Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2004_12_13L n LJ L1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA December 13, 2004 7:00-9:00 p.m. 7:00 I. Call to Order 7:05 II. Approval of Minutes November 15, 2004 OASIS Senior Center 5t" and Marguerite 7:15 III. Topic/Discussion Paper — Community Character Woodie Tescher 8:45 IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items 8:50 V. Public Comments Public Comments are invited on items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Committee -- Speakers are asked to limit comments to 5 minutes. Before speaking, please state your name for the record. 111 1] t� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, November 15, 2004, at the OASIS Senior Center. Members Present: Roger Alford Laura Dietz Lucille Kuehn Ronald Baers Grace Dove Barbara Lyon Patrick Bartolic Florence Felton Charles Remley Phillip Bettencourt Nancy Gardner Hall Seely Carol Boice Bob Hendrickson Jan Vandersloot Elizabeth Bonn Mike Ishikawa Tom Webber Gus Chabre Kim Jansma Raymond Zartler John Corrough Bill Kelly Lila Crespin Donald Krotee Members Absent: Louise Greeley Phillip Lugar Larry Root Tom Hyans (sick leave) Marie Marston John Saunders Mike Johnson Catherine O'Hara Ron Yeo Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Doug Svennson, Applied Development Economics Members of the Public Present: Teresa Barnwell Alan Beek Cliff Chapman Laura Curran I. Call to Order Scott Giffin Gordon Glass Gary Itano Carol Martin Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order. Dennis O'Neil Terry Welsh Sharon Wright . Ms. Gardner reported that she had attended the GPUC earlier in the evening and that they had reviewed the Land Use Alternatives and had the following comments: ♦ Cannery Village —add the Albertsons shopping center area to study mixed use, retail and residential for that area ♦ Marinapark—delete this study area until Council reviews options ♦ Lido Village —add another option of visitor -serving retail and residential Sharon Wood added that GPUC was very complimentary about the work done by this committee on the land use alternatives. Lucille Kuehn asked where we are in the process. Ms. Gardner explained that the land use alternatives were reviewed by GPUC today and they will then go to the Planning Commission and City Council to make sure everyone agrees we're on the right track. After those reviews the modeling will start. Ms. Wood added that the results from the model runs will be brought back to the Committee for discussion and possibly another run before deciding on a preferred land use plan. Mr. Tescher added that a community workshop will also be scheduled to allow the public to comment on the plan. II. Approval of Minutes • Carol Boice pointed out a correction on page 4 under Fashion Island/Newport Center, the reference to the "8,000 square foot conference center" should actually be "58,000 square foot conference center." The minutes for the August 23, 2004 meeting were approved with the correction. III. Topic/Discussion Paper — Hotels & Tourism Doug Svensson, Applied Development Economics reviewed the Hotels & Tourism Paper, committee members offered comments during and after the presentation. Mr. Svensson also distributed a table called the Trip Generation Comparison for a One Acre Site. Charles Remley asked about the numbers on the table relating to hotels. Mr. Tescher and Mr. Svensson explained it was based on 45 rooms per acre and the trips listed are shown for the peak hour periods in the morning and evening. Ms. Boice asked if the numbers included employees of the hotel. Mr. Svensson indicated that it does. Tom Webber asked what time was the peak hour. Ms. Temple indicated it is the highest hour in the morning and evening. Mr. Svensson added that the commute hour between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. is typically the timeframe in the evening. Mr. Remley pointed out the daily trips total 368. Mr. Svensson stated that the number includes everyone in the room as well as employees and service providers. R7 Ms. Kuehn thought a pie chart indicating the relationship between revenue and costs in • the City's budget regarding hotels would be helpful. Mr. Svensson pointed out that a diagram is in the fiscal report that shows the impact of all land uses and a separate table that focuses on impacts of visitor -serving uses. Laura Dietz asked if the trip generation table was based on a model. Ms. Temple stated the table came from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual; it is a nationwide standard. Gus Chabre asked how summer rentals were classified in this table. Mr. Svensson indicated the traffic information is based on the type of dwelling that is used as a summer rental. Although short term rentals do generate more traffic and demand for parking, it is hard to specifically capture the numbers; it is a unique land use and the data isn't available. Mike Ishikawa stated that impacts from rental areas is a historic problem and is a situation the City has to recognize and deal with. Ms. Wood pointed out that question #5 dealt with vacation rentals and how we should set policy to deal with them. Mr. Remley pointed out that the impact of vacation rental houses on the peninsula is on parking because renters usually come with 3 to 4 cars. He thought requiring adequate parking before issuing vacation rental permits would help with impacts. Ms. Temple asked what would be considered adequate. Mr. Remley suggested the same requirement as a single family residence would help. • Mr. Webber pointed out that the problem goes beyond vacation rentals because people who live in the beach environment get a lot of visitors and the model doesn't appear to account for that. He also asked how the visitors coming for the day at the beach were accounted for. Ms. Wood said those numbers are included in the traffic model. Kim ]ansma asked about the designation of a small hotel versus a regular hotel or bed and breakfast. Mr. Svensson indicated 20 rooms would be the upper end of a B&B and 20 to 40 rooms would be a boutique hotel. Don Krotee asked about the revenue from vacation rentals. Mr. Svensson indicated 8- 9% of the TOT comes from vacation rentals. Ms. Wood pointed out that in addition to the fiscal impacts, vacation rentals also provide a source of affordable lodging in the coastal zone, which is required by the Coastal Commission. Mr. Ishikawa pointed out the impacts of summer rentals on the police department. Mr. Svensson indicated that even accounting for the added costs for public safety, the visitor activity more than pays for the costs. Ron Baers asked what triggers the permit. Ms. Temple explained the Short Term Lodging Permit is required for those who rent units seasonally with occupancies less than 30 days and is renewed annually. Ms. Kuehn thought there were three important issues: 1) would you like a rental unit next to you and if they are allowed on the peninsula can we say we don't want rentals isin Irvine Terrace? 