No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS2 - General Plan Update Summary - Visioning Processstep up to the future C O M M U N I T Y D I R E C T I O N S F O R a summary of the STUDY SESSION ITEM #SS2 JANUARY 28, 2003 ".i A Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process January 200 prepared by M Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. 800 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, California 94710 in association with Godbe Reseach & Analysis PCElCG©%q?&ED0r111GC9Vu The City of Newport Beach wishes to acknowledge the individuals listed below for devoting their time and expertise to the General Plan Update Community Visioning Process. We thank you for your dedication, leadership and creativity. The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Robert Shelton, GPAC Chair Philip Lugar, GPAC Co -Chair Roger Alford Dorothy Beek Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Karlene Bradley John Corrough Seth Darling Julie Delaney Laura Dietz Florence Felton Nancy Gardner Joseph Gleason, Jr. Louise Greeley Evelyn Hart Ernie Hatchell Bob Hendrickson Tom Hans The General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) Gary Adams, CouncilAlember ShantAgajanian, Planning Commissioner Tom Anderson, Aviation Committee Designee Allan Beek, Aleasure S supporter Steven Bromberg, Alq)vr Tim Collins, Harbor Committee Designee Mike Ishikawa David Janes George Jeffries Mike Johnson Todd Knipp Donald Krotee Catherine O'Hara Carl Ossipoff Lam Root John Saunders Brea Shaves Ed Siebel Alan Silcock Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo Robert Dunham, Economic Development Committee Designee Barry Eaton, Environmental Qualio, Citi -°ens Advisor71 Committee Designee Anne Gifford, Planning Commissioner John Heffernan, CouncilAlember Michael Toerge, Planning Commissioner I NEWPORT BEACH: COMMUNITY DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE Newport Beaeb City Council Steven Bromberg, Alayor Tod Ridgeway, Mayor Pro Tem Gary Adams, Council Member John Heffernan, Council Member Newport Beacb Visioning Process Staff Homer Bludau, CityAlanager Sharon Wood, Assistant Cio,Manager, Visioning Project Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director City ofNeuport Beacb Planning Department Patricia Temple, Planning Director Patrick Alford, Senior Planner George A. Berger, AICP, Programs Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Tamara Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner Javier Garda, AICP, Senior Planner Janet Johnson -Brown, Assistant Planner Visioning Process Consultant Staff Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. (AUG) Process Design, Facilitation, Analysis and Wilting Carolyn Verheyen, Principal Sharon McNamee, Project Manager Judie Tmg, Project Associate Andrew Miller, Project Associate Kate Welty, Writer Richard Nichols, Council Member Gary Proctor, CouncilAlember Don Webb, CouncilAlember Tamara Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner Marilee Jackson, Public Information Officer Debbie Lektorich, BxecutiveAssistant Shirley Oborny, AdministraticeAssistant NikiKallikounis, Planning Department Assistant Laura Levin, PlanningTecbnician Marina Marrelli, Assistant Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Chandra Slaven, Assistant Planner Daniel R. Trimble, Program Administrator GingerVarin, Administrative Assistant Communications and GmpbicDesign Ed Canalin, Art Director Cade DeRuiter, Creative Director Catherine Courtenaye, Grapbic Designer Godhe Research & Analysis Resident and Business Survey Design and Analysis Bryan Godbe, Principal Josh Williams, SeniorReseacbAna6,st ...And all of the many residents and business people in Newport Beach who participated in the many events and activities to set forth these Community Directions for the Future. A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS CONTENTS Overview of the Visioning Process Interpreting the Findings 1. INTRODUCTION Newport Beach is internationally known as one of Southern California's most appealing beach communities. Both residents and visitors celebrate the City's cultural and economic assets and sheer natural beauty. In order to maintain its course and collaboratively identity policy directions, the City initiated a long -term Visioning Process in November 2001. The principal purpose of the Process, and the General Plan Update to follow, is to ensure that Newport Beach continues to develop in a way con- sistent with a strong community identity and shared values well into the new century. The results of the Visioning Process provide direction for the next 25 years to preserve and enhance the City's environ- ment and economy while improving the quality of life for its residents. The City must wisely capitalize on and protect its unique assets, including its beau- tiful coastal lands and harbor, boating and recre- ational opportunities, popular shopping centers, arts and cultural events, and historic neighbor- hoods. Bringing the community vision to fruition will involve identifying opportunities and resolving challenges. The Community Visioning Process brought together hundreds of residents and business own- ers to examine and discuss crucial issues and pro- vide direction for future policy decisions. Through a variety of Visioning events, community members I N T R O D U C T I O N have spoken on how best to characterize the City's identity, how to address pressures of physical development, and how to balance environmental conservation with the need to maintain and improve infrastructure and services. The commu- nity's deliberations related to these issues will ulti- mately be considered as part of a General Plan Update that will guide City decisions. This document presents the City's vision as well as strategic directions that will help make the vision a reality. The Visioning Process has yielded some valuable results, identifying key areas where agreement is broad as well as those where opin- ion is split. M analysis of the cumulative public feedback has demonstrated a high degree of con- sensus on several fundamental questions of envi- ronmental preservation, sectors where growth should be directed or restricted, and City funding priorities and resource allocation. It has also illu- minated issues where the community does not uniformly concur and policymaking is not simply a matter of enacting the public will. The visioning input will inform and help shape the policies to be included in the General Plan, defining the ways Newport Beach will not only preserve its cherished assets but continue to improve them for future generations. A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS[ I N T R O D U C T 1 0 N I — — x `..flM 1Ri! jr In the Fall of 2001 Newport Beach initiated a Community Visioning Process to elicit the values, aspirations, and ideas of the Newport Beach com- munity. This process led to a series of findings that are summarized here and form a framework for updating the Citys General Plan and directing future City planning efforts. The process spanned a little more than a year. Beginning in January 2002, the City offered a series of opportunities for residents to become actively involved in the Visioning Process. The timeline illustrates how the events came together to allow each individual a chance to help shape the future of Newport Beach. (See process graphic on page 3.) The booklet Newport Beach: Current Conditions, Future Choices, released in Fall 2001, served as an important tool to frame the subsequent phases of the Visioning Process. At the City- sponsored Visioning events, it served as a ref- erence guide, providing information about the cur- rent state of the City as the groundwork for dis- cussing the future. It was organized around the following topics: the origin and culture of Newport Beach, the preservation and development of the City's physical environment, and City services, gov- ernance, and economy. As the