable
business and tourism environment that is dependent on the open space and recreational
amenities of Newport Beach. The challenge will lie in meeting the needs of all while
maintaining the quality of recreation and open space lands.
0
Guiding Principles for Community Character
• 5. Preserve the community's heritage.
Discussion. Newport Beach is renowned for its coastal lands and harbor. These resources,
along with marine industry and mantitne uses, have figured prominently in Newport Beach's
history and physical development. Along with this acknowledgement and respect for the
City's coastal and nautical history, interest has been expressed in preservation of historic
buildings and locations (e.g., Balboa Pavilion and McFadden Square) that have contributed
to Newport Beach's unique sense of place. Some of these resources may be eligible for
recognition, but are not included on the official State or National register. They could be
demolished or substantially altered, as there are no local historic preservation standards in
place.
There also are residential and commercial neighborhoods with a distinct historic character,
such as Corona del Mar, Balboa Village and Balboa Island. This guiding principle supports
the visioning participants' interest in protecting these historic commercial and residential
villages. Protection of historic resources could be accomplished through relaxation of
development requirements for historic structures, limiting certain uses permitted in some
commercial areas, adopting design and development guidelines, adopting more Specific
Plans to regulate development, and reducing the permitted size of buildings in residential
neighborhoods. Another way to protect these historic resources is for the City to adopt local
preservation standards for these resources.
. 6. Improvements to the City's circulation system should protect and take into
consideration the community's character.
Discussion. The circulation system is integral to linking and providing access to the
different neighborhoods and districts that form Newport Beach. Maintaining ease of access
throughout the community is critical to preserving resident's quality of life. The appearance
and scale of roadways and their influence (noise, air pollution, pedestrian safety) on adjacent
areas is important to maintain compatibility. Landscaping, traffic cahning, limited street
widening, roadway signage, and parking restrictions can be used to improve roadway
conditions and reduce impacts on the community.
Additionally alternative transportation modes such as transit and bicycle can enhance
community character by reducing automobile congestion. Bicycle and pedestrian paths also
help to enhance the recreational opportunities and active healthy lifestyle character
associated with Newport Beach's coastal community and identity.
10
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY FORMULATION
May 10, 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 Airport Business 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 Priucples, 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 Prindfiles 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
Guiding Principles for Affordable Housing
• with the GPAC and.at workshops designed for input from the general public in September. Based
on the input received, a Preferred Land Use Plan will be selected during October.
The following section summarizes the affordable housing issues raised in the visioning process as
reflected in "Community Directions for the Future". The subsequent section summarizes the issues
related to affordable housing contained in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, adopted
in August 2003. Based on detailed information in the Housing Element, and the Housing Section
of Chapter 2, Community Development, of the recently completed Technical Background Report
prepared by EIP Associates, this paper provides a set of suggested Guiding Princifiles for affordable
housing for consideration by the GPAC.
Summary of Affordable Housing 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 information presented here includes the statements
and issues from this process related to housing development in the City, and affordable housing in
particular. Much of the discussion in this section, and the Housing Element section that follows, is
related to opportunities to provide additional housing capacity in the City. However, to achieve the
City's goals for providing an appropriate share of the region's affordable housing need, there are a
number of strategies and tools that may be used to create affordable housing units from the
additional housing capacity that may be created in the land use plan. These strategies are discussed
in the following section of this paper.
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, that " There is a range of housing opportunities that allows
people to live and work in the City." This statement reflects the community's acknowledgement
that the availability of a variety of housing opportunities is a critical component of a desirable,
viable, livable community.
The Visioning Process gained public input on several specific issues related to housing development
and affordable housing. The housing development issues discussed below are included because
they represent the capacity for housing to which the City's affordable housing strategies can be
applied, as appropriate, to achieve the City's affordable housing goals. From the visioning process,
there was broad community consensus on some issues related to housing development, and more
diverse opinion on others. The issues with consensus include the following:
0
Guiding Principles for Affordable Housing
• ■ Areas suitable for Mixed Use. Mixed -use development, by definition, typically includes a
residential component and therefore provides the opportunity to add additional units to
the City's housing stock. From input collected at the Visioning Festival and the City's
website, specific areas were deemed appropriate for mixed -use development integrating
housing and commercial or office space. These areas include Balboa Village, Cannery
Village, Mariner's Mile, McFadden Square, Lido Marina Village, the Airport Business
Area and Newport Center. The GPAC favors mixed -use development in all appropriate
sites, and believes each site should be studied for its specific suitability. The
development of mixed -use projects in any of these areas recognizes the value that a
housing component adds to the project as well as to the community as a whole.
■ Use of Underutilized Commercial Land. GPAC members and Festival participants
strongly agreed that the City should consider re -zoning excess and underutilized
commercial lands for residential or mixed -use development. Festival participants leaned
more toward mixed -use development. The consideration to expand the areas in the City
in which mixed -use is allowed supports the City's attainment of housing production
goals in the Housing Element as well as its improved fiscal health through the
revitalization of underutilized properties.
A divergence of opinion existed on the following housing development and affordable housing
issues.
