Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGuiding Principles-GP UpdateASSOCIATES Memorandum To City of Newport Beach Planning Commission From Woodie Tescher, EIP Associates Subject Guiding Principles for the General Plan Update Date July 28, 2004 INTRODUCTION In May 2004 the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) began a process to define Guiding Principles that will be used as the basis for framing and assessing the land use alternatives for the General Plan Update. Essentially, these principles will function as benchmarks for the development of land use alternatives and will constitute the rules by which the alternatives will be judged. Guiding Principles may be thought of on a level with General Plan goals, from which more detailed policies and implementation measures will be developed. The Guiding Principles elaborate and expand upon the Vision Statement that was defined through the public process during the past year and a half. Five sets of Guiding Principle discussion papers were developed that address Economic Development, Community Character, Workforce and Special Needs Housing, Mobility, and Environmental Conservation issues. Each discussion paper contains Guiding Principles and descriptions of their applicability and implications for land use decisions. The GPAC has reviewed and made revisions to these Guiding Principles, which are listed in their entirety at the end of this memorandum. GPAC comments have been incorporated with additions indicated by underline and deletions by strikegut. It should be noted that the General Plan Update Committee also reviewed the Guiding Principles. Minutes from the GPUC meeting of May 10, 2004 are attached to this report. This memorandum contains the "top ten" Guiding Principles that EIP and City staff believe merit the most attention from the City Council and Planning Commission. These principles generated considerable discussion by GPAC, could be controversial in the community, or are especially important in setting the direction for Newport Beach in the future. As noted in the original memorandum of June 16, 2004, it is our objective to have the Planning Commission review these in particular, and confirm, modify, rejector add to them. Questions posed to prompt discussion of the "Top Ten" Guiding Principles and comments received at the Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning Commission are noted following the EIP ASSOCIA'IRS 12301 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 430 Los ANGELES, CA 90025 Telephone (310) 268 -8132 Faalmlle (310) 268-8175 discussion of each Principle. Additionally, we welcome input on the complete list of principles, if the Commission has comments on them. Page 2 "TOP TEN" GUIDING PRINCIPLES Community Character Guiding Princlole 2 Maintain and enhance the beneficial and 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 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 culture representative of Southern California but unique to Newport.- Beach. 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 hnprovements, 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 will allow 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. Page 3 Questions • Do existing development standards result in the erosion of the unique character that distinguishes Newport Beach? • Are more restrictive standards required that are custom - crafted to the neighborhood or district? • Are design standards required? Study Session Commentary ■ The design quality of development is an important issue for Newport Beach and there is some desire to assure that it is achieved in new development projects. "Mansionization" of housing is a concern of the community and may warrant future controls. ■ A key question is the appropriate mechanisms that should be used by Newport Beach in achieving design quality, which will serve to implement directions defined by the updated General Plan. © Mobility Guiding Principle 1 Establish General Plan land uses and density /intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic. Discussion The currently adopted General Plan land uses, in concert with regional traffic, result in congestion levels that exceed the currently adopted standards. Considering land uses with reduced peak hour traffic generating characteristics could improve this situation, or could allow new development that doesn't worsen the situation. Questions ■ Buildout of the existing General Plan results in congestion levels that exceed adopted City standards. ■ What approaches should be considered to address this issue? Reduce the type or intensity of uses currently allowed by the General Plan. Promote mixed -use development in commercial areas to reduce peak hour trips. Allow new entitlement only for uses without peak hour impacts? ■ Are there uses of value or importance for Newport Beach for which additional trips are acceptable? Page 4 Study Session Commentary ■ Concern was expressed regarding accepting a uniform standard unilaterally throughout the City regardless of the character or issues associated with a specific location. Some uses may be sufficiently important to the community to consider allowing additional trips. "While traffic is important, there needs to be a balance in considering appropriate land uses for the City." ■ Suggested revision of the Guiding Principle: "When considering development, an objective will be the accommodation of uses and densities that will have less impact on peak hour traffic." 