City proceeded with the Visioning Process, Newport Beach residents were able to make recommendations affecting their City. Throughout the process, residents, property own- ers, and business owners have had real influence in voicing their opinions to City leaders and collab- orating to arrive at realistic solutions for improving Newport Beach. Broad participation in the Visioning Process has resulted in a powerful expression of the community's goals and values. Widespread participation at the Visioning Festival and neighborhood workshops, and responses to the newsletter maflback question- naire, website questions and information display produced a preliminary sketch of public opinion. For complete details, please see the separate reports produced throughout the process that doc- ument each activity. Newsletter Maflback Questionnaire Summary, Visioning Festival Summary, and Neighborhood Workshop Summary . These activities produced thousands of comments, which were subsequently translated into prelimi- nary strategic directions for the City. In October 2002, the City conducted a statisti- cally valid community survey with both residents and business owners to further test these direc- tions. Please see the Resident and Business Survey Report available from the City upon request. In I NEWPORT BEACH: COMMUNITY DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 1 l Z C Z 1 Z 1MLn C / m e eI C d u E ' o c ® bt cb LL . o . _ — u i e c 7WN J c U y yT c c � J c � J �__��Lbbb4,lllll U VI J c J c � J V J c U c t e � °•E 1 FVI F �f U e �c9 A SUMMARY OF [HE GIN F RAI PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS I N T R O D U C T I O N addition, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) met twelve times throughout the year to deliberate on the statement of a new vision and the key questions facing the City as it charts a course into the future. The GPAC is comprised of thirty-seven people who live or work in Newport Beach. The City Council approved the composition of the commit- tee, which was drawn from all sectors of the com- munity to bring diverse opinions to the discussions (residential areas and environmental, business and other interest groups). The Council appointed members from a pool of applicants on the recom- mendation of the General Plan Update Committee in January 2002. A careful analysis of all the ideas and opinions that have been stated through these activities revealed that several crucial issues needed to be further discussed. In addition, some GPAC members felt that the Visioning Process omitted community discussion on historical preservation, cultural resources and the arts. Several members requested that the scope of work for the General Plan Update include provisions for a separate Historic and Cultural Resources Element. To investigate these issues in more detail, the City hosted a Visioning Summit on November 16, 2002 to offer participants a chance to learn more about where the community is aligned, engage in probing discussion over areas where opinion is divided, and provide additional input on remaining future directions. The technical studies underway and to be performed in early 2003 will provide a more rigorous and in -depth analysis of the current physical and fiscal reality and offer projections on future conditions. This analysis will be synthesized CLOSt T . —rn I vtxum with the Visioning activity findings to help define the more detailed policies that will be developed in the City s General Plan Update. �salr�v vtPlsvm� qhe Pindings The table on the following page shows the number of participants providing input over a yearlong period of discussion and feedback Participants included residents, property owners, business owners and youth. The participation counts for each activity are summarized so that the reader may consider these numbers when interpreting results. NEWPORT BEACH: COMMUNITY DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE I N T R O D U C T I O N Visioning Activities and Participation Counts Activity Number of Participants Resident Telephone Survey 1,000 Business Telephone Survey 175 GPA( Meetings (12) 20-37 Newsletter Mailback Questionnaire & Information Display 764 Visioning Festival Over 400 Neighborhood Workshops Over 450 Visioning Summit Over 350 Website Key Questions 36 Workshop Kit 22 The list of activities above is shown in order of the suggested "weight" to be given to the associated findings. The telephone surveys, with scientific sam- pling and instrument design, should be considered representative of the population of Newport Beach as a whole, within the margins of error reported in the Survey Summary Report. The GPAC discussions, although qualitative in nature, may be considered broadly representative of the range of community opinion, given the group's composition. All other results are valuable contributions to the public discourse by people who made special efforts to participate by attending workshops, returning a mailback questionnaire, etc. The numeric findings reported in this document are shown as percentages when applicable and as absolute counts, shown in parentheses (except for the telephone survey results, which are given as percentages only). A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS A N E W V I S I O N F O R T H E F U T U R E 11. ANEW VISION FOR THE FUTURE The following describes the City's desired end state and what the community hopes to have achieved by 2025. The GPAC played an instrumental role in crafting this vision statement through a series of discussions and revisions, drawing upon public feedback from the Visioning activities. The statement is intended to be a retro- spective view of our community by an observer in the year 2025, to cite the City's achievements as a result of our current `vision." We have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique residential community NAth diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods. We value our colorful past, the high quality of life, and our com- munity bonds. The successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses and visitors has been accomplished with the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community. We have a conservative growth strategy that empha- sizes residents' quality of fife—a strategy that bal- ances the needs of the various constituencies and that cherishes and nurtures our estuaries, harbor, beaches, open spaces and natural resources. Development and revitalization decisions are well conceived and beneficial to both the economy and our character. There is a range of housing opportu- nities that allows people to live and work in the City. Design principles emphasize characteristics that satisfy the community's desire for the maintenance of its particular neighborhoods and villages. Public view areas are protected. Trees and landscaping are enhanced and preserved. Protection of environmental quality is a high priority. We preserve our open space resources. We maintain access to and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves, harbor and estuaries. The ocean, bay and estuaries are flourishing ecosystems with high water quality standards. Traffic flows smoothly throughout the community. The transportation and circulation system is safe and convenient for automobiles and public trans- portation, and friendly to pedestrians and bicycles. Public parking facilities are well planned for resi- dents and visitors. A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS A N E W V I S I O N F O R T H E CS®MMU,MNY C-ePV3ees F U T U R E We provide parks, art and cultural facilities, libraries and educational programs directly and through cooperation among diverse entities. The City facilitates or encourages access to high quality health care and essential social services. Newport Beach is noted for its excellent schools and is a premier location for hands on educational experi- ences in the natural sciences. Our streets are safe