2) the issue of property rights, do you have a right to rent? 3) the cost benefits. C Ms. Dietz thought it might be helpful to find out where the renters are coming from. • Ms. Temple indicated they come from everywhere, within the state and all over the country. Bob Hendrickson asked if it was possible to limit rental units to 2 cars when we don't have the same restriction for residents. Lila Crespin indicated there was an area in Los Angeles where permits are required of anyone parking in the community. Ms. Wood pointed out the Coastal Commission would not allow us to do that here. Grace Dove stated that vacation rentals are a historic use and when you buy property on the peninsula problems with parking and traffic are expected. She also pointed out that most rentals are owned by local people. John. Corrough agreed with Ms. Dove, the problems have been around for years and will continue due to the nature of the public beach community. Mr. Ishikawa disagreed to the point because each neighborhood has its own characteristics and we're meeting to try to control growth, rather than leave the status quo. Ms. Dietz stated the airport subcommittee discussed some hotel development there to serve airport travelers and they could still visit the tourist areas at the beach. Mr. Krotee asked if the tax structure could be changed to increase revenue to the City. • Mr. Svensson pointed out that any change to the TOT would require a vote and most cities are similar in what they charge. Ms. Wood added that Anaheim's TOT rate is higher than Newport Beach. She added that our Conference and Visitors Bureau would not be in favor of raising rates because it would make it more difficult to market to groups. Ms. Boice asked if adding hotels focused on business travelers in the Newport Center area would increase flights to John Wayne Airport and require expansion. Mr. Svensson indicated business travelers are attracted to the area for the businesses, lodging availability doesn't attract them. Ms. Wood thought the residential development to the south is a bigger factor when talking about airport growth. Ms. Dove asked if the timeshares in Newport Coast and Dunes entitlement for a hotel had been factored into this information. Mr. Svensson stated it was, however he didn't know the status of the entitlement. Ms. Wood added that she didn't know if the 275 room family inn at the Dunes would ever be developed. And added that Orange County had just approved the Pelican Hill Resort which includes 120 rooms. Patrick Bartolic asked if the committee was supposed to be coming up with a recommendation of areas that could have additional lodging or if the recommendation is to suggest if there should be additional lodging. Mr. Svensson indicated that during the visioning process the message came through that there were only a couple areas appropriate for hotel development. Mr Tescher added that the subcommittees had • identified additional areas for consideration. Ms. Gardner reminded the group that the options we are discussing are not "recommendations," the options will require more ki study and discussions prior to determining our recommendations. Ms. Wood added . that we are in the beginning of the policy discussions, the issue papers will provide a summary of information from the visioning process as well as a summary of all the information the committee has been provided since that process. Mr. Tescher asked the group to try to define the term "careful expansion" which will help determine the policies. Ms. Jansma suggested boutique hotels would fit the charm of Newport better than the large hotels. Phillip Bettencourt pointed out it may be hard to get a consensus from the group with the open ended questions we're discussing tonight. Ms. Boice asked if the traffic modeling shows unacceptable service levels for some of the options, who will be responsible for scaling them back? Mr. Tescher responded by saying the results of the modeling will come back to GPAC for discussions before going out to the public and then after getting the public response recommendations will be formed. Jan Vandersloot suggested that we should not deviate from the results that came out of the visioning process because the main concern was traffic and it continues to be a concern of this group. Mr. Bartolic agreed that traffic is the main issue and we should be looking at getting an effective shuttle service to help with the parking and traffic issues that exist now. Mr. Corrough disagreed with the idea of staying with the visioning process results because this committee has been provided with additional information and has spent a lot of time in discussions regarding the information that was not available to the participants during the visioning process. Ms. Gardner added that comments at the GPUC meeting indicated that the background information would have been helpful during their review of the land use alternatives. Mr. Bartolic asked if we had any idea how many parcels in the City could accommodate a small scale hotel now. Ms. Temple indicated that a developer could redevelop any area zoned commercial, so it is difficult to determine the number of locations. Mr. Baers stated he had reread the results of the visioning process and felt they lacked clarity and thought we shouldn't rule out any options at this point. Ms. Dietz thought that having flexibility in our general plan is important because what we think is a good idea today may not work 20-25 years from now. Ms. Gardner summarized the two positions that came out in the discussions. One is that we take the visioning process as a starting point and utilize the materials we've received to guide us in our decisions. The other is we don't deviate from the results of the visioning process. Ms. Wood added that she thought the City Council intended for GPAC to keep studying because they had authorized the money for the traffic/fiscal impact models, consultants and staff time for the process. • Mr. Krotee thought we should wait to see the results of the modeling before addressing the questions about hotels. 5 • IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items The next meeting is scheduled for December 13t' and the agenda will include a paper on Community Character. • V. Public Comments Ms. Gardner apologized for missing a member of the public at the last meeting who wanted to speak and was overlooked. She asked members of the public to stand if they would like to speak so it wouldn't happen again. Gordon Glass pointed out that the 3rd alternative for Lido Village was supposed to include marine -oriented retail. He also commented on the vacation rentals, hoping that they wouldn't be squeezed out by over regulation. He suggested redevelopment for the oceanfront at the Newport Pier that could accommodate small scale hotels. Laura Curran commented in favor of the vacation rentals stating it brought revenue to the City. She also thought more detail would be needed before making decisions on the hotels and to get information from other communities with the same type issues. She asked the group to consider making Mariners Mile safer for bicycles. Terry Welsh, Chris Manka, Clifford Chapman, Teresa Barnwell, and Sharon Wright spoke in favor of keeping Banning Ranch open space. Lila Crespin provided copies of a Cultural Arts Guide prepared by the Newport Beach Arts Foundation. 0 n LJ INTRODUCTION Larger homes are typically found in major metropolitan areas and in some resort communities. They appear most frequently in older parts of high -growth areas, in growth - restricted metropolitan areas, in mature neighborhoods with cache, and in cities with little remaining undeveloped land such as Newport Beach. Larger homes are often defined by increased scale, height, and lot coverage as well as roof lines, street setbacks and facades that often differ from the original homes in the neighborhood. Because larger homes tend to use more of the lot area within the established setback requirements, they appear more massive in scale and bulls. Large homes become an issue for a community when their development is seen as incompatible with the character of an existing neighborhood. Those who construct larger homes are often attracted to a particular neighborhood's amenities and established infrastructure. Those who support larger home development cite that they promote reinvestment in older neighborhoods and make use of existing infrastructure. They replace obsolete or less well maintained housing and contribute to the community's stability through increases in property