• ■ Banning Ranch. Banning Ranch is one of the few remaining opportunities for the City
to develop additional housing in a large land holding. Community opinions are split as
to whether development should be allowed at Banning Ranch or if this property should
be preserved as open space. Forty-six percent of those familiar with the area support
preserving the entire area as open space, and another forty-four percent support half of
the land to be used for residential and limited light industrial with the remaining half
reserved as open space. GPAC members had varied opinions as well. Some support
using a portion of the land for affordable housing, arguing that Banning Ranch is one of
the few remaining places for this use. Summit participants who were supportive of
development favored affordable housing and public facilities, such as for seniors and
youth. Development of some portion of this site for housing presents a unique
opportunity because of the limited availability of undeveloped land remaining in the City.
Potential Development Areas. Overall, the responses supported the City setting firm
constraints on development including expansion of employment centers and hotels.
However, under certain conditions, there was support for additional development.
Some Summit attendees favored mixed use development in Newport Center and
stressed the need for more affordable housing in particular. Specific suggestions
included high-rise residential units and condominiums.
0
Guiding Principles for Affordable Housing
• THE HOUSING ELEMENT
The California State Legislature has identified that a major housing goal of the State is the
attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every California resident. To
further the attainment of this goal, State law requires local governments to prepare and adopt a
Housing Element as a component of their General Plan and that the Element include the following:
■ Identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs,
■ Resources and constraints,
■ Statement of goals, policies, and quantified objectives,
■ Programs for the development, improvement and preservation of housing,
■ Identification of adequate sites for housing, and
■ Adequate provision for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the
community.
In August 2003, the City Council adopted an updated Housing Element that is a comprehensive
statement of the City's housing policies and serves as a specific guide for implementation of these
policies. The Element covers the planning period from the year 2000 to 2005 and examines current
housing need, estimates future housing need, and establishes goals, policies, and programs pertaining
to those needs. The housing programs in the City's Housing Element are responsive to current and
future needs and are constructed within the context of available community, State, and federal
• economic and social resources, and realistic quantified housing objectives. The City is committed to
achieving its housing production goals through a land use plan that facilitates appropriate additional
residential capacity. Housing capacity alone, however, is not sufficient to create affordable units.
Thus, the City may want to consider policy approaches that result in a high probability of achieving
its affordable housing goals. A combination of strategies that include incentives --such as density
bonuses, and requirements --such as inclusionary housing ordinances, works well for many
communities to facilitate the production of affordable housing units. The City currently has a
number of strategies and programs that may be appropriate to reconsider or prioritize to assist in
this important goal.
Issues and Constraints
■ Opportunities for new housing units are very limited as the City is essentially built out with
few remaining vacant parcels.
■ Limited land availability means that new housing opportunities will occur on a limited basis
as infill or reuse of existing properties, e.g. mixed use development.
■ The City's beauty, coastal location, land values, and continuing housing demand combined
with the high median income of residents contribute to housing prices that severely limit the
availability of affordable housing.
■ Continued housing demand relative to availability has resulted in higher housing prices and
• lower vacancy rates that further reduce the availability of housing for the local workfotce.
0
Guiding Principles for Affordable Housing
• ■ There are strong community attitudes regarding not only increased commercial and office
development, but also higher density residential development due to concerns about traffic
congestion and limitations on infrastructure. These attitudes and concerns also reflect
strong public sentiment in favor of preserving the suburban character of the City.
■ Measure S may prove a constraint to housing development if a development proposal
exceeds current General Plan levels, which may deter builders who look at increasing
housing density as a way to make housing more affordable.
Housing Need
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) allocates Newport Beach a share of housing units requited to satisfy
housing needs resulting from growth in the region. To accommodate projected growth in the
region, SCAG estimates the City needs to target a housing production goal of 476 new housing
units. State law requires SCAG to distribute new units based on income to avoid further impaction
of localities with relatively high proportions of low-income households. Using the SCAG formula
for households earning below 80 percent of the County median income and paying more than 30
percent of their income towards housing, the regional housing need allocation for Newport Beach is
476 units. These units ate to be constructed over the Housing Element planning period of 2000 —
2005 and fall into the following income categories:
• Percentage
Income Category Units of RHNA
Very Low Income 86 15
Low Income 53 11
Moderate Income 83 17
Above Moderate 254 53%
Total 476 100%
In addition to the above RHNA allocation, the City has agreed to the transfer of a portion of the
County's RHNA for the Newport Coast. The allocation for the Newport Coast area is 95 units for
low-income households and 850 units for above moderate- income households for a total of 945
units for the area. The City will work with the County of Orange and the Irvine Company to ensure
that these affordable housing commitments are met.
In addition to the above housing needs allocation, the Element also identifies population groups
with special housing needs. These groups may have a more difficult time finding decent affordable
housing due to special circumstances or household needs and include the elderly, disabled persons,
large families, female -headed households, farm workers, and the homeless. Special needs
populations in the City that have been identified by available census data include the following:
■ 10,318 senior citizen residents,
0
■ 1,734 female -headed households,
Guiding Principles for Affordable Housing
■ 2,117 disabled persons with self -care limitations,
■ 171 farm workers, and
■ An undetermined number of homeless persons.
The housing element includes Goal 5 to specifically address the City's special needs population.