0 Workforce and Special Needs Housing Guiding Principle 4 EneeurageConsider changing land use designations 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. Questions ■ Strong support for this Principle in the Visioning Process for Balboa Peninsula and West Newport. ■ Should commercial uses be reduced in other areas, such as Mariners' Mile? Study Session Commentary ■ Conversion of commercial for residential and mixed -use development should be encouraged. Other locations that should be considered include the John Wayne Airport area. Page 5 0 Communl1y Character Guiding Principle 5 Preserve the community's heritage. Discussion: Newport Beach is renowned for its coastal lands and harbor. These resources, along with marine industry and maritime 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 or significant resources could be accomplished through Fekwelieamodification of development regt4mer fo- standards that inhibit preservation of historic structures, iti+g- limitation of certain uses permitted in some commercial areas, adopting - adoption of design and development guidelines, adeptingand adoption of more Specific Plans to regulate development Another way to protect these historic resources is for the City to adopt local preservation standards for these resources. Questions • Not a priority now, should preservation strategies be considered? • What types of resources merit preservation? • If so, should we focus on "incentive- based" approaches, such as the waiver of parking requirements for the adaptive re-use of existing structures? Study Session Commentary ■ A sense of place and identity for the City of Newport Beach is more important than buildings. 0 Economic Development Guiding Principle 2 General Plan land use policies will facilitate a wilieal mass an economically viable concentration of marine uses. Discussion The fiscal analysis concludes that marine uses as a whole generate a positive cost/revenue balance for City government. In part this is due to the added property tax that boats generate, Page 6 but mainly results from the fact that the marine environment in the City constitutes the major visitor attraction, and visitor spending contributes to the fiscal benefit of commercial and lodging uses. The fiscal analysis also points out, however, that there is significant economic competition in the waterfront area and that the number of marine businesses in Newport Beach has declined over at least the past ten years. Local business owners in this industry have raised the issue of whether the marine industry presence in the City may decline below sustainable levels, resulting in a general loss of the economic benefit of boating and other marine activities in the City. There is not sufficient information currently to determine whether this is a likely threat or to define what the threshold of critical mass should be for this industry, if any. However, this could be evaluated as part of the General Plan alternatives process. This guiding principle would confirm the City's recognition that marine uses are an important part of the City's economy that should be supported in the updated General Plan. Questions ■ Is it appropriate to restrict areas of the City exclusively for the development of marine- related uses? ■ Are there other approaches that should be considered as a mechanism to sustain marine- related uses? Study Session Commentary ■ General Plan policies should reflect the Local Coastal Plan and Harbor Element. ■ A question regarding the appropriate use of "remnant" parcels. © Mobility Guiding Principle 4 In selecting land use and circulation system alternatives, greater--weight will be given to traffic congestion that is ongoing than as 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 are the times 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 allewsprovides that the City to aseegt -ser will consider traffic congestion at peak hexrsall times of the day and all seasonerer of the year in Page 7 planning for its- future in , as well as °°~~° ethff goal aevelonment. Questions • Do you agree with this change of wording? • Should uses that only have short-term or seasonal effects on traffic be weighed equally with those that result in on -going problems? Study Session Commentary ■ It was suggested that the Principle should be amended to refer to "reducing" congestion. There was a difference of opinion among members of the City Council and Planning Commission regarding the differentiation of seasonal from on -going traffic conditions. 