value. Those who oppose larger homes in existing neighborhoods cite that they change community character. This paper will present an overview of the existing conditions of larger home development in the City of Newport Beach as expressed by the residents of the City through the Visioning process, members of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and Newport Beach staff. Examples of strategies used by other jurisdictions will be presented and the advantages and disadvantages of each will be discussed. • Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004 • BACKGROUND According to the Census Bureau, the average single- family house built in 1997 consisted of 2,195 square feet of space, compared with 1,520 square feet in 1971. The 1997 Census figures put median lot size at 9,000 square feet, 1,000 square feet less than in 1990. Family size also is decreasing, from an average of 3.1 persons per household in 1971 to 2.6 in 1997. These data show that larger homes are being developed on smaller lots for fewer occupants. In Newport Beach, the average home size is slightly higher than what was reported at a national level. That is, the average size of homes in the City increased from 2,000 square feet to approximately 3,000 square feet over the last 20 years. Economic trends in California have contributed to the increase in construction of larger homes. The property value in desirable coastal areas such as Newport Beach has been steadily rising. In Newport Beach, the median home price as of July 2004 was $1,295,000.' These increases in property value contribute to the increase in home size because home owners wish to maximize the available building space on their lots. Additionally, with high property values, home owners ate more likely to remodel or replace existing homes rather than buy vacant property for new home construction. VISIONING PROCESS Between November 2001 and January 2003, the City facilitated a Community Visioning process to elicit the values, aspirations, and ideas of the Newport Beach community. Community Dimetion r far the Fulitn: A Sumitiary of the Getteral Plait Update Visioning Process was produced I Los Angeles Daily News, California Year -to -Year Price Increase was California's Sixth Fastest, September 6, 2004. • Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004 • U 0 by the City and presents the findings from the process. The findings from this process should be used as a framework for the General Plan Update and to guide future planning efforts. This process revealed that increasing house size and its effects on community character are an issue for some residents of Newport Beach. 0 KEY ISSUES • RESIDENTS Sixty-five percent of residents that responded to the newsletter questionnaire indicated a desire for the City to implement restrictions on the construction of larger homes. Findings from the Visioning process show that those in attendance favor limiting the size of new infill housing, restricting the size of remodeled houses, and creating a lot merger requirement. Residents in Districts 5, 6 and 7 expressed concerns over this trend at their respective neighborhood workshops. District 5 encompasses Balboa Island, Irvine Terrace and Big Canyon, while District 6 is located in the southeast portion of the City encompassing old Corona del Mar and Newport Coast. District 7 encompasses the Harbor View and Newport Ridge areas. In contrast to these areas, residents in District 2, primarily those in West Newport, were not concerned about this issue and expressed that larger homes increase property value and promote home ownership. The Visioning process also revealed that many residents believe existing regulations to restrain home size and protect views are sufficient. Specifically, 41 percent of residents surveyed believe that existing regulations are sufficiently effective, and only 27 percent of respondents think they are too weak. Additionally, with regard to regulations that apply to buildings affecting views, 42 percent of residents said regulations are just right, and 32 percent believe they are inadequate. The Visioning process did not address specific issues related to larger homes but addressed the overall effects on community character. Neither were specific policies to address this issue presented or discussed. The statistics cited above seem to show that, although residents consistently express concern about larger • Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004 • • homes, many feel that existing regulations effectively deal with the overall issue. GPAC Based on the input from the Visioning process, GPAC also expressed concern over larger homes. GPAC members expressed that the problem of growing home size varies geographically, with some neighborhoods more affected than others. In some areas of the City, for example, larger homes have become the norm. It may not, therefore, be the common belief among the residents that community character is of concern. With regard to possible strategies, GPAC believes that design quality can be more important than size, and indicated that implementing guidelines to regulate design quality could be more effective at reducing the impacts of large homes within a neighborhood than regulations that strictly regulate square footage. According to GPAC, this issue should be regulated on a city-wide basis, but each neighborhood within the City of Newport Beach should have guidelines that meet its individual and unique needs. Table 1 presents the findings gathered from various media used during the visioning process related to residents' input on larger homes. • Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004 • Table 1: Summary Table of Visioning Process Key Question: Should the City place restrictions on constructing larger homes that change the character of existing neighborhoods? Website Support for the suggested solutions and lot merger requirement. Newsletter Expressed concerns about the Impacts: lack of privacy, natural sunlight Mallback and views. Questionnaire Visioning Festival Limit the size of new Infill housing as a solution to larger homes. Restrict the size of remodeled housing. Neighborhood Major concern in Districts 5, 6 and 7, but not District 2. Youth: limit the Workshops and size of new infill housing as a solution to larger homes. Restrict the size Youth Council of remodeled housing. Telephone ' 41% believe that existing regulations are sufficiently effective. 27% Surveys believe they are too weak. 13% say they are too strong. GPAC Many have expressed concerns about the trend toward larger homes. Depends on the area and the design. LCP may help address Issue in coastal area. Create design guidelines specific to villages. Consider stepping back to allow views from properties In center of peninsula. New construction helps west Newport. Overall Findings Larger homes and their effects is a distressing trend for some Newport Beach Residents, however, the existing regulations may be sufficient for now. The tolerance of larger homes depends on the area and the • proposed design. Source Newport Beach General Plan Update— Visioning Phase; Emerging Strategic Directions, October 31, 2002. STAFF Newport Beach staff note that the trend toward larger homes is more evident in certain neighborhoods including Corona del Mar, Newport Heights, Balboa Island, some ateas on the Balboa Peninsula, and Harbor View. Concurrent with the trend toward larger homes, staff has identified an increase in requests for modifications to Zoning Code requirements over the past 10 years. Existing regulations in the City's Zoning Code establish maximum floor area ratios and building heights, and minimum setbacks. Regulations on height and floor area ratios can directly limit square footage. These standards may not be