and clean. Public safety services are responsive and amongst the best in the nation. A General Plan is o long-range plan that includes goals, policies, and programs to guide the future growth of o community. It includes maps showing where various U uses ore permitted, as well as written policies describing law and where development and redevebp- I rant may take place. falifornin state low' requires each city to adopt o General Plan to direct its planning and building efforts. General Plans must address topics such as land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and public safety. As o policy docu• mem, the General Plan is used to rink community val• ues, visions and priorities with decisions about physical development — including topics such as zoning, street projects, and housing densities. I(drok Gxemnmd codes 6530065302 L`3e8PN&24nQP5 ©pgSa�PRaaaa$Go2s Newport Beach attracts visitors with its harbor, beaches, restaurants and shopping. We are a resi- dential and recreational seaside community willing and eager to share its natural resources with visi- tors without diminishing these irreplaceable assets in order to share them. We have outdoor recreation space for active local and tourist populations that highlight the City's environmental assets as well as indoor facili- ties for recreation and socializing. Coastal facilities include pedestrian and aquatic opportunities. The current General Mon for Newport Beach was adopted in 1973 -75. A comprehensive update was completed in 1988. However, B has been a concern that the document may rely too heavily on statistical data and require additional policy direction. Since the% various elements of the Plan hove been updated, but the city has never undertaken o comprehensive update until this year. The process of ulul the Plan so that it accurately reflects the collective vision of what the dozens of Newport Beach want for the next 25 years is on important step in maintaining a strong, safe, and prosperous community . I NEWPORT BEACH: COMMUNITY DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE A N E W V I S I O N F O R T H E F U T U R E We are recognized as a premier recreational boat- ing harbor. We have maintained a hospitable, navi- gable pleasure boating harbor in the lower bay through careful, low density, non - intrusive on- shore development, by regularly dredging naviga- tion and betthing/mooring areas, and by providing adequate access to the water and vessel related servicing facilities. The upper bay retains an un- encumbered shoreline and its waterways are maintained free of sediment and debris. sir roc -.e' We remain united in our efforts to control and contain noise, air and traffic pollution associated Once adopted, the General Won is the basis for de& sions regarding longterm physical development. In addition to rupturing the community's values, politics, and opinions, the General Plan also sets the guidelines for all growth and development within a city's bound - mies. Since these factors ore continuously evolving, General Plans ore often reviewed and amended to reflect changes within the community and to keep the General Plan up•to*te. Each city has o governing body and a formal procedure for monitoring and amending, or completely revising its General Plan. Some elements of the Plan have o short- term focus and need to be revised more often than others. State guidelines recommend that local planning agencies review the entirety of their General Plans at with operation of the Airport. Our City government vigorously and wisely uses the political process to control the impact of the Airport on our commu- nity. This has resulted in a level of Airport opera- tion that preserves our unique character and land values. Elected officials and city staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community. least once every five years. In Newport Beach, the City Council guides the process of monitoring and amending the community's Geneml Plan, under advisory from the Planning Commission. The most common revision to o General Plan is on amendment associated with o privately initiated devel- opment project. On November 7, 2000, Newport Beach voters passed on amendment to the Qty's shor- ter addressing this issue. The Greenlight Initiative, also known as Measure S, requires City residents to vote on building proposals when limits established in the General Plan ore exceeded. The threshold for o large development proposal is 100 homes, 100 peak four cor trips, or 40,000 square feet of commercial space. A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESSI D I R E C T I O N S F O R T H E F U T U R E 111. DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE This section presents the strategic directions that evolved from the Community Visioning Process. Community members weighed in on a number of critical questions facing the City and provided substantial guidance for the future. In some cases, broad agreement exists among community members as to how to proceed into the future. These issues are highlighted with a symbol of two arrows coming together. t:l In other areas, opinions are still somewhat divided over the best course of action. The latter are highlighted with a symbol of two arrows diverging. Z The strategic directions presented in this section will inform and shape the policies to be included in the City's General Plan. This report will be presented to the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) when finalized by the citizen's group, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). Based on its review of the document, the GPUC will determine the scope and phasing of the General Plan Update. City staff will then propose a schedule and strategy for completing the Update and determine whether any additional studies, beyond the traffic and fiscal studies already under- way or planned, will be needed. 7 i vor The vast majority of residents view Newport Reach as primarily a residential beach town with broad appeal as a tourist destination. Overall, participants from a number of Visioning activities favored the identity of "beach town" slightly more than "residential town." "Tourist des- tination" was significantly less popular than the other two options. Most residents support reinforc- ing Newport Beach's identity as both a beach town and residential community into the future. Across the board, community members agree that Newport Reach can boast numerous assets and a good quality of life. Residents, for example, cite the City's community character, gov- ernance and community design as exemplary qual- ities. In a survey of business owners, the City's location within the County, its physical beauty, and the purchasing power of the community are listed as exceptionally attractive attributes. �c In general, residents expressed satisfaction with services for seniors and youth. Website respondents and Youth Council meeting partici- A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS D I R E C T 1 O N S F O R T H E F U T U R E pants were more vocal about improving recre- ational opportunities and acquiring parks and playfields for younger residents than about enhanc- ing services for seniors. These participants expressed interest in seeing a greater number of after-school recreational activities. V bob Gac:,w4% Participants are divided on whether the City should continue to accommodate job growth. Fifty -six percent of newsletter questionnaire respon- dents felt that the City should not accommodate more jobs in Newport Beach. Website respondents were slightly more supportive, with 11 out of 18 viewing job growth as a positive goal. GPAC mem- bers felt that the issue was more complex and depended on the types of jobs and the associated impacts. Those who did express support for growth stated that the City should "accommodate" but not "promote" additional employment opportunities. (See also Economic Development, page 24.) a. L 1 f:) toovfaevs cameo Beaches