Senior citizens, defined as age 65 and above, are now the largest age -group segment in the City at
16.8 percent of the total population. The City will continue to use a portion of its affordable
housing resources on this population, but will also address the needs of other segments, including
families.
CurrendyAvailableAffordable Housing
There are ten developments in the City that provide a total of 321 income -restricted units for very
low to moderate -income households based on the use of government subsidies in their financing or
operation. Of the ten projects listed in the Housing Element, only two are scheduled to lose their
affordability restrictions during the five-year term of the Element. One project lost its income
restriction in 2002. However, the Lutheran Church managing the project has indicated that it has no
intention of converting the 100 low-income units to market rate, and such a conversion would
require an amendment to the use permit. The other project, which contains 25 very -low income
units, is eligible for conversion to market rate units in 2005.
Housing Opportunities and Resources
The programs and activities below are a summary of Housing Element provisions that provide
opportunities for the construction of new housing units including incentives and requirements that
facilitate the production of affordable housing units. These programs also include housing resources
currently available in the City to facilitate the maintenance of existing housing units that are more
affordable relative to other housing opportunities such as some mobile home parks and
condominium conversions.
■ Undeveloped Residentially Zoned Sites. The Housing Element identifies three vacant sites
that ate currently zoned for residential development. The sites range in size from 3.2 to 45.2
acres and have a capacity for approximately 582 units. This unit count may be exceeded
under the density bonus provisions contained in the Housing Element. These sites, further
described in the Housing Element, include Banning Ranch, Avocado -MacArthur, and
Bayview Landing.
Mixed Use Zoning. Newport Beach has a "Residential Overlay Zone" that allows mixed
residential and commercial developments. Many commercial properties include an "R"
Overlay designation and may integrate residential uses with commercial uses at a density of
one unit for each 2,375 square feet of land area. This designation provides additional
opportunity to provide housing in the City.
0
Guiding Principles for Affordable Housing
• ■ Redevelopment and Infill Opportunities. Since the City is essentially built out with the
exception of a few vacant parcels, and land costs continue to escalate, the primary
opportunities for new housing have been identified in infill and/or the redevelopment of
existing properties. These properties are typically located in older areas of the City that were
developed during a time when less intense utilization of the parcel was more typical than
what now occurs. According to the City's Planning Department, based upon the
consolidated acreage of these properties, the potential exists to add 1,100 additional units. It
should be noted that as these are individual properties and not large land holdings, they are
not likely to produce large numbers of units at one time, but rather slow and intermittent
redevelopment with the incremental addition of units over time.
■ Annexation Areas. The Newport Beach Sphere of Influence (ultimate incorporated city
limits) includes additional opportunities for future residential development in "Bay Knolls"
and "West Santa Ana Heights". The City will explore opportunities to increase housing
opportunity in these areas.
■ Density Bonus. The City will grant a density bonus or provide other incentives of an
equivalent financial value to developers who agree to construct housing for low- and
moderate -income households.
■ Requirement to provide affordable units (or in -lieu fees) in new residential developments.
• The City will continue this program with a goal of an average of 20 percent of all new
housing units developed to be affordable to very low- and low-income households over the
five-year planning period of the Housing Element.
■ Require affordable housing in new residential developments within the Coastal Zone. The
City requires the provision of affordable housing, where feasible, in projects of ten (10) or
more units proposed in the Coastal Zone areas of the City.
■ Mobile Home Parks. There are currently ten (10) mobile home parks in the City, many of
which are occupied by permanent residents. Space rents range from $500 to $3,000
depending on location in proximity to Newport Bay and size of the mobile home. Based on
rent data reflected in the Housing Element, several mobile home parks remain affordable
housing options relative to other types of conventional housing available in the City.
Condominium Conversion Ordinance. The conversion of an existing apartment building to
an ownership condominium is typically more affordable than the construction of a similar
unit. In the mid 1990's, the Citp of Newport Beach adopted a new ordinance to ease
restrictions on condominium conversions as a means to promote first time home -buyer
opportunities and the rehabilitation of smaller more affordable housing units. Since 1995,
the City has approved the conversion of 167 units.
0
Guiding Principles for Affordable Housing
• Suggested Affordable Housing Guiding Principles
1. Provide a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing
types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including
very low, low, moderate, and upper income households.
Discussion: In much the same way that the City must balance land uses and provide a
variety of business types to maintain a positive fiscal balance, the City should strive to
balance the variety of housing types, designs and opportunities available for all segments of
the community. Such a balance contributes to a vital economy because people tend to shop
,vhete they live; adds to quality of life and reduces traffic congestion to the extent that more
individuals can live in the City where they work; and enriches the social fabric through the
variety of household types in the community ranging from unmarried singles, to young
families with children, to elderly single person households. Each group has different
housing needs and contributes in its own way to enrich the community experience. Further,
a variety of housing types affordable to all economic segments of the community allows
greater opportunity for resident's children to afford housing in the community in which they
grew up rather than having to move away due to the cost of housing. This concern is
increasingly expressed in communities throughout the region as land values and housing
prices continue to escalate. As summarized above, the Housing Element outlines current
City resources and programs that support and facilitate this guiding principle.