exceeded without a variance approved by the Planning Commission. Setback encroachments, which may be approved by staff, can increase use of allowable floor area. As a result of these requests and the trend toward higher ceilings, newer • Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004 houses fill up the volume of die lot and are more . massive and taller than older ones, while the open space on a lot is reduced, both of which affect the community character of a neighborhood. Newport Beach has recently addressed this issue by changing the findings required fox approval of Modification Permits. Previously, the only finding required was that there would be no detriment to surrounding properties or the general welfare. Three findings are now required for approval: r • Setbacks 1 Level Home Front Setback = 20 it 0 Side Setbacks = 3 0 Rear Setback =10 it requiting that each building be set back to a minimum depth, thereby creating a transition between the structure and the street. Newport Beach, like many other cities, has front, teat, and side setback requirements that can vary by neighborhood, especially in older residential neighborhoods such as Corona del Mar and areas on the Balboa Peninsula. The use of property setbacks, height and open space Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004. 8 CJ requirements until recently, has been the sole mechanism used by cities that offset the size of homes. Historically, the use of setbacks has not been considered a major issue with regard to community character, as single family homes were typically not constructed to the maximum property setbacks or building heights. In recent years, the trend toward larger homes often constructed to the maximum setbacks and height limits has resulted in larger, bullder homes. Traditional setback regulations that are fixed do not have the same effect on all lot sizes. For example, if a traditional setback requirement is applied to a larger lot size, the result is often a larger, bulkier home than what would occur on a smaller lot with the same setback requirements. Several jurisdictions also have vertical setback requirements although Newport Beach does not. Vertical setbacks promote modulation of the building fagade by requiring that the second story be set back further than the first, and can help reduce building scale or wall mass. Typically, there are two methods of applying vertical setback requirements. One is to require that all sides of a multi -story structure be set back a certain distance from the property line or from the first story. Another method used a percentage reduction of the second story mass and allows discretion regarding the elevation in which setbacks axe applied. This allows for some flexibility in design, and a structure can still be architecturally compatible with its surrounding uses. Typical vertical setbacks are three to five feet in depth and vary in width depending on the length of the wall plane. As an example, the City of Redondo Beach requires vertical setbacks, where the second story has a setback that averages 10 feet more than the required setback of the first story. Some architectural styles (i.e., Colonial Revival) do not requite such setbacks because it may not be feasible for additions to existing homes. Regarding tear setbacks, the Redondo Beach Newport Beech Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper ElPAssociates — December 8, 2004. code recommends that these increase proportionately • as lot depth increases. Although the use of horizontal setbacks alone can reduce the size of a home on a lot, it can also result in a massive, box -like structure. The use of vertical setbacks for upper floors reduces the visual sense of mass though, if applied consistently regardless of lot size, could still result in the sense of oversized units. FLOOR AREA RATio (FAR) Another common technique used by jurisdictions to regulate home size is through Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements. FAR is the relationship between the total floor area of a building and the area of the lot upon which it is situated. For example, if a building is 5,000 square feet on a lot of 10,000 square feet, the FAR of that building is 0.50. Newport Beach, like many other cities in the State, does not have FAR standards for single-family • homes. The City, however, does have FAR standards for other land uses. Where Newport Beach calculates FAR by comparing it to the "buildable" area of the lot (i.e., the lot area within required setback areas), instead of comparing floor area to total lot area. This makes Newport Beach's standard appear high, and makes comparison with other communities difficult. • An example of a jurisdiction that use: FAR requirements to regulate the size of single-family homes is the City of Encinitas. In 2001, Encinitas introduced significant changes to its building codes. The City's old regulations allowed residential floor area up to 60 percent of a logs total area within lot setbacks. (This is the same "buildable area" method that Newport Beach uses.) Changes to the zoning code included an updated ordinance that reduced the FAR to between 40 and 50 percent, depending on the land use designation. For instance, where a home of 5,220 square feet could reside on an 8,700 square foot lot, under the new ordinance, a lot of the same size Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004. 10 • Typical Single Family Lot FAR = 0.50 Lot Size a 80'XS1' (4,080 SgFt) Front Setback = 20' Side Setback = 3' Rear Setback=10' Albwablo ConnUucled Area (all tents) =lot She xFAR 4,080 SgFtx060=2040 SgFI Ullman is required to be equal otI mr than 2,041) SgFt 2 Level Area2nd Level=710SgFl Area lst Level =1,330 SgFt Total BuiltArea =2p40 SgFt t� ea=2,040 SgFt on 1 tvel how =getter ttceve age) could hold a 3,700 square foot house. The new • ordinance provided a 33 percent reduction in the allowable home size. However, on smaller lots, the change is not as significant. For example, under the old regulations, a 3,240-square-foot home was allowed on a 5,400-square-foot lot. The new ordinance reduces the home size to 2,700 square feet, a 17 percent reduction.2 An issue with the use of FAR requirements to regulate the size of homes is when these regulations are applied unilaterally to parcels of all sizes. Since the use of FAR results in the ability to build bigger structures on bigger lots, inappropriately large homes that are out of scale with existing homes can occur. This is particularly a problem when two adjacent lots are acquired and combined by one owner, and the structure becomes larger than the structure on the neighboring lot. • 2 NC Times. "Mansionization" Target of Proposed New Standards. November 10, 2001. Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004. 11 This issue is addressed in the City of Del Mar, where • owners of two or more adjacent properties merged lots and then proposed development taking advantage of the increased allowable square footage based on the size of the combined lot(s). The City recently considered a zoning amendment that changed the way FAR is calculated in these situations. The amendment would include measures that would tie the allowable FAR of combined lots to the largest of the merged lots, rather than to the aggregate sizes of the combined lots. Thus, if two lots are combined, the allowable FAR would be based on the size of the largest of the lots involved in the merger, plus a percentage (but not all) of the size of the second or subsequent lots involved in the merger. This would change the current regulations that allow all of the area of combined lots to be calculated toward the allowable FAR. The modified regulation would remove an existing incentive for combining properties and would also guard against the building of "mega" homes. • LOT COVERAGE • By restricting maximum lot coverage, the size of homes can also be regulated. Recently, this regulatory tool has also been used to limit the size of homes by controlling the building footprint. Some cities specify maximum lot coverage for various land uses, and Newport Beach stipulates a maximum lot coverage requirement of 40 percent for the Residential — Agricultural district. Most jurisdictions use maximum lot coverage standards in combination with other regulatory techniques such as setbacks and FAR standards to limit the size of homes, as discussed below. OPEN SPACE Open space requirements on a lot can also limit the size of homes. Many cities have open space requirements for multi -family uses but generally use Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004. 