General consensus exists that the City's har- bors and beaches must be protected and enhanced as the most cherished resources. When probed as to how these areas could be improved, many Visioning Festival participants and newsletter questionnaire respondents indicated that they wished to protect the harbors and beaches as visual and recreational resources. GPAC members posited that as harbors and beaches are improved as recreational areas, visual and eco- nomic benefits would follow. Nearly across the board, participants also touted water quality and pollution control as important concerns. Just over half of business survey respondents cited the City's water quality as an "extremely important" or "very important" attribute in having a business located in Newport Beach. GPAC members recommend that the City define separate water quality and conservation policies for different categories of water resources, such as ocean/bay, drinking, etc. Newsletter ques- tionnaire respondents hoped to make pollution clean up and the revitalization of beach areas pri- orities on the City's agenda. f:) coasomo Bow0gs A majority of participants, including mem- bers of the GPAC, strongly agree that coastal bluff areas are important and should be pro- tected through stricter codes, tougher enforcement and improved planning and design efforts. Fifty -six percent of resident survey respondents support City protection of the coastal bluffs as required by the Coastal Act, while 38 per- cent favor the protection of property owners' rights. Clarifying that views both of and from bluffs need to be preserved, participants highlighted the following bluffs as particularly significant: Castaways, Banning <i NEWPORT BEACH: COMMUNITY DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE D I R E C T I O N S F O R T H E F U T U R E Ranch, Sunset Ridge, Hoag, Newport Coast and Irvine Terrace. Some support was expressed for restricting the height and size of homes, establish- ing large setbacks to protect bluffs, and being more restrictive in the use of variances. Many also stressed the need to balance increased controls with the rights of property owners. Newport Beach residents agree that the City should preserve remaining public view corridors, including the Coastal Bluffs, and create more views wherever possible. GPAC members recommended a citywide inventory of existing public view corridors and suggested offer- ing redevelopment incentives to enhance those corridors and create additional opportunities for views. They also cited the need for policies and guidelines regarding the public's right to views. These sentiments were echoed by Visioning Festival attendees and website respondents. Many who accessed the website also suggested that the City purchase these corridors as public land. District 7 neighborhood workshop participants would like to protect private views as well as public views, because these add to the value of property. When survey respondents were asked about City regulations regarding buildings, plants and trees, and business signs that interfere with views, almost three quarters of the respondents felt that current regulations were either "just right" or "not strong enough" f:) ` z.c Some support was expressed for protecting historic commercial and residential villages. Although this issue was not addressed in the tele- phone surveys or citywide Visioning activities, several neighborhood districts did provide feedback on what the City should do to protect historic vil- lages. These include, for example, Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Mariner's Mile and Lido Marina Village. Workshop participants in Districts 2 and 6 favored (in rank order): narrowing the permitted uses in some commercial areas; adopting design and development gnidelines; and establishing a design review process While Districts 3 and 5 workshop attendees were not asked to prioritize policy directions, they supported all of the above - mentioned suggestions and proposed that the City adopt more Specific Plans and reduce the permitted size of buildings in residential neighborhoods. A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS] D I R E C T 1 0 N S F O R T H E F U T U R E z1paftmNao [v7evelvv recut &vecmn Overall, people want the City to set firm constraints on development, including expansion of employment centers and hotels. However, under certain conditions addi- tional development may be acceptable. Fashion Island A majority of residents and businesses sup- port keeping retail space at current levels, but many are still willing to back expansion of existing stores and moderate increases for new business. The surveys revealed somewhat contradictory results. Seventy percent of resident respondents and 61 percent of business respon- dents desire to keep retail space at current levels, while 67 percent of residents and 66 percent of business would support the expansion of existing stores. Sixty-two percent of resident respondents and 68 percent of business respondents would endorse moderate increases in retail space to attract new businesses. These findings are somewhat consistent with results from previous Visioning activities. Approximately, 68 percent (256) of newsletter questionnaire and information display respondents indicated that the City should refrain from expan- sion at Fashion Island, while slightly less than 40 percent (142) said that they would like to see more development. A little less than half of Visioning Festival participants supported expansion. The GPAC was also split over the question, sev- eral members opposing any further development and others supporting limited expansion. Members raised an important issue, stating that under the current General Plan, the Fashion Island property owner is entitled to build roughly another 195,000 square feet. Some members were concerned that any expansion, however limited, would increase traffic congestion. Visioning Summit participants overwhelmingly agreed with the GPAC's concerns about traffic impacts. However, many supported the existing entitlement to build and some expressed a desire for flexibility to add retail uses that may be needed in the future. Owner- occupied residential develop- ment was favored, as long as it was designed to be compatible with retail spaces and it was economi- cally viable. Summit participants also suggested promoting cultural activities at Fashion Island. Newport Center A majority of residents and businesses sup- port little or no change to Newport Center, but some are willing to allow growth for existing companies. The strongest contingent of opinion among residents (71 percent) and busi- ness (68 percent) supports little or no change to the size and amount of buildings. However, both groups are amenable to allowing existing compa- nies to grow (57 percent residents, 61 percent I NEWPORT BEACH: COMMUNITY DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE D I R E C T I O N S F O R T H E F U T U R E business). Residents are split on development to accommodate new businesses (48 percent pro/48 percent con) and the development of residential and mined -use buildings (45 percent pro/51 per- cent con). Businesses are more supportive of both initiatives, with 63 percent supporting the former and 56 the latter. Findings from previous Visioning activities were also mixed. Approximately 68 percent (264) of newsletter questionnaire and information display respondents indicated that the City should refrain from expansion at Newport Center, while slightly less than 40 percent (156) said that they would like to see more development. Just over half of Visioning Festival participants, however, supported expansion. The GPAC was also split over the question, with a majority supporting limited expansion for exist- ing businesses. Members felt the need to provide flexibility to allow specific projects. No strong sup- port was voiced for mixed -use development for the area. Visioning Summit participants