0 Economic Development Guiding Principle 11 The General Plan shall support the careful expansion of visitor - serving businesses and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities. Discussion The fiscal analysis documents the benefit the City gains from visitor trade. Visitor spending on taxable goods and services, as well as transient occupancy taxes on lodging revenues, is estimated to generate $4.8 million in net revenues to the City, which help support City services above and beyond those provided to visitors themselves. As with retail commercial development, the market for tourist trade and business travel evolves and changes, reflecting not only national and international consumer trends, but also regional changes in the type and variety of visitor experiences that are offered. Therefore, it is important for the General Plan to provide opportunities for this economic sector to maintain and enhance its vitality as it keeps pace with changing market conditions. Similarly, the City must provide for accommodations and other services needed by visitors to the coast. On the other hand, the Visioning Process outlines clear limits to the growth and development of the tourist trade in Newport Beach, indicating that the city is a residential beach community, not primarily a tourist destination. While most participants were in favor of tourism, many felt any major expansions of lodging in particular should be concentrated in the Airport Area or Newport Center. Furthermore, it may not be in the City's interest to pursue market opportunities already substantially captured by other localities in the county. For example, while a larger convention center may help attract some more business travel, this market is well saturated currently and the public financial subsidies necessary to maintain such a facility may not bear adequate returns. Questions ■ The Visioning Process supported the concentration of visitor - serving uses in the John Wayne Airport area and Newport Center. Page 8 ■ Are there other locations appropriate for the development of visitor- serving uses? ■ Should the City consider supporting the development of meeting facilities? Study Session Commentary ■ Meeting facilities are an important element for the City to remain competitive for visitors in the regional market. Other cities are developing such facilities. © Mobility Guiding Principle 5 and Community Character Guiding Principle 6 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 improvemen s and- urban ferm Discussion The vast majority of residents view Newport Beach as a residential beach town with broad appeal as a tourist destination and that the community's character is a significant attribute. There is a sense that large -scale circulation system improvements will have a negative affect on the community's character and lessen its charm. For example, the City may not want to widen Coast Highway in Mariners Mile because it would increase the width of pedestrian crossings, increase traffic speed and result in a "freeway" feel; adversely impacting the "village" atmosphere and the success of existing businesses. Strong opposition to widening Jamboree Road (71 percent residents /62 percent business) and MacArthur Boulevard (68 percent residents /60 percent business) were also expressed for the same reasons. Participants were generally opposed to overpasses anywhere in the City, although a small contingent supported an overpass at Jamboree and MacArthur. Residents and businesses preferred leaving roads as they currently are to widening options by a 2 to 1 ratio. At the same time, it should be recognized that any "downsizing" must be accomplished through a cooperative effort with the Orange County Transportation Authority and other affected agencies. Otherwise, the City will risk losing funding for (other) future roadway improvements. 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 calming, limited street widening, roadway signage, and parking restrictions can be used to improve roadway conditions and reduce impacts on the community. Page 9 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. Questions ■ Is it appropriate to prioritize objectives for community character and urban form when these may impact traffic congestion? For example, conflicting objectives for Corona del Mar: pedestrian- active versus travel efficient for automobiles (Level of Service). ■ Under what conditions would community character objectives supersede mobility objectives or vice versa? Study Session Commentary ■ It is appropriate to override mobility to achieve community character objectives. ® Economic Develooment Guiding Principle: L2 and Mobiilty Guiding Principle 6 12.The General Plan shall offer a distinct land use concept and policy framework for the Airport Area. Discussion: The Airport Area is distinct in many ways from the balance of the City due to its regional centrality, proximity to the airport, and primary orientation to business and commerce. This area may offer unique opportunities for a scale and type of development that would permit the realization of commercial and even residential developments not appropriate in other areas of Newport Beach. The location of this area adjacent to the regional freeways may reduce the potential for development in the area to directly impact neighborhoods and local commercial districts in the rest of the City. The area also exhibits a distinct design character that is generally more consistent with the regional business center concentrated at the freeway and is not identified with the beachfront character of much of the rest of Newport Beach. Therefore, from an economic development and land use perspective, this area may benefit from more tailored planning concepts. 