12 setback requirements to limit the buildable lot area for • single-family uses. There are currently no established requirements for open space on single family residential lots in Newport Beach. FORM -BASED CODES Traditional zoning ordinances focus upon development standards such as building height and setbacks. Form -based codes are specifically intended to establish a physical urban form to promote an intended urban character of a place. This does not focus on the use itself but the established urban form. The use of these codes promotes the community character of an area by encouraging development that is consistent with existing uses. The City of Palo Alto uses form -based zoning to shape the nature of development as it is associated with certain land uses. Palo Alto's zoning code starts with a basic zoning structure - one in which zoning • districts define permitted land use and building scale. Within each of these basic zoning districts, "form - based" zoning is then applied as an overlay. Examples of "forms" could be: "Pedestrian Districts" or "Small - Lot Districts" or "Traditional Subdivision Districts." The form based codes allow for increased regulation of specific design elements particular to land use types in areas with similar urban characteristics, or similar forms. Such a code allows a municipality to add further refinement and variations to design components of proposed and existing development. For example, a gradient of scales can be prescribed to create transitions between building types of the same land use, as they move from larger to smaller scale. COMBINATION OF TECHNIQUES Many cities use a combination of the techniques described above to address the issue of larger homes. Specifically, the City of Redondo Beach uses FAR • limits with other planning tools such as requited first Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004. 13 and second floor setbacks, front yard lot coverage • limits and other design elements to provide a variation in building mass. For example, a maximum FAR of 0.65 (based on total lot area) is established and FAR bonuses are permitted up to a maximum of 0.8 if the development incorporates design elements that reduce the mass and bulk of a structure. FAR bonuses are granted for providing additional second story side or rear setbacks. 9 The City of Claremont also uses a combination of techniques, where three categories within their single family residential districts are subject to different regulations based on lot sizes of 8,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet, and 13, 000 square feet. Lot coverage requirements for the three types are 40 percent, 40 percent, and 35 percent, respectively. For 8,000 and 10,000 square foot lots, setbacks are eight feet for side and rear and 25 feet for the front. The 13,000-foot lots are subject to setbacks of eight feet for side and rear and 30 feet for front yard setbacks. In conjunction with setback requirements, the City employs a version of FAR which is specifically called the Maximum Floor Area of Main Residential Structure. This says that the total floor area of the main residential structure shall not exceed a maximum of 1500 square feet plus 25 percent of the lot area. The City further addresses the issue of larger homes by including that the floor area calculation includes the area of an upper level not separated from a lower level by a floor/ceiling assembly, floor areas of attached garages, carports and covered patios. That is, the total volume of the home, including vaulted ceiling space, is considered in the floor area calculation. Thus, if a house's overall volume consists partly of vaulted ceiling space, the footprint must be reduce to still accommodate the maximum floor area requirements. The City, therefore, uses this tool to reduce the size of homes. Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper EIP Associates —December 8, 2004. 14 • PROS/CONS A benefit to applying development standards such as setbacks, FAR, lot coverage, open space, and form - based codes is that they provide a foundation from wlilch homeowners and developers can begin and eliminate any perceived subjectivity by city staff. When taken individually they are intended to address a single issue. Aside from form -based code, these regulations do not address architectural style including fagade, character or modulation of a structure. And over regulation through the use of restrictive development standards can lead to a lack of variety in design or other unintended consequences. When these regulatory techniques are used in concert can help reduce home size. APPROACH: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DESIGN REVIEW Design review is typically facilitated by an appointed commission, the Planning Commission or city staff. A design review process generally serves to enforce a jurisdiction's established design guidelines. Design guidelines are untended to serve as a guide for property owners and developers who are planning new development projects or renovation of existing structures. They are also intended to ensure consistency of review by the reviewing body. Guidelines usually encourage specific design responses within the parameters of the zoning code of a jurisdiction. Typically, they address issues including, but not limited to: mass and bulk, building modulation and articulation, and scale. Some communities also choose to address architectural style, usually when there is a predominant style in existing development. Because design guidelines are not strictly enforceable due to their subjective interpretation, it is important for the reviewing body • Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004. 15 • • to be as consistent as possible in applying design guidelines. Newport Beach has design guidelines for some specific plan areas such as Mariner's Mile, Balboa Village, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square. A review process was established recently for Mariner's Mile and Balboa Village, but there is no implementation procedure for Cannery Village and McFadden Square. Therefore, these guidelines have not been followed consistently. Following axe some examples of how other California cities use design guidelines in conjunction with design .review. City of Laguna Beach The majority of development in the City of Laguna Beach is subject to the design review process. The City's process in unique in this sense, as many cities that employ design review require that only very specific types of development adhere to the process. The development types subject to design review in the City of Laguna Beach include, but axe not limited to, single family dwellings, second floor additions, additions that exceed 50 percent of the original floor area, grading in excess of 20 cubic yards, decks more than three feet above the ground, and construction which violates the additional building setback or height limit guidelines. The City has also -recently passed an ordinance that serves to more clearly limit the impacts of increasing home size. Each project should be designed to comply with this ordinance and, thus, must carefully consider the required height limits, setbacks, area limitations, open space .requirements, parking and any additional requirements which may be unposed by the City or the California Coastal Commission. Thee ate also specific -requirements within this ordinance related to the overall size of the project as the ordinance outlines the necessary width, depth, height, volume and total floor area. Other consideration must be • Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004. 