Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/2004 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session April 13, 2004 - 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. - None 2. CITY PARKLAND ENCROACHMENT. City Manager Bludau reported that this item went to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB &R) about six weeks ago. He said staff felt it should be taken to the City Council to provide direction to staff on a policy regarding parkland encroachments rather than do an appraisal. General Services Director Niederhaus introduced Marcy Lomeli, Parks & Tree Superintendent, and Randy Kearns, Park Superintendent, and pointed out that this process has been jointly worked on with Public Works and the City Attorney's office. He noted that an additional piece of correspondence was received via email from Laura Curran protesting the sale or transfer of parkland. He also noted that the six property owners on Malabar and the owner on Kings Road have all been very cooperative in assisting staff to find documentation and the history of this issue. Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Niederhaus explained that there are two encroachments. One encroachment is a single encroachment by a single homeowner on Kings Road and the other six and possibly more are in Irvine Terrace Park. He indicated that those are the two issues that will be addressed today and that staff is looking for direction on how to proceed. As far as the encroachment in Kings Road Park, it is a private encroachment on the eastern park boundary and the improvements (fencing, landscaping and irrigation) weren't discovered until December 2003. When the encroachment was discovered, staff approached the property owner and they indicated an interest in resolving the issue. He noted that the current property owner inherited the encroachment when they purchased the home approximately one year ago, however the encroachment probably goes back 20 -25 years. The encroachment includes about 1000 square feet of private improvements. When the matter was taken to the PB &R Commission after the staff denied the encroachment permit, the Commission directed a 60 -day delay in the removal of the improvements to allow staff time to conduct an appraisal and land survey of the encroachment. Mr. Niederhaus indicated that staff found those services to be very expensive so they approached the City Manager who directed staff to Volume 56 - Page 802 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 13, 2004 INDEX bring this item to the Council. Using an aerial photo, he showed the encroachment area and pointed out that Kings Road Park is a small pocket view park that has an upper and lower section. He noted that the fenced off area is approximately 1000 square feet and includes private improvements. He pointed out the slope area and noted that it is at the northern end of the encroachment, is very inaccessible to the public and has limited value. He showed pictures looking down the slope, explained the improvements on the property and noted that evidence was found of homeless living in the area. Mr. Niederhaus explained that the City cleared the area when the fence was installed to keep people from falling away from the park property. He noted that the encroachment extends from left to right down the hillside. He said there were survey markers that show the property line and there is a sewer easement inside of the encroachment that services the Hackler residence and goes down to the bottom of the hill. He noted that the area is landscaped with king and queen palms and irrigation. Mayor Ridgeway pointed out property in the area where escrow is about to be closed with the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The OCSD plan to build a new pump station and they are working with the Coast Community College (CCC) across the street for the excess land. CCC is in desperate need of expansion facilities. He noted that the ultimate plan shows a pedestrian bridge from the new classrooms. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the LCP Committee has identified this as an ideal location for coastal access for everybody in the community up above. He noted that the access will probably go across parkland and there is an opportunity for a dedication through the CCC project over to the CCC. He explained that he is providing this information as background and noted that he will be opposing this because of these reasons_ In response to Mayor Pro Tern Adams, he explained that the access would probably be provided by switchbacks in order to be ADA compliant. He further noted that the conceptual plans on the highway show an elevator and totally ADA access for the bridge. Council Member Webb said he recognizes the importance of the coastal access, however voiced concerns with switchbacks because of the degree of slope. He said he believes the neighborhood needs to review this and look at it as far as that type of access is concerned. He said the encroachment is a landscape encroachment and stated that the landscaping is more attractive than the ice plant. The encroachment has been there for probably 30 -40 years and no one has had a problem with it. If it is legitimized with an encroachment permit with the understanding that there is a 30 -day cancellation period with necessary restrictions concerning insurance for watering, etc., it could continue to be a better looking area than the adjacent park. He said he also believes that it should not be sold. Mayor Ridgeway stated that he would not support