6. Consider establishing a different level of service standard for the airport area-. Wlth 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 relaxeddifferent 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 Page 10 changes, which could upgrade the Newport Beach portion of this area and make it more productive for property owners and the City. Questions ■ Is it appropriate to consider potential development that differs in type, scale, density, and traffic levels from that permitted in other areas of the City to capitalize on the unique development opportunities that arise by proximity to the John Wayne Airport? Study Session Commentary ■ Yes, the Guiding Principles are acceptable. © Mobility Guiding Principle 2 Consider the potential benefits and costs (housing, social, community character, fiscal and economic) of land use and circulation system alternatives before -as part 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. peeple who work in N ..._,._« n, aek of impFeviag ,.uo« , W , o -This guiding principle allows the City to use analytical tools such as the traffic and fiscal impact models to identify the benefits and costs of new development, and then make informed decisions regarding conflicting community goals. Questions ■ Are there circumstances for which other factors, as stated above, have greater priority in determining the appropriate mix of land uses? Study Session Commentary ■ Yes, the Guiding Principle is acceptable. Page 11 LIST OF ALL GUIDING PRINCIPLES Refer to the full text Discussion Papers for the summation of key issues, opportunities, and applications of the Guiding Principles listed below. Discussion Paper 1: Guiding Principles for Economic Development 1. General Plan policies will maintain the City's positive fiscal balance. 2. General Plan land use policies will facilitate a eritioal amass an economically viable concentration of marine uses. 3. General Plan policies will encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. 4. The General Plan should encourage mixed -use development. 5. General Plan policies will support City efforts to etize optimize retail sales leakage capture from in the community. 6. Land h n be designated r eammereial use .a _ , o �. ated in a mamer dim ran be suppeAed by the madEet The quantity of land designated for commercial use and the development standards that regulate such uses shall reflect the market support that can reasonably be anticipated during the General Plan time horizon. 7. General Plan policies will facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the vitality of the local economy. 8. Additional development entitlement. YA11 provide needs to demonstrate significant fiscal, economic or other community benefit. 9. General Plan policies will protect the high value of residential property. 10. General Plan policies shall prepare the City to capitalize on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community. 11. The General Plan shall support the careful expansion of visitor - serving businesses and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities. 12. The General Plan shall offer a distinct land use concept and policy framework for the Airport Area. Discussion Paper 2• Guiding Principles for Community Character 1. RwTeetProtect and enhance the natural setting that lras sentribtoed ontributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Page 12 2. Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach. 3. Future development shall onsider the scale, urban form, design, character and quality of the community. 4. Balance developed lands with adequate open space and recreation areas and preserve opportunities for maintaining healthy lifestyles in Newport Beach. 5. Preserve the community's heritage. Discussion Paper 3• Guiding Principles for Workforce and Special Needs Housing 1. WovidePromote 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. 2. Maintain quality residential development through the application of sound planning priaeipalsprinciples and policies that encourage the preservation, conservation and appropriate r-edevelepmeatrenewal of the City's housing stock. 3. Ease tns xsConsider mixed -use development as a means to create additional housing opportunities. 4. Ek+esageConsider the rezoning of under- performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. 5. General Plan policies wi44shall protect the high value of residential property. Discussion Paper 4• Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes 1. Establish General Plan land uses and density /intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic. 2. Consider the potential benefits and costs (housing, social, community character, fiscal and economic) of land use and circulation system alternatives befere -as part of the process of adopting goals regarding acceptable levels of service for the circulation system. 3. Regional traffic will be included in the analysis of land use alternatives, -but such traffic vlshould not be the sole reason for rejecting a land use alternative that would have net benefits to Newport Beach. Page 13 4. In selecting land use and circulation system alternatives, greater-weight will be given to traffic congestion that is ongoing tlmrras well as to congestion that is limited to a few hours of the day or a few months of the year. 