16 given to scale, mass, bulls, view preservation, • landscape, and lighting. Additionally, several areas within the City have developed specific design guidelines tailored to each area's concerns. The City recommends consultation with these areas' neighborhood associations prior to project development. The Design Review Board consists of five Board members and one alternate appointed by the City Council for a period of two years. The responsibilities of the Board are to review the design of proposed development and to consider applications for Variances. In each case the Board members familiarize themselves with the applications and the property under discussion prior to the meeting through submitted plans and site visits. The applicants, their representatives (i.e., architect or contractor), interested neighbors and concerned citizens are all given an opportunity to address the • Board on the proposal during a public hearing. It is generally recommended that applicants familiarize themselves with the process by attending one or more meetings of the Design Review Board prior to plan submittal. The Board meets on a weekly basis. City of San Marino The City of San Marino's guidelines provide a clear and concise summary of the City's design policies for residential neighborhoods. San Marino is a community known for its rich quality of architecture and mature landscaping. By presenting several examples of the architectural styles present in the City, the recommendations made are geared towards maintaining the integrity of San Marino's established neighborhoods and protecting property values. Overall, broad recommendations are made with regard to architectural consistency and compatibility and streetscape compatibility. The guidelines detail the requirements necessary to achieve this. Appropriate and inappropriate uses are illustrated with regard to mass and scale, building volume, height • Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004. 17 and roof lines, fagade treatment, front entries, • integrity of architectural details, windows and doors, and streetscape and hardscape. Implementation of the design guidelines is administered by City staff, the Design Review Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Design Review Committee is appointed by the City Council. Projects that includes any addition to floor area, new homes, modification to the exterior facade visible to public view, a change in roof material that is not on the City's approved roof materials list, and all front yard fences, walls, and gates are reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Design review by the Planning Commission is incorporated simultaneously with the variance and/or conditional use permit process in accordance with the San Marino zoning code. City of Beverly Hills The intention of Beverly Hills' design review commission is to control scale and mass, ensure • design compatibility, promote design that respects prevailing styles and neighborhood character and to prevent the harmful effects of overbuilding. To do this, the City has instituted a three -tiered approach to review. The first tier includes conformance with an adopted book of approved architectural styles, which has been developed based on the existing character and the history of development in the City. The second tier includes an incentive program with which developers comply with agreed upon specific design features such as inclusion of human -scale elements. If a development complies with the first and/or second tier, approval can be given from the staff level. The third tier involves review by the Design Review Board. At this point, the design review process is similar to other cities' review processes. • PROS/CONS An advantage to design guidelines, if they are well - prepared, is that they offer home owners and Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004. 18 • • developers a general guide to designing structures that is not as restrictive as zoning regulations but still provide general parameters in which creative freedom can occur. Implementing design guidelines can also save both time and money by eliminating the need to appear before staff or a design review board several times. On the other hand, by nature, design guidelines are not standards, and thus, their implementation can be seen as subjective. Additionally, depending on the level of detail in a jurisdiction's guidelines, residents may see their enforcement as limiting creative design solutions. Further, when community character is not defined by one look or style, it could become difficult to employ objective design guidelines. The process of design review offers architects and developers the ability to predict some of the issues that could arise prior to approval and, thus, plan accordingly. Design review also offers the City additional control over development. On the other hand, in some cases, design review can be seen as a subjective determination that deems certain styles either good or bad. Generally, this occurs when a design review board does not specifically follow a set of general guidelines promoting quality of design, but rather a specific set of styles that have been established. A final issue is the makeup of the review board. The board should represent a cross section of the community and include both lay people as well professionals (such as architects) in the field. It is important, however, that the make-up not consist primarily of one group. If the board is made up of non-professional members of the community then the expertise that professionals can offer is lost. In contrast, boards made up only of professionals can easily lost sight of those issues most important to the community by getting bogged down in technical details. • Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004. 19 . CONCLUSION Larger homes have been identified as an issue affecting community character in the City of Newport Beach. This paper presents two approaches that could address this issue. Examples of jurisdictions using each of these approaches have also been presented. The information presented in this paper can be used to address the issue of larger homes in the City of Newport Beach. DISCUSSION ISSUES The following questions are suggested as a framework of GPAC's discussion. ■ Do GPAC members agree that larger homes are . an issue? ■ What elements of larger homes are liked and disliked? ■ Is the issue home size or is it design of the home? ■ Which neighborhoods within the City are most affected? ■ Is it too late to regulate home expansion through additional development controls? ■ Should the City attempt to regulate construction of larger homes by establishing more controls? ■ Should home size and/or design be regulated in all areas of the City? If so, what approach(es) should be considered? ■ Should regulations vary by geographic area? Newport Beach Larger Homes Community Character Discussion Paper EIPAssociates — December 8, 2004. 