• 2. Maintain quality residential development through the application of sound
planning principals and policies that encourage the preservation, conservation
and appropriate redevelopment of the City's housing stock.
Discussion: This principle confirms the idea that Newport Beach is primarily a residential
community, and that new development should preserve and protect that quality, not
diminish it through inappropriateness or excess. The desire to provide a variety of housing
types and opportunities, including affordable units, in no way diminishes the need to
maintain an appropriate community standard in the quality of residential development. This
principle relates to the need to insure not only that residential development is maintained at
an appropriate level of quality, but that community character is maintained by ensuring the
new commercial or business development is appropriate in scale to nearby residential.
3. Encourage mixed -use development as a means to create additional housing
opportunities.
Discussion. Due to the limited availability of vacant land to construct new housing, each
opportunity that allows and or encourages housing development should be strongly
supported. Based on the City's ability to provide incentives such as a density bonus, and
local requirements for affordable housing or in -lieu fees, each mixed -use project provides a
• potential opportunity to add affordable units to the City's housing stock. Community
Guiding Principles for Affordable Housing
. support for mixed use development was acknowledged in the Visioning Process and the
City's Economic Development Committee (EDC) has indicated support for increasing
opportunities for mixed -use in Newport Beach. Support for mixed -use is also reflected in
Guiding Principal 4 of the Economic Development discussion paper.
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. For Newport Beach, it is also critical to maintain the proper scale for mixed -
use development. There are many good mixed -use urban design projects in smaller city
downtowns, which are appropriately scaled to the residential community environment
desired by Newport Beach residents. Examples in Santa Barbara, Los Gatos and Brea have
proven that it is critical that these developments maintain very high quality standards to
avoid overcrowding or other negative aspects of higher development intensities that have
occurred in older forms of mixed -use development, particularly in some of the eastern cities.
• 4. Encourage the rezoning of under -performing commercial areas to allow
residential or mixed -use development.
Discussion, The commercial Market Analysis conducted by ADE for this general plan
update found that some commercial areas are underutilized and under -performing, such as
the Balboa Peninsula and West Newport. Participants in the Visioning Process strongly
agreed that the City should consider rezoning these areas to allow residential and mixed use.
Rezoning these areas, where appropriate, provides an opportunity for redevelopment that
can benefit the City economically by recycling to more viable commercial land uses and
provide additional housing opportunities in a market with strong housing demand, and
address the City's need for additional units to meet Housing Element goals. This principle is
supported by Guiding Principle 6 in the Economic Development discussion paper that
discusses designating commercial land uses in a manner that can be supported by the market.
5. General Plan policies will protect the high value of residential property.
Discussion. Protection of the City's residential values is a critical component of the City's
fiscal strength and its community character and identity. The provision of additional
housing, including affordable housing, must be consistent with this principle and Guiding
Principle No. 2 above. This principle also 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 appropriate in scale to
Guiding Principles for Affordable Housing
• nearby residential neighborhoods. This principle, included as Guiding principle 9 in the
Economic Development discussion paper, further reinforces the conclusion of the fiscal
analysis that higher value residential units pay for themselves in terms of generating
sufficient tax revenues to pay for neighborhood services.
U
•
10
• 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 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 expandupon 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 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.
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, Dircassiou 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
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
with the GPAC and at workshops designed for input from the general public in September. Based
on the input received, a Pt ferred Land Use Plan will be selected during October.
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 ate 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
2
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
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
include Castaways, Banning Ranch, Sunset Ridge, Hoag, Newport Coast, and Irvine
Terrace. There was some support fox 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
1 IP 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.
4)
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
• 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.
■ 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.
l ydrology and Water Quality
■ Future development is liltely 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 Quali
■ 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.
0
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
• ■ 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.
■ Vehicles capable of using alternative fuels and possibly electricity maybe 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 fox 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
temediation 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, and rehabilitate or enhance, 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 requite a resource permit
•
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
• from federal and/or State agencies prior to development. Gbtain—iugthese perm tf.+--fen
rrrit pfeeess eeuld be4ength}—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
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 infill 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.
In addition to protecting biological resources rehabilitation or enhancement of degraded
areas within the Planning Area could also occur. As an example, the Banning Ranch site has
been disturbed by oil infrastructure and can be rehabilitated to improve the quality of
biological habitat onsite.
• 2. Protect existing -and improve 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 and
redevelopment activities on private property is proposed, onsite controls to reduce runoff
into drainages should be required, as well as 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 and improved 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, and live/work situations, that contain a mix
• of uses, such as housing and retail, can discourage automobile use and minimize air quality
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
• 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 souses. These natural landforms should be maintained.
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 bulls.
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 and creation 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.
7
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
68. 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, and could adversely affect sensitive rcceptots pattieula6y elese jx�ity
to the hFtbaf, a d _cc_ t sen - e such as residential uses, medical facilities, convalescent
centers, and retirement homes. 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.
Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation
• 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.
In accordance to the City's Noise Ordinance exterior noise levels exceeding 50 dBA
between 1012m to 7 a.m. and 55 dBA between 7 a.m. to 10 p m in residential areas. or 50
dBA between 10 p m to 7 a.m. and 60 dBA between 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. in residential portions
of mixed -use properties could present a potential nuisance. However. Maoise impacts can
be partially mitigated through retrofitting existing buildings containing sensitive receptors
with new windows and ventilation systems, as wellas 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.