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 uFban fia-m- 6. Consider establishing a different level of service standard for the airport area -, with consideration of possible impacts on residential areas. 7. Improve parking - supply and use of existing, resources, and reduce congestion in eklertourist areas. 8. Consider urban scale development in areas where there is potential for development patterns that will minimize traffic. 9. Increase City strategies and programs to enhance the development and use of alternative transportation modes and transportation systems management. 10. Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected traffic at a level of service acceptable to the community while -minimizing neighborhood intrusion. Discussion Paper 5• Guiding Princioles for Environmental Conservation 1. Protect, and rehabilitate or enhance, terrestrial and marine habitats located within the City through careful siting of future development. 2. Protect and improve water quality within the bay, estuaries, tidelands, and ocean. 3. Minimize air quality degradation through land use practices and circulation improvements that reduce reliance on the automobile. 4. Encourage the maintenance of natural landforms. 5. Encourage the protection and creation of public viewsheds within the City. 6 Minimize the exposure of people to noise hazards. 7. Minimize intrusion from light sources. Page 14 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES 05/10/04 t6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee Minutes of the Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee Meeting held in the Friends Room, Central Library, City of Newport Beach, on 5- 10 -04. 1. Call to Order Members present: Gary Adams, Mayor Pro Tem /Committee Chairperson Steven Bromberg, Council Member Steven Rosansky, Council Member Tom Anderson, Aviation Committee Designee Robert Hawkins, EQAC Designee Tim Collins, Harbor Committee Designee Allan Beek, Measure S Supporter Jeffrey Cole, Planning Commissioner Barry Eaton, Planning Commissioner Mike Toerge, Planning Commissioner Members absent: Robert Dunham, EDC Designee Staff present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Shirley Oborny, Administrative Assistant Consultants Present: Woodie Tescher, EIP 2. Approval of Minutes of 4 -12 -04 meeting The minutes were approved. Jeffrey Cole abstained. Mr. Hawkins said he felt the minutes were too long and he wasn't sure there was a need to have detailed minutes. Mr. Toerge said because this committee doesn't meet regularly, it's good to go back and review the minutes to see what happened at the last meeting. Council Member Bromberg said he didn't mind the length of the minutes. Mr. Anderson said he prefers the detailed minutes. 3. Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes Mr. Tescher said this document has been reviewed with GPAC. The changes that were made are indicated in the report. Mr. Tescher reviewed each principle with the committee and invited questions or comments. Only the principles in which questions were asked or comments made are listed below. 2. Consider the potential benefits and costs (housing, social, community character, fiscal and economic) of land use and circulation system alternatives S part of the process of adopting goals regarding acceptable levels of service for the circulation system. )(V Ms. Wood said I described this one to GPAC as the "keep an open mind° principle. Before we adopt the goals regarding service we should know the cost and benefits. Mr. Eaton said he thought the analysis wouldn't be done until there were alternative land use plans. I thought goals preceded that. Ms. Wood responded that the goals and policies come after we look at the land use alternatives. 4. In selecting land use and circulation system alternatives, greater weight will be given to traffic congestion that is ongoing#4a ? as well as to congestion that is limited to a few hours of the day or a few months of the year. Mr. Hawkins asked where the discussion papers would find their place in the General Plan Update process. Mr. Tescher said these will be used to help guide the preparation and testing of the alternatives. After the selection of the preferred land use plan as we create the policies we will craft these into a series of policies that will be imbedded in the General Plan. Mr. Hawkins said the impacts will be fairly significant, especially if we're creating a priority of transportation goals. The GPAC didn't want to make that priority. I'm not sure that's appropriate. I think it was fine the way it was. Discussion ensued as to what happens if GPUC and GPAC disagree. Chairman Adams said we are only supposed to oversee the process. Mr. Eaton suggested GPUC could provide input to the City Council and Planning Commission. Ms. Wood said the City Council should be setting that direction to GPAC. Chairman Adams added that the recommendation should come from GPAC. If this group wants to weigh in with a different opinion maybe it could be carried to the City Council along with the recommendation from GPAC. The City Council could take it into