expressed con- cerns about traffic impacts and parking safety around Newport Center. Of particular concern is the traffic at San Miguel and Avocado. Some Summit attendees favored mixed -use development and stressed the need for more affordable housing in particular. Specific suggestions included high - rise residential units and condominiums. Other suggested uses were a grocery store, conference facility, and hotel. Strong support was also expressed for developing a cultural and perform- ing arts center and museum. The majority of par- ticipants discouraged development of more offices. Airport Business Area Participants are split on support for devel- opment, but some agreement exists over the types of development that are appropri- ate for the area. Two- thirds of residents and just over half of businesses support no changes in the development of the Airport Business Area Overall the community prefers revitalization of the area with income generating land uses over undi- rected growth. These findings are somewhat con- sistent with feedback solicited earlier in the process. Sixty percent of the questionnaire and information display respondents did not support expansion. However, 63 percent (150) of Visioning Festival participants who voted on the question indicated that the City should expand in this area. H future development were to occur, bah resi- dent and business survey respondents were com- e � t s } Y . F A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS D I R E C T I O N S F O R T H E F U T U R E fortable with low -rise office buildings, with resi- dent support at 66 percent and business at 68 per - cent. Residents and business were aligned in their opposition to more car dealerships (business at 79 percent/residents at 64 percent) and industrial uses (business at 57 percent/residents at 62 per - cent). Both residents and businesses are somewhat divided on the issues of high -rise buildings and retail stores. Fifty -eight percent of residents oppose new high -rise buildings (40 percent of whom strongly oppose) and 51 percent of businesses share this view. Residents were split on adding more retail stores (47 percent pro/49 percent con), but 63 percent of business support retail expansion in the area. GPAC members were supportive of non - airport, non -peak hour uses to discourage airport expan- sion. They also suggested targeting the area for revitalization. Some members of the group voiced concern about traffic impacts and some suggested the City consider transferring development rights as a trade -off between building heights and the amount of remaining open space in the area. Visioning Summit participants were also split on whether the area should be developed further. Attendees were supportive of a range of develop- ment types, as long as traffic was not adversely affected. Unlike survey respondents, Summit atten- dees and GPAC members expressed some support for auto dealerships. Some also favored mixed -use development with high - density residential and rev - enue - generating businesses, such as hotels and entertainment. All participant groups were split in their support for "big box" retail uses. 1Z lBa nni ng nm nch Most people want to see open space pre- served at Banning Ranch, but the degree of preservation will require more discussion. Resident survey respondents were divided down the middle over whether to allow for limited devel- opment of Banning Ranch or to preserve the entire area as open space. Forty -six percent of those familiar with the area support preserving the entire area as open space, even though this option may require a local tax increase of $250 per parcel per year for fifteen years along with matching state funds to pay for complete preservation. Another forty-four percent support half of the land to be utilized for residential and limited light industrial use with the remaining half of the space reserved as open space. Feedback collected through the Visioning Festival, neighborhood workshops and community emails also confirmed the overwhelm- ing support for protection, but also reflected a division of opinion over the exult of preserved open space. GPAC members argued both sides of the issue as well. Some support using a portion of the land for affordable housing, arguing that Banning Ranch is one of the few places available for this use. Others raise concerns about any development, cit- ing the potential costs of environmental clean up; the need to avoid geological hazard and natural slope areas; and potential traffic congestion and limits to emergency vehicle access. Members sup- portive of preserving Banning Ranch suggest part- nerships with the County and others to make securing the land more financially viable. GPAC members encouraged pursuing funding from a variety of public and private sources. Results from the Visioning Summit were consis- tent with previous findings. Attendees were divided on the issue of development, with roughly one -half I NEWPORT BEACH: COMMUNITY DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE D I R. E C T 1 O N S F O R. T H E F U T U R E dedicated to complete preservation. A group of participants suggested designating Banning Ranch as an area for special study under the General Plan Update. The City could then perform additional studies of habitats and species to determine area characteristics and prioritize those most in need of preservation. Summit participants who were supportive of development favored affordable housing and public facilities, such as for seniors and youth. Varying levels of support were also expressed for sports fields, hotels and mixed -used development. Some argued that the Citys land use plan should be crafted with a regional perspective. Most agreed that traffic mitigation measures must also be inte- grated into any plan for development. The majority of Summit attendees also concurred that the devel- opment of the Orange Coast River Park should proceed regardless of the timing of the upland development. While participants proposed areas where zoning capacity should be reduced, GPAC members noted that the issue is highly sen- sitive and that any area considered must be carefully reviewed. Festival participants felt that zoning in Banning Ranch (30), the Corona del Mar Residential Area (22), Balboa Village (16), and Newport Heights (16) should be changed to limit future development. Website responses indicated that Fashion island (3), Newport Center (3), and De Anza Mobile Home Park (3) should be down zoned. GPAC members expressed concern regard- ing the reliability of data for this topic because the sample size was very small. s People are in general agreement about what areas of the City need revitalization and GPAC members recommend that the city develop an overall vision for revitalization. Participants at the Visioning Festival, webshe respon- dents and GPAC members agreed that the following areas are in need of revitalization: Balboa Village, Mariner's Mile, Old Newport Boulevard, Cannery Village, Central Balboa Peninsula, McFadden Square, West Newport and the mixed residential/industrial area above Hoag Hospital. GPAC members empha- sized the importance for improving sidewalks and pedestrian ways in the West Newport area They also felt that the Airport Business Area was a good candi- date for revitalization. GPAC members discussed the meaning of "revi- talization" for Newport Beach. They envision that revitalization is making something nicer, without making it bigger; respecting historic places and A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS D I R E C T 1 0 N S F O R T H E F U T U R E ambiance; and creating pedestrian -dense areas with high quality restaurants. Members agree that the City should be proactive in creating a revitaliza- tion vision to guide future private development. �:) Aveaas suift6ue Goa Mined Use From input collected at the Visioning Festival and through the website, specific areas were deemed appropriate