any type of appraisal or sale of that parcel. Council Member Webb explained that the Hacklers have done an excellent job of landscaping the area and he thinks it has added to the neighborhood and the attractiveness of the slopes. He noted that the public really can't get to the area due to the steepness of the slope. With an encroachment permit, the City can ask the property owner to remove improvements at any time. It gives the City the ability to have some type of insurance that guarantees that should the irrigation lines break or there are Volume 56 - Page 803 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 18, 2004 INDEX problems, then the property owner would be responsible for repairing them. He said that this is an area where the City should consider an encroachment permit, but definitely not a sale. Mayor Ridgeway reiterated that the information he provided earlier about CCC is all conceptual — there is no coastal access through the park at this time, there has not been an approval for the OCSD pump station, and there's not been approval for any type of CCC facility, however these issues have been around for two years or longer. He said his main concern is that this is a public park and there is a potential for coastal access to be discussed on this site as the City works through the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) update. Referring to Irvine Terrace Park, Mr. Niederhaus explained that this encroachment consists of six properties along the western boundary of Irvine Terrace Park. He stated that the original fence was built in the early 1990's by the City to prevent public access and to deal with other problems such as vandalism and homeless people invading the area. The residents in some cases have fenced off part of the parkland property, which from reading the history was somewhat encouraged by the City, although not necessarily in writing. They seem to have been encouraged to landscape, keep the area clear and keep the watershed in good condition. In the late 1970's at least two of the property owners acquired legal ownership of portions of the park. Four of the properties were allowed to be transferred in ownership although it appears only two accepted final agreements. He showed a pictorial of the extensive encroachments that occurred in the area and noted that the matter has a long history that goes back to the issue going before the PB &R Commission and City Council in 1978. The PB &R Commission were briefed on this issue in February 2004. Staff was directed by the Commission to undertake further study of the ownership and value of the land. He explained that there are six property owners that live along Malabar and in some cases the encroachments are minimal and in others there are extensive encroachments, which extend 30 to 80 feet. One of the property owners voluntarily did a poll for staff and information in the form of a petition was received from all six property owners indicating an interest in purchasing the parkland. Using an aerial photo, he described the properties and indicated that the properties with the encroachments are from 700 to 730 Malabar. For two of the properties (718 and 724), the City has deeds of transfer. He noted that the area is a fairly heavily wooded area which is a watershed. There are two easements on the property — an Edison easement along the upper area that goes through the backyards and a larger easement for storm drains that extends down and across the back of the property. The Irvine Terrace fence is along the boundary and on a steep slope. There are also gates installed which seem to be part of the agreement that was done in the early 1990's with the then Parks Superintendent and the adjacent property owners to allow them to have some privacy. The property owners were allowed to purchase gates and staff has used the gates as access to go onto the property to look at the encroachments with the cooperation of the property owners. City staff replaced the locks so City personnel have access to the area as well as the property owners. He showed pictures of the various encroachments in the area and described them in further detail. He noted that the encroachment with the structure on it was not one of the ones that was transferred — it was offered but was not accepted. Council Member Heffernan noted that 30 to 80 feet is a significant piece of real estate regardless of its practical usefulness. Mr. Niederhaus confirmed that there may not be structures or landscaping in the Volume 56 - Page 804 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 13, 2004 t s► entire 30 to 80 feet. He noted that when they arrived to investigate this issue they found private locks on the gates, however they worked with the property owners to replace them with City locks so that staff could access the property as needed with their permission. When first installed, he explained that the City allowed the gates to permit the property owners to use the playground, tennis courts and restrooms in the park. Council Member Webb indicated that to the best of his recollection when this came up in the 1970's there was a situation where there was a slope with a lot of trees and underbrush and there were significant complaints from the neighbors that people were getting into the slope areas. The solution at that time was the installation of a fence, which he said he believed was installed by the City with perhaps help from some of the neighbors. The fence was installed at the top of the slope as it broke over so some sort of security