7 Minimize intrusion from light sources.
Discussion: As new development within the Planning Area occurs, additional light sources
will be introduced onsite that could adversely affect surrounding areas during nighttime
hours Implementation of measures such as incorporating landscape buffers between
• existing and new uses to prevent an increase in lighting on adjacent i2roperties and requiring
that exterior lights direct light pools away from off -site viewers can mi nhnize intrusion of
these sources.
9
• 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/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 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 mote 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 Princples 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
•
G u I d Ing PrInc i p I e s for Mobility and Alternative Trans ortation Modes
• 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 Preferred Land Use Plain 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 Gniidinng Principles 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 ttaffic congestion, parking, traffic impacts
to neighborhoods, and alternative transportation modes that were expressed during the visioning
L�
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.
2
Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
• ■ GPAC members specifically emphasized the importance of improving sidewalks and
pedestrian walkways in the West Newport area.
■ 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 peals hours. Other transportation solutions that
received support included improving roadway signage, especially for tourist destinations;
eliminating street parking along Mariner's Mile during peals 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 Ihnited, 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.
Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
• o Airport Business Area. Some GPAC members expressed concern about
traffic impacts in this area since it is being targeted for revitalization and
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 NEIVPOItT BEACHISSUE9 REPORT
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 I IP Associates are
based on technical traffic analysis conducted by Urban Crossroads, the traffic consultant for the
City's general plan update. The sutmnaty 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 die level of service standard, and reductions in
• current land use intensity will be required to achieve consistency between the Circulation
and Land UseElements.
•
■ 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.
■ 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.
0
�Gulding 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 peals 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 befereas art
of the process of 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. Altkaugh4tiw. b .
oppettanities fef -i _i _a c we _i a... ftybeset, e
og go
pravtekng-h u4nrf5r people whe use •
stem Thus 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 wil{should 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
Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
• Newport Beach. 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. 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 thanas well as 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. Although traffic congestion occurs at limited
times these ate the tines that Newport Beach residents are the most impacted. 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 provides that allows the City will consider traffic
• congestion at all tines of the day vhd all seasons of the vear in pluming for future
and tO ., a..•. 1ir-rorits-fidW ie
devclopment.te-tic-eept-set >
i 1of the time, well l_ eetig
en-enmost
otket-geals-.
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-utb*n-farm.
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 tie 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.
0
Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
• 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.
6. Consider establishing a different level of service standard for the airport area,
with consideration of possible impacts on residential areas.
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 tela:ceddifferent 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 use of existing resources, and reduce congestion in
eldertourist areas.
• Discussion: Several areas of the City-leave-beenas being�ef
fevitali� iienare impacted by tourists, such as Balboa Village, Central Balboa Peninsula,
McFadden Square, and -Mariner's Mile and Corona del Mar. 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�c.�.. the Airport Arcal, could enhance these areas.
8. Consider urban scale development in areas where there is potential for
developmhnt 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, [nixed 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 mixed use [night be considered in older
Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
• on -street commercial areas such as Mariners Mile. Tbis 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,
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 are trade-offs which must be resolved as the circulation system is planned for the
future.
•
•
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, May 10, 2004
Roger Alford
Ronald Baers
Patrick Bartolic
Phillip Bettencourt
Carol Boice
Elizabeth Bonn
Karlene Bradley
Gus Chabre
John Corrough
Lila Crespin
Laura Dietz
Grace Dove
Florence Felton
Nancy Gardner
Louise Greeley
Bob Hendrickson
Tom Hyans
Mike Ishikawa
Kim Jansma