20 i n LJ GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, December 13, 2004 Roger Alford Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn Gus Chabre John Corrough Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Grace Dove Florence Felton Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Louise Greeley Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Philip Lugar William Lusk ' `4'(, r 1 'j-AV Barbara Lyon Marie Marston Jim Naval Catherine O'Hara Charles Remley Larry Root John Saunders Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler n LJ • 2 a, GENERAL PLAN AD91SORY COMMITTEE Monday, December 13, 2004 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE 11 E-MAIL ADDRESS merry lee@sarc-h6. GENERAL PLAN ADIRSORY COMMITTEE Monday, December 13, 2004 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS U n U p��tiWPpR I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i5 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE C'94/Kolk `. Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, December 13, 2004, at the OASIS Senior Center. Members Present: Roger Alford Ronald Baers Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Gus Chabre John Corrough Laura Dietz Grace Dove Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Members Absent: Patrick Bartolic Elizabeth Bonn Lila Crespin Staff Present: Louise Greeley Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Phillip Lugar Florence Felton Tom Hyans (sick leave) Barbara Lyon Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Members of the Public Present: Alan Beek Carol Hoffman I. Call to Order William Lusk Marie Marston Jim Navai Charles Remley Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) Larry Root John Saunders Merrilee Madrigal Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order and introduced new members to the group II. Approval of Minutes Philip Bettencourt asked that the minutes reflect the city of residency for anyone speaking during the public comment period. The minutes for the November 15, 2004 meeting were approved as submitted. III. Topic/Discussion Paper —Community Character Woodie Tescher reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on Community Character, and asked Committee Members for comments about the slides during the presentation. Lucille Kuehn pointed out that on newer homes there is no space to sit or be outside, older homes have yards. Louise Greeley added the setback was better on the older home shown in the slide. Gus Chabre added that the new homes tend to take the light away from existing homes. Tom Webber pointed out the older homes look more approachable. Nancy Gardner added that you can find the front door in older homes; it's not behind a bunch of walls. • Jim Navai added that more green space makes a more relaxing, friendly environment. Ron Yeo pointed out the one story versus three story scale. Ron Baers noted that a lot of the older neighborhoods have access for cars in the alley; therefore the front of the house does not have a garage and driveway. Mike Ishikawa pointed out the biggest problem will be defining what each village desires, what fits in one village will not work citywide. Roger Alford noted that when larger homes are added to some areas, they destroy privacy for the neighbors. When asked about the difference in another set of pictures, Ms. Kuehn pointed out there were cars on the street on one example, none on the other. Nancy Gardner pointed out the loss of charm. Mr. Navai pointed out the density increases. Mr. Tescher indicated the density change is a perception; bigger size does not necessarily change the density. • Laura Dietz suggested a change in demographics has led to differences, for example in the flower streets of Corona del Mar there seniors who have lived there most of their 7 adult lives in these homes; however when younger owners move in, they want to • maximize the value of property by building a larger house. Mr. Yeo noted that when defining village character many issues need to be addressed, RI versus R2 & R3 and the relationship to commercial are a few. Gordon Glass pointed out that another factor is affluence, you used to build only what you needed, now two people may live in a 6,000-8,000 square foot home. Traffic is also impacted since a household may have 3 to 4 cars. Ms. Kuehn refuted Ms. Dietz's comments by pointing out that in Laguna Beach the land values are as high as Newport Beach, however they don't have the large scale homes because of the design review restrictions in place. She added that it would be wrong to segregate older people from the young people. Mike Johnson shared an example of how economics work with these houses; a young couple with one child purchased a 20 year old duplex for $2.4 million then refurbished it into a single family home with garage space for 4 cars. Philip Bettencourt added that properties in the coastal zone will build all they can so that they don't have to go through the process of getting approvals again. The • restrictive regulatory process is a factor as well as economics. Charles Remley pointed out that in his neighborhood there are lots and half lots next to one another, so a small house on a half lot could be surrounded by huge houses. Don Krotee noted that some property owners define the front of their property with fencing and others develop a house with two stories right at the front setback. Kim Jansma pointed out that two story homes in the Bayshores area tried to keep a lower profile at the street to give a more approachable appearance rather than the straight up two story homes. Mr. Yeo pointed out that in Corona del Mar there seems to be a trend to build little patios on the street side of the property using up the setback area. Mr. Glass stated that in the 1960's Bayshores neighbors suggested to the Board that second floors be set back an additional 10 feet; it was voted down. Jan Vandersioot added that the loss of open space includes more than just the ground floor; the large homes occupy the total volume of space. He also asked why the term mansionization is not being used in the document any longer. Mr. Tescher responded • that using "larger homes" was more accurate and non -offensive. Ms. Wood added that a former member of the committee was offended by the term so it was switched. 3 Mike Ishikawa pointed out that one of the homes pictured was on Kings Road and • suggested it fit in there, but would not in other areas of the city. It is hard to comment on these pictures without knowing where they are located because one size does not fit all areas. John Corrough added that another factor is the topography of an area, putting a large home on land with a grade will have a larger impact than the one on flat land. He added that one set of solutions will not fit all areas. Ms. Jansma pointed out the lack of greenery on the pictures shown which might be due to view issues; she added that in some areas there are regulations regarding what can be planted so views are not blocked. Ms. Kuehn stated she finds the architecture in Newport Coast boring, with similar style and mass. She asked if there was some way to provide more variety and less mass now that the area has been annexed into the City. Ms Wood stated that when the area was annexed, the City entered into an agreement with the Irvine Company to accept the County development regulations and not change them. Bill Kelly asked how we can make changes to regulations in our city which is built out. Mr. Tescher responded that if changes were enacted it would affect people choosing to • remodel or rebuild their homes. Mr. Vandersloot asked what lot coverage restriction exists right now. Ms. Temple indicated the City did not have one standard for residential development. Some areas do not use FARs at all, instead lot coverage, setbacks & height limits apply. In other areas floor area is based on a proportion related to lot size without setbacks, as opposed to the lot size itself. In some older areas, it varies from block to block; such as the Island where a front and rear setback can vary 20 feet for the same 30 x 80 foot lot. Overall the average lot coverage is in the 70-75% range. Ms. Jansma asked about houses in Newport Heights where many are built in a "U" shape leaving open space in the middle; how would that count in terms of lot coverage? Ms. Temple pointed out there is no open space requirement in Newport Heights. Mr. Krotee asked what percentage of communities have design guidelines or design review? Ms. Temple indicated the City is not involved in administering any design guidelines so she did not have an answer to the question. Mr. Baers suggested it would be large percentage under design review by CC&Rs. Ms. Kuehn stated that Irvine Terrace has CC&Rs and rigorously enforces them. Mr. Glass pointed out that in the past the City had undergone downsizing. Ms. Temple • explained that in the early '70s several changes were made. For example, height restrictions were lowered, FARs were established based on buildable area of the lot, and parking requirements were addressed. 