could be provided to keep the children in the playground from going into the slope area, as well as to keep people from going in there late in the evening to spend the night. Mayor Ridgeway explained that he was on the Irvine Terrace Homeowners Association when the relationship occurred between the City and the homeowners. In response to Mayor Ridgeway, Mr. Niederhaus explained that the only two that have been transferred according to the records were 718 and 724. He explained that 730 was offered for sale, however staff was unable to locate an execution of an agreement. He noted that the rest of the property owners never followed through on any type of purchase agreement. Mr. Niederhaus noted that the land behind the Murray property is still owned by the City and it's the smallest of all the parcels. Mayor Ridgeway stated that he lived on Malabar around 1979, at which time the tennis courts and the wall were not there and the park area was very deteriorated and not built out to what it currently is. The problem that existed at the time was with the coyotes and pets getting killed in the area, which he believes led to the cooperative agreement between the current owners and the City. He indicated that the walkway existed at that time; however the improvements and fence did not exist then. In response to Council Member Webb, Mr. Niederhaus stated that the City has not maintained any of the landscaping on the westerly side of the fence. Mr. Niederhaus indicated that staff checked with the City Attorney's office and the sale of parkland is addressed by California law and it deals with how the park was purchased (what funds were used and whether or not the City can transfer title). Before anything further can be done this would have to be investigated in addition to doing a title search and appraisal In summary, Mr. Niederhaus indicated that all of the areas are inaccessible and have a reduced value to the City, and each one has at least one utility easement on it. In the late 1970's the sale was authorized and at least two of the four properties or a portion of them were sold or conveyed. There have been no further approvals of private encroachments into the parkland or the sale of parkland. Mr. Niederhaus indicated that staff developed five alternatives. The alternatives are: 1) approving or denying private encroachments; 2) approving or denying sale of parkland property; 3) requiring land surveys and appraisals; 4) providing direction to the PB &R Commission or staff on how to handle long term use or Volume 56 - Page 805 ;, City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 13, 2004 INDEX sale of parklands; or 5) developing a Council policy on the sale or conveyance land in compliance with State law. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Adams' question about an easement versus transfer, Public Works Director Badum said that since it is a City park he could envision some kind of an encroachment agreement that could be entered into with each property owner for their use until such time as the City decides on another use for that property. Mr. Badum noted that the current policies don't allow staff to make such approvals; therefore it would have to be a decision made by the Council. Council Member Bromberg noted that the properties in Irvine Terrace are all in his District. He said he agrees with Mayor Pro Tern Adams and Council Member Webb and noted that the City has acquiesced to this and in fact helped them along for the last 25+ years. He noted that there are all kinds of issues involved (privacy, safety, etc.) and he can't see the City selling the parkland. He said he believes the residents would probably be happy leaving it the way it currently is. He said he would be very comfortable with an encroachment permit or easement as long as it has appropriate conditions including insurance, etc. He said he knows the City does not have adverse possession to a government but it looks like this is something the City has helped create. He said he would be fine with leaving it the way that it is, however formalizing the situation with either an encroachment permit or easement. Council Member Heffernan noted that the land has a value of probably $200- $300 per square foot based on the price of the homes and giving them an encroachment permit basically gives them the right to use public property for free. He said if the City is basically going to give someone property then he would like to see what the civic purpose of doing that is, other than being a good neighbor. He said that if the land is appraised it would be valuable land for someone who wants a backyard and the degree of privacy it affords. He stated that the question is whether the City should be in the business of giving people encroachment permits just because of past mistakes or oversights. Council Member Bromberg stated that the City could charge a fee for it. Council Member Nichols questioned whether any thought had been given about the use of the property. He questioned whether any of the utility easements will ever be moved. In response to alternatives, Mr. Niederhaus indicated that the only thing that ever came to mind was a type of environmental nature center; however it didn't seem to be very popular with the adjacent property owners because that is why the fencing originally was installed. City Manager Bludau reported that staff has not considered relocation of the utilities. Council Member Webb reported that on property even more valuable than this property (the Oceanfront beach encroachments) the