Barbara Johnson
Mike Johnson
Bill Kelly
Donald Krotee
Lucille Kuehn
Philip Lugar
Barbara Lyon
1
41:
L
•
n
LJ
Marie Marston
Catherine O'Hari
Carl Ossipoff
Charles Remley
Larry Root
.,John Saunders
Hall Seely
Ed Siebel
Jan Vandersloot
Tom Webber
Ron Yeo
Raymond Zartlei
1
GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE
Monday, May 10, 2004
,PUBLIC SIGN -IN -
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS
w GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE
Monday, May 10, 2004
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
GPAC GEOGRAPHIC SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS
LOCATION: OASIS Senior Center
5th & Marguerite Avenue
Corona del Mar
May 241h Banning Ranch
Airport Area
Balboa Peninsula
June 7th Banning Ranch
Airport Area
Balboa Peninsula
June 215t Banning Ranch
Airport Area
Corona del Mar
West Newport Residential
July 121h Mariner's Mile
West Newport Industrial
Fashion Island/Newport Center
Old Newport Boulevard
July 261h Mariner's Mile
West Newport Industrial
Fashion Island/Newport Center
l
GPAC Geographic Subcommittee Assignments
C
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Mav 24 June 7 June 21 July 12 July 26
Roger Alford
Airport
Airport
Airport
Npt Ctr
Npt Ctr
Ronald Baers
Patrick Bartolic
N/A
N/A
CdM
Npt Ctr
Npt Ctr
Phillip Bettencourt
Banning
Banning
Banning
W Npt Ind
W Npt Ind
Carol Boice
Airport
Airport
CdM
Npt Ctr
Npt Ctr
Elizabeth Bonn
Banning
Banning
Banning/WNpt
Old Npt Blvd
N/A
Karlene Bradley
Banning
Banning
Banning
Npt Ctr
Npt Ctr
Gus Chabre
Peninsula
Peninsula
N/A
W Npt Ind
W Npt Ind
John Corrough
Peninsula
Peninsula
N/A
Mariners
Mariners
Lila Crespin
N/A
N/A
CdM
Npt Ctr
Npt Ctr
Laura Dietz
Airport
Airport
Airport
W Npt Ind
W Npt Ind
Grace Dove
Peninsula
Peninsula
N/A
Old Npt Blvd
N/A
Florence Felton
N/A
N/A
W Npt Res
W Npt Ind
W Npt Ind
Louise Greeley
Banning
Banning
Banning
W Npt Ind
W Npt Ind
Bob Hendrickson
Peninsula
Peninsula
N/A
Npt Ctr
Npt Ctr
Mike Ishikawa
N/A
N/A
W Npt Res
Mariners
Mariners
Kim Jansma
Peninsula
Peninsula
N/A
W Npt Ind
W Npt Ind
Barbara Johnson
Mike Johnson
N/A
N/A
W Npt Res
Mariners
Mariners
Bill Kelly
Peninsula
Peninsula
W Npt Res
Old Npt Blvd
N/A
Don Krotee
Banning
Banning
Banning
Old Npt Blvd
N/A
Lucille Kuehn
Airport
Airport
Airport/CdM
Npt Ctr
Npt Ctr
Barbara Lyon
Peninsula
Peninsula
N/A
Old Npt Blvd
N/A
Marie Marston
Peninsula
Peninsula
W Npt Res
W Npt Ind
W Npt Ind
Catherine O'Hara
Banning
Banning
Banning
W Npt Ind
W Npt Ind
Carl Ossipoff
Banning
Banning
Banning
Mariners
Mariners
Charles Remley
Peninsula
Peninsula
W Npt Res
Old Npt Blvd
N/A
Larry Root
Airport
Airport
Airport
Mariners
Mariners
John Saunders
Airport
Airport
Airport
Npt Ctr
Npt Ctr
Hall Seely
Airport
Airport
Airport
Mariners
Mariners
Ed Siebel
Airport
Airport
Airport
N/A
N/A
Jan Vandersloot
Banning
Banning
Banning
Mariners
Mariners
Tom Webber
Peninsula
Peninsula
CdM
Mariners
Mariners
Ron Yeo
Banning
Banning
CdM
Mariners
Mariners
Raymond Zartler
Lektorich, Debbie
From: Save Banning Ranch [savebanningranch@yahoo.comj
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 9:30 PM
To: Lektorich, Debbie
Subject: Affordable Housing
Debbie, please make my following comments part of the
official proceedings for Monday's GPAC meeting.
Newport Beach should work towards providing affordable
housing but it would be a mistake to consider Banning
Ranch as a site of future affordable housing. As
habitat for endangered species such as the California gnatcatcher, California least tern and Belding's savannah sparrow,
the site would better serve as an open space and wildlife preserve/public wilderness park (Newport Beach also lacks park
space). In all likelihood, the property will eventually be preserved for such a park, and the effort to provide affordable
housing would be better served if an emphasis on requiring new developments and redevelopments to provide affordable
units were strictly enforced.
Terry Welsh
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! Hot]obs
• http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9
11
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, May 10,
2004, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Nancy Gardner
Ronald Baers
Louise Greeley
Phillip Bettencourt
Bob Hendrickson
Carol Boice
Mike Ishikawa
Elizabeth Bonn
Kim Jansma
Karlene Bradley
Mike Johnson
Gus Chabre
Bill Kelly
John Corrough
Donald Krotee
Lila Crespin
Lucille Kuehn
Laura Dietz
Phillip Lugar
Grace Dove
Barbara Lyon
Florence Felton
Marie Marston
Members Absent:
Patrick Bartolic Barbara Johnson
Tom Hyans (sick leave) John Saunders
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Conn[ Pallini, EIP Planner
Members of the Public Present:
Cora Newman
I. Call to Order
Catherine O'Hara
Carl Ossipoff
Charles Remley
Larry Root
Hall Seely
Ed Siebel
Jan Vandersloot
Tom Webber
Ron Yeo
Raymond Zartler
Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. Mr. Lugar introduced the new member of the
Committee Ron Baers.
0 II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the April 26, 2004 meeting were approved as submitted.
III. Discussion Paper 2: Guiding Principles for Community Character
Louise Greeley asked what was next in the process with the guiding principles. Sharon
Wood explained that at the earlier GPUC meeting they reviewed the Guiding Principles
for Mobility, Environmental Conservation, Community Character and Affordable
Housing. In June, all the Guiding Principles will be presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council at a joint study session for their approval.
Conni Pallini led the discussion on Community Character taking comments on each
principle.