for mixed -use develop- ment integrating housing and commercial or office space. These are Balboa Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square Lido Marina Village, the Airport Business Area and Newport Center. The GPAC favors mixed -use development in all appro- priate sites, and believes each site should be stud- ied for its specific suitability. ,w Use oG undelrofflaned 6em merci;er0 Land GPAC members and Visioning Festival partic- ipants strongly agree that the City should consider re- zoning excess and underutilized commercial lands for residential or mixed - use development. Festival participants leaned more toward mixed -use development or a combi- nation of residential and mixed use. They also expressed a strong desire to ensure that new devel- opment preserves the character of the neighbor- hood and is in proportion to existing home size. ZLmvgev Names While larger homes and their effects is a trend of concern to many in Newport Beach, residents have mixed opinions on whether existing regulations are sufficient for now. Many Visioning Process participants cite larger homes and their effects on neighborhood character as a problem. Sixty -five percent (347) of responses to the newsletter questionnaire and information dis- play indicated a desire for the City to implement restrictions on the construction of larger homes. Residents in Districts 5, 6, and 7 identified the trend as a major concern in their neighborhoods. Concerns relating to larger homes include the lack of privacy and natural sunlight and blocked views. GPAC members questioned how representative these concerns are on a citywide level. Participants who attended the Visioning Festival and members of the Youth Council suggested limit- ing the size of new infill housing as a solution to the problem (161 from the Festival, no tally from the Youth Council). Others would like to restrict the size of remodeled housing (140 from the Festival, no tally from the Youth Council). Those who responded to the website preferred the above - mentioned options in addition to a lot merger requirement. Many residents believe existing regulations to restrain home size and protect views are sufficient. Forty -one percent of survey respondents believed that existing regulations are sufficiently effective, with only 27 percent citing them as too weak. When asked about regulations regarding buildings that interfere with views, 42 percent of residents said regulations are just right, with only 32 percent citing them as not strong enough. GPAC members suggest that the extent of the problem varies by geographic area and relates to a combination of home design and size. Many GPAC members have also expressed concerns about the trend toward larger homes, but suggest that the issue varies largely by geographic area. They also emphasize that size is not entirely the issue; larger homes can enhance the character of the neighbor- hood if they are well designed. Some members assert, however, that three -story homes are simply too high. GPAC suggested creating design guide- lines for villages. e3 1 NEWPORT BEACH: COMMUNITY DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE D I R E C T 1 O N S F O R T H E F U T U R E Results from the visioning Summit were consis- tent with previous findings. Summit attendees are concerned by the trend but divided over whether more controls are warranted. Participants stressed the need to maintain the residential character of individual neighborhoods, and agreed with the GPAC that solutions should be neighborhood spe- cific. They also agreed with the GPAC's assertion that the issue is both home size and design, and added that lot size needs to be taken into consider- ation as well. Participants in the Visioning program events were overall in favor of tourism, but divided on providing more tourist accommodations. Participants were also divided over the ques- tion of whether the City wants more hotels. if hotels were to be built, opinions are split on what types to build, but some agreement exists as to where to build. Approximately 70 percent (138) of those who voted on the issue at the visioning Festival and 76 percent (354) of those who responded to the newsletter question- LISL `Z' XI'lt: naire were in favor of accommodating tourism in Newport Beach, particularly for hotel visitors and business travelers. The GPAC favored accommodat- ing tourists but not actively promoting tourism. The results from the business and residents sur- veys, however, contradict these earlier findings to some extent. Residents are roughly split on the City providing more tourist accommodations, including more restrooms (48 percent pro/43 percent con), shuttle bus service (51 percent/45 percent), and more parking (50 percent/47 percent). Three quarters of residents oppose building more retail stores and restaurants. Business respondents are more supportive of accommodating tourism for each of the above measures, but they also oppose (61 percent) more retail and restaurants. The majority of participants oppose increased hotel development Fifty-two percent of resident survey respondents and 70 percent (129) of those who voted on the issue at the visioning Festival oppose development of new hotels in Newport Beach. Participants in District 1's neighborhood workshop strongly opposed a proposed hotel at the Marinapark site on the Peninsula Youth Council meeting participants also wanted to see no additional hotels in the City. Business survey respondents were split over hotel development, with approximately 4 support- ing for every 3 opposing. Businesses favor hotel development to support tourism (61 percent), business conferences (59 percent), tax revenue (57 percent), and local stores (54 percent). The GPAC is also divided, with a number of members supporting new development, particularly to boost tourism and business conferences. Nine out of 11 (82 percent) website respondents felt that this industry should expand as well. A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS D I R E C T 1 0 N S F O R T H E F U T U R E H hotels were to be built, residents and busi- ness are divided over what types of hotels to build. Sixty one percent of residents surveyed find smaller -sized inns appropriate. However, 54 per- cent of business survey respondents favor large hotels as appropriate. GPAC members were also divided over large, revenue- producing hotels and smaller, boutique hotels to cater to vacationers. Supporters of larger hotels argue that without high - end, convention facilities, Newport Beach will lose valuable business to its neighbors. Proponents of smaller, boutique inns posit that Newport Beach needs to offer vacationers a place to stay as increasing numbers of people take up year -round residence in what were formerly seasonal rental properties. Given the stipulation that hotels were to be built, some agreement exists over where to build. A majority of resident and business survey respon- dents support building new hotels in the Airport Business Area and Newport Center: 73 percent of residents and 74 percent of business support locat- ing a new hotel in the Airport Business Area; 54 percent of residents and 58 percent of business support development in Newport Center. Otherwise, residents tend to oppose locating new hotels in: Marinapark (66 percent), Lido Marina Village (63 percent), Mariner's We (60 percent), and Newport Dunes (49 percent). Business respondents were also opposed to building in: Marinapark (59 percent) and Lido Marina Village (57 percent). Many visioning Summit participants offend conditional support for hotel development depend- ing on location, design, size and height. Some sup- port smaller inns, with others favoring larger, rev- enue- producing hotels. One suggestion was to renovate existing hotels to make them more upscale, thereby increasing the transient occu- pancy tax (TOT), while maintaining the total num- her of accommodations. Many participants asserted the