City has allowed 10 — 15 feet of encroachment with a fee. In general the City should work towards a policy that states that encroachments are limited into the park areas to the maximum extent possible and that each area is looked at separately so there isn't a "one policy fits all" type of situation. He said that in the instance of the Hacklers if they were to come in today and ask for an encroachment it probably wouldn't be granted. He said the Irvine Terrace Park is a different type of situation since there are no view constraints and no views to be protected. He said that the Volume 56 - Page 806 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 13, 2004 INDEX slopes are so steep that it would be very difficult to have safe public access through them for uses such as an interpretive center. He noted that this is a situation where the residents are using it and they are maintaining the trees and landscaping which creates a beautiful border to the park. Council Member Webb said that if the City were to sell the property it should place significant restraints on what can be developed on the slope and rear area, so that larger buildings and dwellings could not be built close to the park and the landscaping can not be removed. The property should only be valued as a backyard property and not as something that would allow for larger buildings to be built on the other parcels. Val Skoro indicated that he was one of the main instigators on trying to get resolution of this particular issue. He said that this was brought to his attention when one of the homeowners on Malabar was selling his property. He pointed out that some of the encroachments are about the size of a lot in Old Corona del Mar and the lot values in Irvine Terrace start over $1 million. He said there needs to be some resolution from the standpoint of the liability issues. If easements are granted and adequate monetary fees collected, the fees should be used for park improvements. Jan Vandersloot spoke in opposition to the sale of the land and also the continued allowance of the encroachments. He said the reason the area isn't used by the residents now is because of the fence. If it weren't there or if it were put along the adjacent landowners' property line, the public would be able to use that feature. He said that kind of feature would be a wonderful addition to the park, similar to Castaways and Cliff Drive Parks. The growth of the vegetation could be managed by City staff and volunteers to allow children to play in the wooded area. In the case of Irvine Terrace the area could be a water feature, part of the treatment of urban run -off and there could be a riparian area. He said he believes it has greater value to the public than is being portrayed. Dr. Vandersloot asked the Council to consider doing what is right for the people of Newport Beach and not just the homeowners. As far as the Kings Road area, he stated that the area can be landscaped with native vegetation. He stated that he'd be happy to get involved and try to get some of the state agencies involved to restore these areas. He pointed out that the City of Costa Mesa turned down the issue of the sale of Fairview Park, but they did allow continuing encroachments up to 39 inches. He urged the Council to provide an alternative analysis to see what else can be done with the property. Robert Walchli stated that from Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar to Marinapark to the beach encroachments on the peninsula, it seems like every year he has to remind the Council that the public's land is just that, the public's land. He said that the Council has to stop people from taking over public property for their own private use and profit. He noted that every time the Council gives up public land to a private property owner it sets a precedence and it shouldn't make any difference whether the land is useable or not. He requested that the Council deny any usurpation of public land and require its immediate recovery, wherever it is located. He said the City needs a policy of no usurpation of public land regardless of where it is. He noted that a lot of the property appears to be flat land and he agreed with Dr. Vandersloot that it would be a wonderful environmental park. As far as the Kings Road property he said it is his understanding that CCC has funds for the expansion. He Volume 56 - Page 807 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 13, 2004 reiterated the value of the land. INDEX Dennis Baker said he concurs with Dr. Vandersloot about putting the fence on the other side so the property owners get to look at it instead of the park users. He said that when the talk is about the property owners using the land it is useable, however when the talk is about giving public access to it then the land becomes unusable. He said he believes there could be some alternative uses for the property and would provide a place for children to explore. He also noted that homeless people already sleep in the park. Mr. Baker stated that he is opposed to any sale of the land and allowing any future encroachments into the area. He referenced the Huntington Library and said that the draw through the area could be an attractive addition to the park. Mayor Ridgeway stated that when there was no fence on the upper portion each of the properties on Malabar had a grape stake fence that was installed by the original developer. Mark Murray said he has one of the homes where partial land was conveyed. He said he bought the land in 1994 from a real estate attorney