Tom Webber asked about Commercial Areas on page 5, he asked why Balboa Island
had not been included in the list Specific Plan Areas. Ms Wood pointed out that the list
refers to the areas identified in the current General Plan.
Mike Johnson pointed out that Huntington Beach should be included as a bordering city
under Natural Setting.
Hall Seely asked why Santa Ana Heights had not been included in areas needing
revitalization and areas appropriate for mixed -use. Ms. Wood indicated that the areas
• listed came from the Visioning Process and added that the Specific Plan for that area is
fairly recent and no planning issues have been raised for the area.
Ron Baers asked why the Back Bay was not specifically mentioned under Visual
Resources. Ms. Wood pointed out the last sentence in the second bullet refers to the
Bay.
Laura Dietz asked about Residential/Commercial Interface, and suggested adding
lighting as another conflict issue.
Jan Vandersloot asked if the statement was true that Newport Center is not in close
proximity to residential neighborhoods. Ms. Wood responded that it is generally
separated by arterial roads which reduces the number of complaints received. Woodie
Tescher added that the section was referring to areas like Corona del Mar where
commercial areas are directly adjacent to housing.
Principle #1
Catherine O'Hara asked to change the word "respect" to be more specific; the
discussion states, "protect and enhance".
Philip Bettencourt pointed out that the use of "natural setting" needs to be addressed;
many areas are not historically natural, they were created. Ms. Wood suggested using
"physical" instead of natural.
• Grace Dove stated the principle seems to encourage development which would not
protect the natural setting.
2
Mr. Vandersloot disagreed with changing the word "natural". Ms. Wood asked if
• "existing physical setting" would take care of both sides. Nancy Gardner added that
most people understand the meaning of natural setting.
Ms. Gardner stated the last sentence in the first paragraph under discussion refers to
"large areas of open space" which could imply we don't need any additional areas. Ms.
Wood suggested changing the sentence to "Open space has been preserved...."
Mr. Seely asked if there was an inventory of the City's view corridors and open spaces.
Ms. Wood indicated that the information was in the Technical Background Report and
LCP.
Principle #2
Ms. Wood indicated GPUC had made a couple comments on this principle. First, they
indicated that not all areas of the City had the kind of character we want to protect.
GPUC also suggested deleting the sentence in the second discussion paragraph, "the
City has a history of tourism and benefits economically from its attractiveness to
visitors"; they felt that benefits from tourism were irrelevant to the community
character of the City.
Carl Ossipoff stated the benefits were well documented in the Technical Background
Report; also if tourism wasn't beneficial, why are some cities trying to attract additional
tourists by building hotels and enhancing beachfronts. Ms. Gardner pointed out the
• first sentence also indicated that tourism has influenced community character. John
Corrough added that if attention was not given to maintaining community character, the
City would be less of a tourism destination. He stated it could also be argued that the
benefits of tourism enable many of the community enhancements in the City.
Mr. Lugar made a motion to take the sentence out. The motion failed after a vote was
taken.
Kim Jansma asked what the meaning of the discussion was in regard to the real estate
market and larger homes; it seems to only say it is a challenge. Mr. Tescher responded
by saying the strategies will be addressed through policy at a later date and it won't
affect us at this point when creating the land use plan. Ms. Wood added that Principle
3 addresses the issue.
Ron Yeo suggested changing the wording to "beneficial and unique character".
Carol Boice asked to add language in the last paragraph of the discussion to indicate
any additional urban uses in the airport area should not negatively impact residential
areas. Ms. Wood pointed out the paragraph was not encouraging additional
development; it just suggests some planning tools. Ms. Gardner added that the
language was included in the mobility principles.
Principle #3
Mr. Webber suggested changing the word "maintain" in the principle to allow for
. possible change; he suggested using "consider the current scale" instead. Ms. Wood
added "future development shall consider..."
3
Principle #4
• Ms. Gardner pointed out that indoor recreational opportunities are not bountiful and
suggested deleting that language in the discussion. She also thought the reference to
"maintaining healthy lifestyles" was unusual. Mr. Corrough agreed and thought the
language should be in broader terms.
Principle #5
Bob Henderickson asked for clarification on the relaxation of development requirements
for historic structures. Mr. Baers stated there is a historic building code that allows
restoration of older buildings. Ed Siebel stated that people remodeling older houses
have problems keeping the houses in tact while complying with current codes; we need
to provide flexibility in those cases. Mr. Lugar agreed that the language was confusing.
Barbara Lyon asked who would make the decision about what buildings are historical.
Ms. Wood indicated it would be the City Council; however a citizen group put together a
possible list 15-20 years ago. Currently only 2 buildings have been officially called
historic structures —Balboa Pavilion and Balboa Theater.
Mr. Siebel thought preserving the ambiance of a neighborhood was more important
than the designation of historic and the Planning Commission/City Council need to have
the flexibility to decide if a house is worth preserving. Ms. Wood indicated there is
sometimes a distinction drawn between historic preservation and community
• preservation which could address this issue. Mr. Lugar suggested using "significant"
instead of "historic". Mr. Webber suggested "historic or significant". Ms. Wood added
that the language in the principle was very broad and the details wouldcome with
policy development.