51 10 Mr. Tescher then focused the discussion on the questions at the end of the paper. He asked, "Does this issue about the changing scale and size pose an issue in Newport Beach?" Tom Webber suggested we define what larger means before we can answer the question. He added that changing the existing regulations to restrict the buildable size of a home will lower the value of the property and he asked the group to keep that in mind during discussions. He also pointed out that larger homes may help get cars back in garages because there is more storage area available in the house. Bob Hendrickson said he didn't think larger homes were an issue throughout the City because many of the neighborhoods have considerable controls. Ms. Kuehn pointed out that according to our tax bills, the value of the property is in the land, not the structure. If we can get this across to people, they might not accuse us of restricting their property rights. Mr. Krotee pointed out that when Mark Broduer did his presentation, he told us that property values continued to climb in all the communities he worked with. • Ms. Gardner pointed out that this issue did come up during the visioning process as well as in our discussions. It was the most contentious item covered during the summit and something we need to address. Bill Lusk stated he thought it might not be as much about the size as the appropriateness and taste. Ms. Jansma agreed and asked if there were examples of communities where restrictions had been imposed and property values had been maintained. Ms. Kuehn pointed out the examples in the discussion paper, Encinitas, Del Mar, San Marino. Ms. Gardner added Carmel. Ms. Wood added Laguna Beach. Mr. Tescher recommended that everyone take a look at San Marino's website because they have had a lot of success and approved some interesting stuff. Mr. Glass pointed out that if our job is to address issues that came out of the visioning process, 2/3 are worried about this issue. However, he added that this could change when those people have built out to the current limit. Mr. Johnson pointed out that in the Lido Sands Community owner -occupied versus absentee owners has turned around, and with more owner -occupied they need more space because they live there full-time. 5 Mr. Tescher asked for areas where this is an issue. Responses were: Flower Streets of . Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Penninsula Point, Newport Heights, the entire Peninsula, Newport Shores, Westcliff/Mariners, Cliff Haven, Dover Shores, Santa Ana Heights. Grace Dove pointed out that many of these areas are covered by CC&Rs and maybe consideration should be given to codifying some of them regarding height. Ms. Boice agreed. Mr. Tescher then asked if the areas suggested had comparable lot sizes. Ms. Temple stated the Corona del Mar and Balboa Island lots are 30 feet wide, Newport Heights are 50 foot wide lots, the Peninsula has 25-30 foot lots, Peninsula Point has 40-50 foot lots, Westcliff and Dover are probably 6,000-7,500 square foot lots. Mr. Tescher then moved on asking if the issue was just size or if the issue includes architectural design and character. Mr. Naval indicated design was more important to him, the use of color, material, glass, scale, etc. Mr. Lugar added that it needs to be appropriate to the area. Mr. Bettencourt added another controversy is view taken from another property owner. Mr. Chabre added loss of open space, air and light for neighbors if you build to • maximum height. Mr. Glass agreed and added that in a City of small lots and side setbacks, a large house next door can cut out your light and privacy, so size is still an Issue. Ms. Boice agreed stating that in Eastbluff the loss of privacy, light and view is the issue there. Mr. Yeo pointed out that design is hard to legislate and in Corona del Mar the diversity makes it great. Ms. Dietz thinks it's a combination of size and design that creates the issue. Mr. Remley stated he thinks the people who don't employ an architect and build a box create the complaints. Mr. Vandersioot asked if we could recommend implementation of vertical setbacks. Mr. Tescher then moved on to the question "Is it too late?" - "Should the City do anything?" Ms. Gardner stated it's not too late, we have to try to protect what we have and encourage people to build more sensibly. Mr. Corrough believes it is too late in his area. Ms. Dietz asked about case law where government has tightened regulations in • developed/pre-existing communities. Mr. Tescher pointed to examples in the document. Ms. Wood added that there is still a great economic value/use to the property and we would not take that away or diminish it to cause legal problems. C. • Ms. Dove pointed out that there is no incentive to preserve existing homes; for example waiving permit fees. Mr. Johnson stated he thought we were leaving out the Coastal Commission requirements in the discussion. In response to Mr. Tescher's question about the term "sensibly larger," Ms. Gardner explained that in Corona del Mar some houses look like they should be in Newport Coast; they may be very nice houses but they don't fit the character. Mr. Tescher asked if that would require some kind of design review. Ms. Gardner stated she wouldn't have a problem with that, although maybe not as stringent as Laguna Beach. Mr. Yeo added if a design review process was implemented, it needs,to be structured with specific guidelines. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out that we already have to deal with the Coastal Commission, EQAC, Planning Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board, so creating another governmental entity is too much. Mr. Tescher asked if adding an open space requirement per lot would be a possible strategy. Mr. Vandersloot suggested starting with a reduced FAR. Ms. Kuehn urged careful presentation of these changes, focusing on the benefits to • residents. 9 IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Ms. Wood indicated that the Land Use Alternatives had been reviewed by GPUC and the Planning Commission, and are on the City Council Study Session tomorrow (December 14th) for their review. If no major changes are made by Council, the consultants will begin the model runs and environmental analysis which is expected to take approximately 8 weeks. V. Public Comments Allan Beek spoke to the Committee about the process, the need to keep it flexible and not try to dictate taste. He also told the group about changes Corona del Mar had tried to make 25 years ago. Merrilee Madrigal of Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of leaving Banning Ranch open space. 7