and since that time they built a 600 square foot addition out to within 5 feet of the setback of the property that they bought. He said his offer was contingent upon doing the research with the utilities and he had to re -route the utilities. The seller provided him documents from the City with the survey stating that the property beyond the land conveyed was for the sole use of the homeowner, could not be built on but could be landscaped. He stated that he would not have built a 600 sf addition out to within 5 feet of the setback if there was ever the potential of a fence there nor would he have, bought the house. He noted that the slope at his house is 8 feet, runs the entire length of the City property and it slopes down. He noted that currently homeless people hang out there. He said the land with the slope is not patrolable; it's a major legal issue and not the way it was conveyed to him. He said the property owners have no problem with the City having locks on the gates and they would love to have the City access the land and maintain the trees. He said he spends thousands each year maintaining the slopes and the trees and reported that he has had two major bough breaks. Mayor Ridgeway requested a copy of the letter referenced by Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray clarified that he is not claiming that he bought the land, however he's claiming that the area was presented to him as parkland that he could landscape and maintain. He voiced concerns about the legal language used such as "usurp and encroaching on parkland ". Mr. Murray reported that a survey was done and it showed that he built within 5 feet of the property that was reconveyed to him and the property beyond the 5 feet is property owned by the City, maintained by the City (which its not) and he's able to landscape it. Mr. Murray indicated that there are CC &R's that apply to the land that was conveyed to him and he built within the CC &R's. Walter Hackler stated that moving the fence that is adjacent to his property would not give the public access to the City property. He noted that the only access to that property is from his property. Jessica Joiner stated that she takes offense to the term encroachment since they have not built any structures on the property; however they spend thousands of dollars annually watering and maintaining the property. She stated that the Volume 56 - Page 808 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 13, 2004 INDEX fence was installed because of the transient nests in the area. She pointed out that the pictures don't adequately show the steep slope and the vegetation. She indicated that she has continued to plant more trees on the slope as a buffer for the noise from the tennis courts, as well as for privacy. She said she understands the liability issues the City is concerned about and reported that they don't go back there. Council Member Bromberg encouraged the property owners in Irvine Terrace to invite him to their homes to tour their yards. Ms. Joiner indicated that they may possibly consider a purchase because they feel that the money from the sale could be used for the completion of other parks in the City which would benefit a broader range and more residents in the City. Council Member Bromberg said he would like to see this item come back with the same options presented by staff. He said hopefully Council will have a better opportunity to look at the property and look at both sides of the issues raised. He indicated that he'd like more information on the legal, liability and safety issues as well. Discussion ensued about the valuation issue and whether or not the property should be appraised. Mayor Pro Tem Adams suggested that staff bring back some rough cross sections of the property in order to provide a better idea of where the houses are, where the slopes are, etc. Council Member Rosansky suggested that staff prepare a policy on how to deal with this type of issue. Council Member Webb pointed out that the Council does have a policy that deals with encroachments; however it may need to be amended to include park areas. He said he concurs with Mayor Ridgeway that the Council should not consider the sale of these properties, however may consider approving encroachments permits. He stated that the fees collected from the encroachments on the Irvine Terrace Park could be used for the maintenance of all the trees and the property owners would accept all of that responsibility. Council Member Nichols said he thinks the encroachments in some of the others areas also need to be considered. 3. JOINT SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - PLANNING ISSUES REPORT. Commissioners Present: Ed Selich, Barry Eaton, Earl McDaniel, Michael Toerge and Jeffrey Cole Commissioners Absent: Larry Tucker and Steven Kiser Assistant City Manager Wood reported that this is the first of seven study sessions with the Planning Commission and the City Council that are called for in the scope of work for the General Plan update. The sessions have been planned at junctures to make sure we're headed in the right direction working with the General Plan Update (GPUC) and Advisory (GPAC) committees. She noted that this session is to focus on the planning issues that have been identified. She introduced Woody Tescher, EIP Associates consultant, to provide an introduction and guide the discussion. Mr. Tescher reported that the research was recently completed on all of the existing conditions, trends, and characteristics of the City and a document was produced