need for further analysis of vacancy rates, markets, user groups, long -term tourism impacts, and traffic impacts. Others requested that the City examine alternative TOT- generating tourist accommodations. Opinions were divided over where to build, but a majority was opposed to hotel development at Marinapark and Newport Dunes and voiced a strong preference for protect- ing public lands. ,w 4idelaands and OAOV 0 [!Duh6ns Icands Most participants concur that tidelands and other public lands should be preserved as open space. A majority opposes development, however, limited support exists, especially among business owners. Survey results reveal that 54 per- cent of residents oppose the City developing por- tions of waterfront property at Newport Dunes and Marinapark, with 41 percent citing strong opposi- tion. Business survey respondents were slightly more supportive of development, with 56 percent in favor and 41 percent opposing. Of the 41 per- cent, however, 30 percent were strongly opposed. An overwhelming 78 percent (502) of those who addressed this issue in the newsletter ques- tionnaire and on the information display comment cards felt strongly about preserving tidelands and other public lands as open space. Festival partici- pants also echoed this sentiment, with 65 percent (139) of those voting on the issue in support of preservation. less popular was the option of devel- oping these areas into public/park facilities. least popular of all, generating less than 10 percent (15) of the Festival votes and 12 percent (54) of the questionnaire and information display votes, was developing the public lands for tax producing purposes. i+ I NEWPORT BEACH: COMMUNITY DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE D I R E C T 1 O N S F O R T H E F U T U R E .ti ,..w 4 4 Community members highly value the open space and parks in Newport Beach. Nearly 80 percent (158) of Festival attendees who voted on the issue wanted the City to be more proactive in acquiring these areas, even if doing so means bond financing. District 2 workshop participants, website respondents, and Summit attendees voiced similar opinions. A majority of participants are concerned with traffic congestion, but views differ over how to mitigate the problem. Fifty -seven percent of resident and business survey respondents rated traffic as somewhat congested. Roughly a third of businesses and a quarter of residents rated it very congested. When asked how to remedy traffic congestion, however, participants have not reached consensus on any one proposaL A majority of residents and business survey respondents opposed all of the suggested improvements to traffic circulation. The strongest opposition was to widening Jamboree Road (71 percent residents/62 percent business) and MacArthur Boulevard (68 percent residents/60 percent business). Visioning Process participants have also consistently opposed street widening. Resident and businesses preferred leaving roads as they currently are to widening options by a 2 to 1 ratio. Little support existed for this option at either the Visioning Festival or the neighborhood work- shops. The level of support for most transportation improvement options was low. Generally, business respondents show higher levels of support than res- idents. While few options are supported by a major- ity, the options with greatest relative support are building an overpass at MacArthur and Jamboree (39 percent resident/52 percent business) and widening the Coast Highway through Mariner's Mile (37 percent residents/45 percent business). A sig- nificant number of Visioning Festival participants also supported widening the Coast Highway. However, only 7 percent (10) of questionnaire respondents supported this improvement. Expanding public transit received some sup- port from participants in the Visioning program events. A significant number of Visioning Festival participants and a small percentage of question- �.�' C'� 'g? �•� -fir'' A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESSI D I R E C T 1 0 N S F O R T H E F U T U R E mire respondents support this strategy. Those who addressed this issue in their questionnaires offered community shuttles (particularly in the heavily congested tourist areas), electric cars, taws and a light rail as alternatives to driving pri- vate automobiles. Many community members also stated that the City should encourage residents to walk and bike to their destinations as much as possible. Responses from the website emphasized the need for more and improved bike lanes and pedestrian trails; feedback from the neighborhood work- shops, the Visioning Summit and discussions from GPAC confirmed this strong support. Sixty -eight percent of business survey respon- dents and 64 percent of residents believe that it is acceptable to have more traffic congestion in the Airport Business Area than in other parts of the City. Some members of the GPAC argue that the City needs to define "more" traffic congestion before moving ahead with significant development. Results from the Visioning Summit were fairly consistent with previous findings. Summit attendees expressed relative support for the same solutions mentioned above, including public transit and improved bike and pedestrian trail connectivity. A majority also supported signal synchronization, especially during peak hours. Other transportation solutions that received some support included improving roadway signage, especially for tourist destinations; performing limited widening; elimi- nating Mariner's Mile street parking during peak hours; and providing shuttle service to accommo- date seniors, students and tourists. Participants were generally opposed to overpasses anywhere in the City, although a small contingent voiced sup- port for an overpass at Jamboree and MacArthur. While current conditions need to be improved, some participants stated, capacity should not be added to encourage new development. nesidengia l meighbal?hOods mind i7vmffle Ornpo¢es No clear consensus emerged over how to remedy traffic impacts on neighborhoods. In the surveys, only 37 percent of residents and 29 percent of business support traffic calming meas- ures, such as stop signs, narrowed streets or roundabouts. Some have suggested stricter enforcement of speed limits, and improving transit options and school transportation. Visioning Sunmut participants stressed that the issue should be one of the City's highest priorities. Districts 6 and 3 also discussed how the City might alleviate traffic impacts in their neighborhoods during the workshops. Participants from District 6 supported the enforcement of speed limits and I NEWPORT BEACH: COMA - IUNITY DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE D I R E C T 1 0 N S F O R T H E F U T U R E discouraged "through" traffic as ways to ease the problem. District 3 and 4 participants wanted the City to disallow street widening, improve transit options and school transportation, reduce growth and regionalize traffic solutions. r c z P=:r:no : . Participants support a wide range of solu- tions, but GPAC members cite that remedies to parking problems must be evaluated in relation to speck sites and neighborhoods. Visioning Festival participants and District 5 work- shop attendees addressed the issue of parking impacts on residential neighborhoods. Possible solutions generated during the workshop include: issuing residential parking permits, reducing com- mercial areas and regulating business operations, installing meters and increasing off -site parking areas. Forty -five percent (140) of the Festival atten- dees who addressed this issue also suggested that the City increase off -site parking areas. Other solu- tions supported by participants include regulating businesses (46 votes) and greater use of parking meters (52 votes), accounting for 16 percent and 18 percent of votes respectively. �:) Qlt ^ova Oweu^cc- The vast majority of participants, including GPAC