consideration. Ms. Wood suggested that if GPAC's changes are such that they do not provide any guidance, GPUC might want to suggest deleting it if it's not saying anything. Mr. Eaton suggested the committee could send a concern to the City Council. The committee agreed. Mr. Tescher said at the Study Session we could highlight those items where there is some degree of discussion or concern. Ms. Wood said for the Joint Study Session, she would provide all the discussion papers to those groups. In a staff report and in leading the discussion we will just focus on no more than 10 where we think there is a decision to be made or there has been controversy along the way. Mr. Beek moved to have number four be included as one of the 10 items. Mr. Hawkins seconded the motion but added that he didn't want to limit it to 10 items. Mr. Eaton said maybe we should have the opportunity to review the changes to the papers GPAC will be reviewing tonight so we can consider whether there will be any more we want to include in the 10. 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 aftf Ofbafl #erff►. Mr. Beek said this is the crux of what I've been talking to the City Council about for the last several years. In this section it seems as though somebody is making a decision that should be made by community with a great deal of discussion of individual items. To say this is the 2 1/I way the community will go is unwarranted. Mr. Tescher explained that as we get to the alternatives level, Corona del Mar will be investigated and subjected not only to GPAC but also a general public workshop. Once the alternatives are identified the impacts will be tested so we can focus upon prioritizing tradeoffs. Ms. Wood said this principle tells us to look at the tradeoffs for each situation. It doesn't say this is the way it will go for every location throughout the City. It's merely saying for those times when we decide to place a higher priority on community character than traffic flow, we're going to accept the fact that it means we're going to have more congestion. It still lets us make the choice. Mr. Beek says it seems as though it says "which way the choice is going to go." Discussion ensued. Chairman Adams suggested it be reworded by changing "will" to "may" and "when" to "if" to clarify. 6. Consider establishing a different level of service standard for the airport area, with consideration of possible impacts on residential areas Ms. Wood said GPAC discussed this one quite a bit. I'm concerned the word "consider" may be too impartial where it doesn't help us. Mr. Hawkins said the net effect is a relaxed standard of service because of certain choices being made in the airport area. Discussion ensued about Irvine's development plans there. Mr. Hawkins said with respect to the airport area we have some tradeoffs we're going to need to recognize. Chairman Adams said if we do this I don't see where to draw the line. As soon as we do something that makes MacArthur /Jamboree go over, it will start affecting MacArthur /Jamboree right in front of the residential area. I never understood it from a policy standpoint. From a pragmatic standpoint in relation to what Irvine is doing it makes sense. Mr. Eaton said he felt we were lucky there was at least the 73 Corridor separating the airport. There will be additional effects on MacArthur and Jamboree but because the 73 will be able to intersect a lot of traffic it won't be nearly as magnified. Chairman Adams said the 73 is already at capacity. Mr. Hawkins said the Irvine projects are not analyzing anything in connection with the 73 so it's only going to get worse. Ms. Wood said this will be on the Top 10 list. 9. Increase City strategies and programs to enhance the development and use of altemative transportation modes and bansportathon systems management. Chairman Adams asked what the expectation of this policy was. In response Ms. Wood said I don't think this speaks to the TDMs that occurred in Irvine in the 80's and 90's. I think it's speaking more to see what you can do to get people to use alternative modes rather than assuming they will and therefore reducing the standards in other areas. There are a fair number of people who bike and walk to work. We might find ways to make that safer. Council Member Bromberg said this is a topic we have to discuss. Mr. Hawkins said we could insert the protection Chairman Adams is looking for by saying "without lessening other standards." Mr. Tescher said Mr. Waters will be focusing on the alternatives. As we're filtering land use alternatives we'll look at what is not only financially feasible but also for community support. Some transit works in limited locations and situations. The challenge will be to look at what has and what hasn't worked which will be the basis of how we make recommendations in this process. Chairman Adams said the ideas should be promoted to the extent they're practical. We need to be realistic. Mr. Tescher agreed. It should be practical, not pie in the sky. Mr. Beek said most revolutionary improvements look 3 l� impractical when they are first proposed and yet they have turned out to work in one place or another. What we're doing here is leaving the door open for ideas. Mr. Cole said the language in some of the principles appears to be more open than others. Some use "consider" and some appear to be more mandated -type statements. Ms. Wood said for the guiding principle stage it may not matter that much. When we're actually drafting the policy, the words will need to be considered more carefully. 