containing the information. He indicated that the paper distributed is a summation of the findings of the research, as well as some of the findings from the visioning process from the perspective of the community. He indicated that the document is intended to set in place a statement of fundamental underlying Volume 56 - Page 809 1(100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 13, 2004 INDEX issues (problems as well as opportunities facing the City). He reported that the document is organized according to a number of major topics: land use, circulation, environmental resources, environmental hazards, community services, infrastructure, etc. The columns contain a summation of the key points that have been made and were made regarding those issues in the visioning process, as well as those that emerged from the technical analyses that were conducted for the research paper. Mr. Teacher reported that this set of issues has been reviewed by GPAC and GPUC and will provide a foundation for a series of topics that will be used to define policies in the subsequent phase of the process. He noted that these are intended to be a statement of the key kinds of concerns and opportunities for which policy will be crafted as the process moves forward. He indicated that the hope is to view this document from two perspectives: 1) are these valid issues, perspectives of the City of Newport Beach; and 2) is there anything that has been missed. He indicated that if there isn't sufficient time today for everyone to provide comments than a process can be set up to provide the comments to staff so this phase of the project can be completed in the next several weeks. LAND USE (pgs. 1 — 7) Mr. Teacher reported that the document addresses land use from a number of different perspectives: 1) some statements about use and growth within the community; 2) discussion about types of land use (residential, commercial, mixed-use opportunities, industrial, recreation and open space, etc.); and 3) specific types of concerns that were addressed regarding a number of very specific targeted sub -areas of the City which were identified by a GPUC subcommittee. In response to Mayor Ridgeway, Ms. Wood reported that there are 38 members on GPAC and 12 on GPUC and further explained that GPAC is the advisory committee that was appointed to make recommendations on general plan policy to the Planning Commission and City Council. GPUC is composed of three Council Members, three Planning Commissioners and members of various citizens' advisory committees and their role is to function as a steering committee and guide the process. Council Member Bromberg reported that the presentation has been provided to two committees that he sits on (EDC and GPUC), so a number of those present have already seen the presentation one or more times. He noted that it's been a very productive presentation thus far. Mayor Ridgeway stated that GPAC and the concept of a general plan amendment with recommendations by the committee analyzing both the visioning process and technical background report works well in a community where there is a general plan which is "general ". He said the City's general plan is so specific it creates constraints from the very beginning, which creates problems. He said when he looks at the study areas; he questions how 38 people can provide broad policy general plan comments when everything is so specific. He said what is needed by GPAC, related specifically to the study areas, is stakeholder input and interest in every study area because of the specificity of the City's general plan, which he doesn't believe exists right now. He encouraged the consultant to conduct individual meetings with individual Volume 56 - Page 810 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 13, 2004 INDEX they are the best ones to look at land use in the area. Council Member Nichols reported that he has two or three comments per page and doesn't think it's possible to present them at today's meeting. Mr. Teacher explained that from the basic thrust of the statement staff was hoping to determine whether the information is an accurate reflection or is the direction that is reflective of the community of either the concerns or opportunities of if something is missing. He indicated that general comments, etc. can be provided to staff. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the document addresses mixing commercial and residential, however the words "mixed use" and "smart growth" are avoided, which is inevitable with high land costs and the continued regional growth from all sides. Mayor Pro Tem Adams says he thinks mixed use is reflected everywhere throughout the document and he has issues with where that is coming from. He noted that in the foundation work there is a lot of assumption about the benefits of mixed use but they are really never articulated. He said if that is going to become a major focus in some of these areas, he said he would like to see a good foundation for it. Council Member Nichols stated that he has gotten feedback that some of the mixed use in Cannery Village hasn't worked out quite as well as everyone thought it would and also noted that there is constant conflict in Corona del Mar because commercial and residential are close to each other. He said he thinks mixed use residential needs to be examined to determine if its working. Commissioner Eaton reported that he had questions that he sent directly to Mr. Teacher and based on those questions and answers there may be some changes to the document. He