Mr. Webber suggested removing the reference to reducing the permitted size of
buildings because it has nothing to do with protecting historic resources. Ms. Wood
pointed out it was just addressing ways it could be accomplished. Mr. Lugar suggested
deleting the language.
Mr. Krotee indicated that based on his experience with other cities handling this locally
with the General Plan would be a better way to handle it versus creating special districts
under a national register. Mr. Ossipoff asked if the owner or City Council would make
the determination. Mr. Tescher answered it would depend on the community, many
tools are available and property rights issues are also involved.
Principle #6
Ms. Wood reported that GPUC had recommended deleting this principle because it had
already been covered in Mobility with similar language.
Kariene Bradley made a motion to delete the principle. After a vote, the motion was
approved.
M
IV. Discussion Paper 5: Guiding Principles for Affordable Housing
• Ms. Wood reported that GPUC had discussed this paper and because the City had just
received certification of the Housing Element they suggested this set of guiding
principles be deleted.
Mr. Krotee asked if the Housing Element and General Plan were on the same track. Ms.
Wood indicated that according to State Law, we have 2 more years until the next
update and recertification; however it is likely cities will receive an extension due to the
budget situation of the State.
Karlene Bradley moved to delete this set of principles.
Lucille Kuehn strongly disagreed with deleting the principles. She stated there is a
great need for affordable housing in the City, not only for low income households but
also for the workforce here in Newport Beach. She felt it is a different issue,than the
Housing Element and that it should be addressed.
Mr. Henderickson asked if rezoning of underdeveloped commercial areas and mixed -use
were addressed in the Housing Element. Ms. Wood answered yes.
Mr. Ossipoff asked if the City was required to build affordable housing. Ms. Wood
indicated, that we are obligated to have land zoned to accommodate the required
number of units and have programs to facilitate the development of housing for all
income levels; however the City is not obligated to build the units.
• Ms. Wood suggested that even though GPUC recommended deleting these principles, it
may be a good idea to keep them as a reminder to consider affordable housing when
developing land use alternatives. Mr. Ossipoff asked if the principles could derail or
corrupt the Housing Element. Mr. Tescher indicated it would not because this would be
complementary to it. He added that some communities had changed the name
affordable housing to "workforce housing" to include City employees, teachers, etc.,
who cannot afford to live the city they work for.
Ms. Bradley withdrew her motion.
Mr. Remley asked where the 25 very low income housing units mentioned in the paper
were located and suggested that information be included. Ms. Wood thought it was
Amigos but would check and include it.
Mr. Webber asked that word "attitude" be replaced in the first bullet at the top of page
5. He also asked if the first bullet on page 3 was true which indicates GPAC favors
mixed -use development in all appropriate areas because he didn't recall a poll being
taken on this issue. Ms. Wood stated it referred information collected in the Visioning
Process and Mr. Webber was not on the Committee at that time.
Princi le #1
Roger Alford asked if the City will be required to provide financial assistance for
. workforce housing to provide the balanced residential community. Ms. Wood answered
that the City is not required to provide assistance and added that "provide" may be the
wrong word. Ms. )ansma suggested "promote".
5
Bill Kelly pointed out that if the title is being changed to workforce housing it eliminates
• the housing need for seniors. Mr. Tescher suggested "workforce and special needs
housing".
Princi le #2
Mr. Baers suggested changing "redevelopment" to `renewal".
Principle #3
Mr. Vandersloot suggested changing "encourage" to "consider".
Ms. Dove asked why mixed -use was included and pointed out that the Cannery Village
mixed -use development is not affordable. Ms. Wood responded that it didn't have to be
affordable; it is producing more housing to keep up with demand that is the issue.
Principle #4
Mr. Corrough asked to have "encourage" changed to "consider" so that the
underperforming waterfront area would not be developed with housing.
Principle #5
Ms. Gardner asked that "will" be changed to "shall"
Mr. Vandersloot commented that he did not like the fact that GPUC had recommended
deleting Community Character Principle #6, he felt there was not enough' discussion
• before deleting it. Ms. Wood clarified that GPUC had met in the afternoon and they
made the suggestion for GPAC to consider deleting the principle; at this meeting a
motion was made and no one responded to Mr. Lugar's request for objections.
V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
Mr. Tescher reminded everyone that the next several meetings will be held at the
OASIS Senior Center and will be Subcommittee discussions on the geographical sub-
areas. Discussion papers will be sent out and he encouraged everyone to read the
material prior to the meetings as well as review the Technical Background Report. All
discussion papers will be provided to the full committee, not just the individual groups.
He stated that each Subcommittee would be asked to submit no more than three
credible land use options for each area that will be submitted for further study. Mr.
Tescher also told the group that although the public is invited to the meetings, the
meetings are meant for GPAC discussions and deliberations and public comments will
be held until the end of the meeting. Ms. Wood indicated that there would be a few
invited guests from the Corona del Mar BID, Balboa BID and the Mariner's Mile Business
Owners Association who would provide background to the Subcommittees discussing
those areas.
Mr. Tescher added that if Subcommittees felt they needed more time, additional
• meetings could be scheduled; however all discussions should be concluded by the July
26th meeting.
VI. Public Comments
Handout was provided to the Committee with a message from Terry Welsh.