members, agree that the City should develop a land use strategy to prevent the expansion of the John Wayne Airport. In line with this view, strong support exists for the con- struction of an airport at ffi Toro: 64 percent of residents and 55 percent of businesses affirm their support, with 56 percent of residents expressing strong support. lWenty-seven percent of residents and 37 percent of businesses are opposed. If flights from a new airport were restricted from passing over the City, survey respondents would be slightly more supportive of the project. District 4 neighborhood workshop participants and those who attended the Commercial/Airport Business Area meeting also addressed issues sur- rounding the airport and land use strategies. Seventeen out of 21 workshop attendees believed the City should have a land use strategy to prevent the expansion of John Wayne Airport. Participants also stated that reaching an agreement regarding JWA expansion should be a high priority, and that City leaders should keep the community abreast of plans for the future of the JWA, M Toro and the surrounding areas. Workshop participants offered additional ideas, including creating an international airport at Camp Pendleton and supporting extension of the JWA Settlement Agreement. Many participants, including members of the GPAC, agree that the City should be guided by these funding priorities (not in rank order): infrastructure maintenance; revital- ization of infrastructure in older commercial areas; acquisition and improvement of open space, beaches and parks; improved water quality; and public safety. Improved infrastruc- ture maintenance was the top choice for those who responded to the newsletter questionnaire and the information display comment card, as well as for Visioning Festival participants. Revitalization of infrastructure in older commercial areas; acquisi- tion and improvement of open space, beaches and parks; and improved water quality also ranked high among participants across a number of Visioning activities. While public safety garnered the third highest rank on the newsletter questionnaire, other particle A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESSI D I R E C T I O N S F O R T H E F U T U R E pants did not explicitly prioritize the issue. This residents. Forty -five percent of business owners probably indicates an overall satisfaction with the support the first position and 42 percent support current level of safety service. the second. V 12COW00ale D eveCOPMOW People expressed mixed opinions about the potential impact of economic development on the City, with business owners being slightly more in favor of economic develop- ment than residents. Fifty -seven percent of sur- veyed residents believe that encouraging economic development will detract from residents' quality of life, whereas 33 percent believe that economic development will be in the best interest of When asked if the City should encourage growth in the local economy to help pay for municipal services, 67 percent (224) of those who responded to the newsletter questionnaire said yes. Respondents, however, were divided as to how the City should generate growth. 'ltventy -four percent (62) thought that encouraging small business development was the best option; 18 percent (46) indicated support for levying tares, fees, and licenses; and 16 percent (40) favored promoting tourism and travel. (See also Job Growth, page 12.) .. n I NEWPORT BEACH: COMMUNITY DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE � General Plan Update Process Visioning Results Approach to General Plan Update Two phase approach. 1. Visioning to establish overall direction 2. Detailed policies and more specific directions in General Plan 1. What is`Vl ing . 14 Determining a'desired end state' and what we hope to achieve by 2025. K Setting future directions and framngcc� issues for further d:scussion Visioning Activities • Interactive Website • Information Displays • Vision Festival 1 WoAChopckits • Newsletter Series • Neighborhood Workshops • Community Telephone Surveys Visioning Summit : t .N �. Y: . Vision Statement Vision Statement Process a 1. Visioning Festival, newsletter mail - back.?- 7. "0 workshop and telephone survey comments :. 2. GPAG revised and reviewed four drafts 3. Vision Statement of hcw Newport Beach will be viewed.by its citizens in 2025 — 7" �t• t 'dam• i, a_ . Vision Statement Vision Statement Process a 1. Visioning Festival, newsletter mail - back.?- 7. "0 workshop and telephone survey comments :. 2. GPAG revised and reviewed four drafts 3. Vision Statement of hcw Newport Beach will be viewed.by its citizens in 2025 — 7" �t• t Vision Statement Themes • Community Character • Grcv,Ah Strategy. Land Use & Deveiopment • 'A Healthy Natural Environment • Efficient & Safe Circulation • Community Services *-,�. - - -- -- -..... Vision Statement Themes • Recrea- ion_Opportunities • Boating & Waterways • Airport • Responsive Government S: ar S .: Y Areas. of ..G.eneral Agreement Areas.of:General Agreement � .A • Our.Current and Future Identity • Distinctive: Characteristics • Sernorand.Y_ outh Services and Facilities • Harbors and Beaches I At 'as of General sAgreement • "Coastal Bluffs • Public View Corridors •. The Villages • Areas Where Zoning Should Be Reduced I ZU ..Areas of General Agreement • . Areas to Revitalize • . Areas Suitable for Mixed Use' ". • Use of Underutilized Commercial Land • Tidelands and Other Public Lands �' +• ell ,r , 9 Area 's" °of General Agreement • r i Open Space and Parks •: Residential Neigh borhoods`and .Par ing.Impacts • Airport Issues • City Funding Priorities J V `• i Areas of Divided Opinion 1♦ T a "x•. Argg,7pge,as.of Divided -? " • La gerHomes ' Areas of Divided Opinion``' and Hotels `F..f •..Job r Growth ' •:-Po ential Development Areas.. i L ' .z,Fashion Island Newport Center ` Airport Business Area • Ba ning Ranch t r.l � Argg,7pge,as.of Divided Opinion " • La gerHomes Tosm and Hotels _.• :. -.. ?• Trar spor_ation Improyemen`-s ,` ZIP = .I� Re. &ntial Neighborhoods and Traffic Impacts ' • Ecoriomic Development =; i L ' I i 4 Potential Development Areas • What types of additional commercial growthPldbe acceptable in Fash'ib*W.Wa'hd­, I Newport Center and, the Airport Business Area,: if any? • Is mixed rwesidential!comme'rciaI use develop-r's' pent acceptable at,these .Sites.. A In J6`b4Growth • Shotild.th6'City continue to promote job. growth? • If so,:what type•of jobs should be promoted and what will their impacts.be? 4 Potential Development Areas • What types of additional commercial growthPldbe acceptable in Fash'ib*W.Wa'hd­, I Newport Center and, the Airport Business Area,: if any? • Is mixed rwesidential!comme'rciaI use develop-r's' pent acceptable at,these .Sites.. A In If to I • WKat:a e exist?..'. ... . wv."'V!A+ B'a-n'-n' i n''O-­�,EZ,6 X Ireeof preser.va Went is best? al:assesst' `assessment)) Iere required is e ihd;� prope qi� 'open hat amount would residents to pay? . ..... rhative fundin"g sources might Larger-Homes Are ere specific. areas.ip the M-Mlify'where Iwo& homes are a '� fprbb em? W hlere • should existing reg' lk8n� ebn e f 6tid��ned or are the�' f5d' ' t frr " *nbw? xr 4:1 h ' '-Sh . be `.. Wl j de tip —Trc, Do ne( Ho - is t sut :y:a•'•�_ q- .,...:J +,` -- is .�. .,:? I ririore tourist acconim-o, atiop " s. ; : i{ anywhere, would `rie� hotel . - pm ent.be..acceptabfe? .. at,`-7. )f hotels ate accepta �.M ' 17 •�)/ ,�t�• y . S jortation: Improvements traffic congestion' bd "- iti(gated? )mmunity willing to significantly e i localahuttle systems? •;;nowsnouaine -Li _te eo traffic Rp s o i neighoro ds • VUh 'fraffic,calmingeasure's``are:> acre ta5le,.if.any; an where? v ra • ,V11ha tde or regi_orial.solutioris ±.•�� ' z might eA, t ?': In -ri . i •.General PIan.101 = ► ,r:". • Technical studies.. revieW. • Giiest speakers". Gene'61 Plan.developmentf' ' �" •. ..�.!.•�:'�!� .ice= �'.!C '7�i �j.! .. �.. �:. GetierW PW Update Process.