reported that he and Commissioner Cole attended the Planning Commissioners Institute recently and mixed use was the hottest topic there. He said he believes the market is headed in that direction and there will be market interest in that to a much greater extent than in the past. Mayor Ridgeway explained that "mixed use — smart- growth" is to try to create jobs right where the housing is and to lessen the congestion in the regional system. In response to Commissioner Toerge's question about the "policy" and "framework" columns, Mr. Teacher explained the intent of the columns. Commissioner Toerge indicated a difficulty in understanding the difference between two sections dealing with gymnasiums and athletic fields. Commissioner Cole referred to the visioning comments and asked if an area is identified later that should be included as mixed use if it would be too late to add it. Mr. Teacher said it would not be too late and reiterated that the visioning process was intended to be a framework and it is recognized that other areas may surface. The visioning process focused on specific targets and it was realized that after further discussion and analysis there may be additional options that would surface. Where there are pre - existing specific plans, Mr. Teacher explained that a series of discussion papers for each of the geographic areas are being developed and in those papers some of the issues will be summarized. There will also be a section that deals with what the land use options are and one of the starting points listed are existing specific plans or other efforts that have been defined to establish policy. As GPAC considers the options for each area they will have the reference for what has been in place Volume 56 - Page 811 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 13, 2004 gyp) DI` previously, including specific plans. Mayor Ridgeway asked Mr. Teacher whether he thinks it's possible within the process to create a broad brush policy for areas like Corona del Mar, referencing the Vision 2004 program and its inconsistency with the character of the area. He questioned whether that type of policy statement would be able to be created for each type of sub- category and/or geographical area. Mr. Teacher indicated that the intent is to focus in on the issues starting with the policies that have been defined today and defining a series of issues. The inconsistency issue dealing with Corona del Mar will be defined as an issue and will be a focus part of the discussion with GPAC. Mr. Tescher explained that beyond GPAC there is a process built in to go back to the community as the alternatives are defined through the GPAC process. In a broader series of meetings with the public, the question about whether we're headed in the right direction will be asked. He reiterated that the intent is to establish policy to the extent that it can accurately reflect the views of the people who are brought to the table as part of the process. In response to Mayor Ridgeway, Mr. Tescher indicated that density and intensity will be looked at as part of the process. Referring to page 7, Commissioner Toerge stated that an additional constraint in the airport region is that a lot of the properties are developed under ground leases. He indicated that it is not included in the report; however it is a very viable constraint which will restrict the ability to plan and develop the area in the future. Mayor Ridgeway indicated that there are sales of the ground leases; however they usually have SLR's attached to them, which is a constraint. Council Member Nichols indicated that the City has predominantly been commercial in that area, however it's evident that Irvine is moving into the area with massive residential and questioned whether the City should be considering that for the area. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (pgs. 8 — 12) Referring to page 9 under "Retail Commercial" Council Member Nichols stated that where it states that such uses could be located in the airport areas and in other areas near the State Route 73 corridor, as far as retail commercial, there is no residential in the area which means that it's not useable and the commercial is not accessible all the time. CIRCULATION (pgs. 13 — 16) Referring to page 14 which states that the role of automobiles on Coast Highway should be de- emphasized with enhanced accessibility for other modes (pedestrian access from the beach to Mariners Mile) and traffic in Corona del Mar shall be decreased, Mayor Ridgeway indicated that he believes it is a fairly unrealistic comment. Council Member Nichols concurred by citing some examples and said he believes the document opposes itself. Mr. Tescher indicated that through the discussions of the committee these types of contradictions should be identified, however noted that these are issues that were identified during the visioning process. He said that during the process as each of the land use options is defined, traffic analyses will be run and they will specifically be looking at the conflicts to try to resolve them. ENERGY SYSTEMS (water, wastewater, storm drain, solid waste. energy) (pgs. Volume 56 - Page 812 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 13, 2004 16-19) � D► Mayor Ridgeway noted that on page 17 the discussion of the Groundwater Replenishment System is not addressed and it will provide 100 million gallons of fresh water daily by probably 2015. Referring to the comment about the opportunity for the City to consider desalination plants, he indicated that