4. Guiding Principles for Environmental Conservation Mr. Tescher said this document has been reviewed with GPAC. The changes that were made are indicated in the report. 1. Protect; and rehabilitate or enhance, terrestrial and marine habitats located within the City through careful siting of future development. Mr. Eaton referred the committee to the discussion section on the top of page 6. Mr. Eaton questioned why GPAC removed this statement, 'Obtaining these permits for development could be difficult and /or the permit process could be lengthy." Ms. Wood said GPAC didn't think the length of permitting was relevant. We should do what we need to do to protect important habitat. Mr. Hawkins said these are goals. The method to accomplish these is citing of future development. I know how to protect habitat through siting but I don't know how to enhance them through siting. Mr. Tescher said there was some discussion of wetlands restoration, for example, Banning Ranch. The idea was that wetlands can be restored in some cases, which enhances the wetlands itself. Mr. Hawkins said you need something more than siting to get the wetlands enhanced. The only thing you can get when you site development is protection. Mr. Tescher agreed. Ms. Wood suggested the "enhancement" should be a separate principle on its own. Mr. Hawkins said there might be discussion about whether it's a good principle or not. In response to Mr. Eaton, Ms. Wood said this could be one of the 10 for the City Council, depending on what other ones come up. 2. Protect eistiHg and impro ve water quality within the bay, estuaries, tidelands, and ocean. Mr. Beek said it seems like a desirable goal. Are we considering it only in the context of land use or in terms of the entire General Plan and City program of activities? Mr. Tescher said that becomes a question when we get to the policy for conservation. Right now these were intended to be directive to the land use alternatives. Mr. Beek said related to land use this is an irrelevant goal. There could a lot of other things that protect and improve water quality in the bay that aren't land use questions. This is policy formation; it doesn't say land use. Ms. Wood said these are the things that are supposed to guide the development of the land use alternatives. Mr. Beek reiterated that as considering land use alternatives it's pretty irrelevant. As considering other policies it's quite relevant. Ms. Wood said water quality was a big issue that came out of the Visioning. Mr. Hawkins said in Newport Beach we can't strike the water quality enhancement goal. 4 N Chairman Adams referred to the 2nd to the last sentence in the discussion section, "Water quality impacts to the bay, estuaries, tidelands and ocean can be minimized and improved through these measures." It needs to be reworded because it doesn't make a lot of sense. Does the term "water quality impacts" mean negative and positive impacts? If you improve the impacts, what does that mean? Ms. Wood said she would revise it. 5 Encourage the protection and creation of pub /ic wewsheds within the City. Mr. Eaton asked why GPAC deleted the 2nd paragraph in this section. Ms. Wood said they were concerned about a coastal bluff vs. a bluff because of the policy discussion going on at the Planning Commission regarding the LCP. Since the principle deals with viewsheds of all kinds it was safer to eliminate this questionable discussion on bluff /coastal bluff. Mr. Hawkins said because the first paragraph talks about public viewsheds, should there be a statement here or in another bullet point, protection of private views or not necessarily regarded as public? Ms. Wood said it's always been the City's position to deal with public views but not private views because we don't want to get into the neighborhood squabbles, increasing one person's property value and decreasing anther's. Ms. Wood said GPAC removed this because they thought it should be left to the subcommittee to develop their alternatives. There probably would be an alternative of all open space and an alternative with some open space. This wasn't really providing any guidance because it wasn't saying how much. 6. Minimize the exposure of people to noise hazards Mr. Anderson asked whether this is citing the City's noise ordinance and why its included here. For those of us who live in the John Wayne corridor and Santa Heights, we would love to have a 50 and 55 dBA but we will certainly not have that. I'm just wondering about unrealistic expectations. Ms. Wood said the noise ordinance is talking about other private activities causing the noise that would exceed these levels so it doesn't apply to the airport. I think it could be deleted and still provide just as much guidance on land use. 7 Minimize the exposure ofpecp /e and property to structural and wi ld /and Are hazards Mr. Eaton said the structural fire hazard is an issue in the densely developed areas of the City. Is that enough to warrant it a guiding principle? Ms. Wood said GPAC didn't see it as a land use issue. Mr. Eaton also didn't see what the land use plan implication is. 5. Guiding Principles for Community Character Mr. Tescher said this document will be reviewed with GPAC tonight. Z. Maintain and enhance the unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach. Mr. Hawkins said it sounds as if there is some thought of reducing structure size and I'm not sure that's a good goal. I attended one of the Visioning meetings and there was a division, 5 it wasn't uniform. Mr. Toerge said there might be things you can do other than lowering FAR to create less living space in those homes, using a 5,000 sq. ft. home with a 3 -car garage and six bedrooms, for example. That's something I'm promoting. Mr. Tescher said GPAC had a presentation on various strategies, primarily design but also property setbacks, modulation, etc., to allow for enlargements. GPAC was interested in looking at those kinds of strategies. That's not to say it will automatically limit an FAR that adds certain thresholds over some design improvements to scale the project in a better way. The commentary was FAR may not be the best way to address the issues people have with the scale of the size or these kinds of buildings. This will be something well come back to when we get into the policy level from the standpoint of the character of residential design. Mr. Collins referred the committee to the second sentence in the second paragraph on page 8, "The City has a history of tourism and benefits economically from its attractiveness to visitors." That statement is dangerous. That implies it's positive but it's actually a great burden. In response to Chairman Adams about a study that showed it was a benefit, Ms. Wood said that study was commissioned by the Conference and Visitors Bureau. The way they defined visitor is somebody who doesn't live in Newport Beach. Discussion ensued. Ms. Wood will let GPAC know GPUC suggested combining the first two sentences into one sentence, "While Newport Beach residents recognize the community as primarily residential its history of tourism has also influenced community character." 3. Developmentshall respect and maintain the scale, urban form, design, character and quality of the community. Mr. Anderson said this and principle two are redundant because they both discuss mansionization. Mr. Tescher agreed. It might be more efficient to combine two and three. 6. Improvements to the City's circulation system should protect and take into consideration the community's character Ms. Wood said we could probably take this one out because it was covered in circulation. 6. Guiding Principles for Affordable Housing Mr. Tescher said this document will be reviewed with GPAC tonight. Mr. Eaton said we already have a Housing Element that has goals and policies already approved by the State. Do these change any of those? Mr. Tescher said these reflect what's in the Housing Element. Council Member Bromberg asked why would we want to go into this in -depth level since we already have the Housing Element. Ms. Wood said well reformat it so it matches the rest of the General Plan but I don't want it to go back to the HCD. Mr. Tescher added that it's also here because it will provide a measure as we develop the land use options to consider the housing uses and densities within the General Plan to see whether we can create capacity. Mr. Beek suggested it be one of the 10 for City Council to consider whether we can take it out. The discussion for affordable housing does not have to be in the General Plan update, it can be silent on that subject. Chairman Adams asked whether we included the Housing Element in the effort. Ms. Wood said I'm expecting it to be just cosmetic. Mr. Eaton said we included it because we felt it 6 Al needed to be part of the overall structure but we also agreed we weren't going to "mess" with it very much. Discussion ensued about whether there will ever be affordable housing in Newport Beach. Ms. Wood responded that we have a history of producing affordable housing through our inclusionary program, through the use of our Community Development Block Grant funds and most recently through in -lieu fees. It's harder to do here at the beach where property values are higher than they are elsewhere but we still have managed to produce some and we have to be able to show the State that we're serious about it. Mr. Eaton moved to have the guiding principles say it will include the existing Housing Element. Mr. Beek seconded the motion. The committee agreed. 7. Report on Local Coastal Program Council Member Bromberg said the Planning Commission completed their review. It will go to the City Council on May 26tH 8. Comments from the Public No members of the public were present at this meeting. 9. Items for Future Agendas Ms. Wood said we could send the comments from GPAC's meeting this evening to GPUC. GPAC will start breaking into subcommittees by geographic area in order to put together land use alternatives. After that process is complete we should have GPUC meet to review the results to be compiled by Mr. Tescher's firm. 10. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 p.m. 7