is unrealistic since they are only built where there is existing infrastructure and the only infrastructure in Orange County is the AES plant in Huntington Beach. SERVICES (fire and police protection, education, and parks) (pgs. 20 — 23) Council Member Nichols said that in reference to parks there seems to be a dichotomy. He noted that the Coastal Commission says there can't be use parks in the coastal zone and then there is an indication that the City is in dire need of use parks. He said he concurs with that; however you can't take all the land for parks and put it into nature parks and then say we have no land for use parks. He said that the City is trying to go to two approaches and maximize each on the same land without any discussion. Commissioner Eaton referred to page 22 which says there are largely urbanized vacant parcels available for active park development, and stated that Mr. Tescher pointed out to him that this came out of the land use section of the technical background report and had to do with park designated parcels. Mr. Tescher confirmed that the report contains an analysis of existing vacant lands and documentation that portions of those may already be designated for parklands. 186 acres of vacant land has been identified and some has been designated as parkland and some has not. It was strictly an analysis of vacant land; however the question of usability for the vacant land also comes into play which will have to be investigated. NATURAL RESOURCES (civil & cultural amenities, biological resources, hydrology & water quality, air quality, topography, visual, mineral and cultural resources) (pgs. 24 — 30) Mr. Teacher explained that SOI is "sphere of influence ". HAZARDS (coastal, seismic, geologic, flooding & fire hazards; hazardous materials management; aviation hazards and noise) (pgs. 30 — 35) — No comments. Mayor Ridgeway stated that he believes it's a fair assessment that the citizens and Council will probably be looking at basically land use and traffic issues. Jan Vandersloot, GPAC member, said that he concurs with the Mayor that the focus should be directed on land use and traffic since he doesn't think GPAC is doing much analysis in those areas. He said that whatever is decided it must pass muster with the traffic implications of what land use development there is. Referring to page 22 which states that the City is not meeting its goal for parkland and the City has identified a 2010 parkland need of 455 acres, which is 115 acres more than existing inventory and approximately 77 acres more than is expected to be available in 2010, he stated that the City needs more park space. He questioned where the City will get the park space and referred to the Volume 56 - Page 813 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 13, 2004 previous agenda item related to the encroachment issue on Irvine Terrace where there is park space that could be used. He stated that one of the places with enough land for park space is the Banning Ranch property. He further stated that this property is frequently discussed at the GPAC meetings and could be used for both passive and active park uses. He said the City should be considering ways in which the Banning Ranch property can be acquired. Referring to his email which identified statements on pages 5, 6 and 7 dealing with multiple ownership of parcels inhibiting the area's cohesive and integrated development, he said it is framed as a policy statement. He questioned whether that is a policy that the City wants to encourage and questioned whether the statement is true. Dr. Vandersloot stated that he doesn't think it is true and believes that a cohesive policy for development can be written and it doesn't need to be bundled up into single ownership of multiple parcels. He stated that this came from Carol Hoffman who is not a member of GPAC; however it got insinuated that it came from GPAC, and asked how it made it into the document. Mayor Ridgeway stated that he belongs to the Urban Land Institute and noted that it is a constraint on cohesive and compatible development. He stated that this is the whole idea behind redevelopment agencies. Phillip Lugar, GPAC co- chair, thanked the consultant and staff for the information they bring to GPAC and stated that the committee has been provided the documents to be well informed. He indicated that they meet numerous times per month and said he senses that some people may be uncomfortable about what they're doing and how hard they are working. He said they have representatives from all of the "villages" and concerns around the City. He said perhaps more information needs to be shared with the Council and Planning Commission to assure them how hard the committee is working, what they're doing and the make -up of GPAC. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the document presented today is extraordinary and well put together and everyone should be commended. He personally thanked the members of GPAC for the untold hours they are putting into the process. He encouraged the Council and Commission members to forward any additional comments on this document to Assistant City Manager Wood or Planning Director Temple. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT - at 6:06 p.m. Volume 56 - Page 814 ad 15. City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 13, 2004 ***** ****rt*f� The agenda for the Study Session was posted on April 7, 2004, at 3:15 p.m on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. i RN A City Clerk Secretary Mayor Volume 56 - Page 815