The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGPAC_2002-04-08*NEW FILE* G PAC_2002_04_08 NEWP • GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS April 8, 2002 7:00-9:00 p.m. 7:00 7:10 General Plan Advisory Committee MEETING #2 Police Department Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive AGENDA I. Welcome and Introductions A Agenda Overview II. Discuss Proposed Project Schedule Changes • 7:30 III. Discuss Key Questions A. Review Results of GPAC Priority Question Exercise B. Discuss Priority Questions 8:30 IV. Launch Vision Sub Committee A. Committee Selection B. Purpose & Schedule 8:45 V. Next Steps 8:50 VI. Public Comments 40 • GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, March 11, 2002 at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Louise Greeley Larry Root Dorothy Beek Evelyn Hart John Saunders Marian Bergeson Bob Hendrickson Brett Shaves Philip Bettencourt Tom Hyans Robert Shelton Carol Boice Mike Ishikawa Ed Siebel Karlene Bradley David Janes Alan Silcock John Corrough George Jeffries Jackie Sukiasian Hoby Darling Mike Johnson Jan Vandersloot Julie Delaney Heather Johnston -Reynolds Don Webb • Laura Dietz Todd Knipp Jennifer Wesoloski Florence Felton Phillip Lugar Ron Yeo Nancy Gardner Catherine O'Hara Joseph Gleason Carl Ossipoff Members Absent: Yvonne Houssels — resignation received 3/11/02 Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator Members of the Public Present: Ernie Hatchell Dennis Baker • George Basye Leonard Anderson DRAFT I. Welcome and Introductions • Sharon Wood called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the General Plan Advisory Committee. Sharon advised the group that Mayor Ridgeway intended to recommend Bob Shelton as Chair of the Committee at Tuesday's Council meeting. Sharon then turned the meeting over to Mr. Shelton. Bob Shelton introduced Philip Lugar who will be recommended as Vice Chair by Mayor Ridgeway. Each committee member was asked to introduce him or herself and indicate their interest in this committee. Sharon introduced staff and indicated that the meetings would be taped to allow the public to view the meetings and stay in touch with the visioning process. II. Overview of the General Plan Update Visioning Process Sharon went over "what is a general plan". It is a 20-25 year blueprint for the City. The document addresses both private and City -owned land use and development, and includes policies and goals for the community. State law requires certain elements be contained within the document. The first Newport • Beach General Plan was adopted in 1972-74 with Land Use and Circulation updates in 1988. It is time for a comprehensive update of the complete document. MIG has been hired as a consultant for this the visioning/public outreach section of the process. EIP Associates has been selected to do the General Plan Update, and Woodie Tescher from that firm is participating in the visioning process. Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator, reviewed the process and what we are looking to accomplish with this committee. She reviewed the Vision Statement developed by the General Plan Update Committee and the steps already taken in the process. III. GPAC Charge, Roles and Responsibilities Participation guidelines were reviewed. GPAC Responsibility #6 was discussed, and Members were concerned about the wording. It appears to restrict their freedom of speech. Carol Verheyen explained that the intent was not to restrict access of Members to their Council representatives or the press; it was to have one spokesperson (GPAC Chair or Vice Chair) for any official Committee comment. Brown Act and Council Policies were reviewed by Sharon Wood. Committee • members were advised the Brown Act applies whenever agenda issues are discussed with a majority of the Committee even if this is outside the regular 2 meetings. Council Policy #A-10 was distributed to add to the policies already • provided. No changes were made to the proposed meeting schedule. Attendance issues were discussed. Committee members who know they cannot attend a meeting should contact Debbie Lektorich ahead of time. Members can communicate any issues to another member for discussion at the meeting missed, however proxy votes will not be permitted. Members cannot send someone in their place if absent, although another person could attend the meeting for the absent member only as a member of the public. IV. Neighborhood Workshops and Workshop Kits Carolyn Verheyen outlined the visioning activities now underway. Neighborhood Workshops are scheduled and Committee Members were encouraged to attend these meetings as well as promoting attendance in their own neighborhoods. Committee Members will be attending as members of the public in their own districts. If attending workshops outside their District, GPAC Members should listen to the comments offered at the meeting instead of participating. Members can and should introduce themselves as a member of the GPAC Committee. Workshop kits are available for community groups to hold their own workshops. • Twelve people were trained to facilitate these workshops. The Committee would like to have a list of hosts for the informal meetings so they could attend. V. Next Steps Committee Members requested several elements of the current General Plan. These elements will be distributed to them prior to the next meeting. They were advised this material should be used as background information only, this Committee is not responsible for re -writing the General Plan. The Committee Members will be provided with a copy of all 55 questions being used in the visioning process and will be asked to identify 3 to 5 questions they feel should be discussed by the Committee at the next meeting. VI. Public Comments No public comments offered. n u 3 • NEWP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Schedule Monday, March 11th Police Department - Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. 870 Santa Barbara Drive Monday, April 8th Police Department — Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, April 29th Police Department — Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, May 13th Police Department — Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, June 10th Police Department — Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, June 24th Police Department — Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. • NEWP(M.. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS CH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Roger Alford 1862 Tustin Newport Beach 92660 Phone: 949-645-3199 Work: 949-833-2815 Fax: 949-833-2876 E-Mail: roger hbla.com Dorothy Beek 620 W. Ocean Front Newport Beach, 92661-1112 Phone: 949-673-8744 Fax: 949-673-4991 E-Mail: beekdCa)aol.com • Phillip Bettencourt 10 Sugar Pine Road Newport Coast, 92657 Phone: 949-760-6061 Work: 949-720-0970 Fax: 949-721-9921 E-Mail: pbcourt pacbel1.net Carol Boice 2945 Catalpa Street Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-759-0809 E-Mail: wboice(o)adelphia.net Karlene Bradley 9 Summerwind Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-548-3016 E-Mail: karl)dob(@aol.com John Corrough 1004 South Bayfront Balboa Island, 92662 Phone: 949-673-8927 Work: 949-673-8077 E-Mail: jcorroughCa)aol.com Seth "Hoby" Darling 443 1/2 Begonia Ave. Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-675-8132 Work: 714-755-8198 E-Mail: hoby.darling@Iw.com Julie Delaney 1136 W. Balboa Blvd. #B Newport Beach, 92661 Phone: 949-723-8251 Work: 949-588-5060 x271 E-Mail: jp-jadCabaol.com Laura Dietz 325 Cameo Shores Road Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-721-8035 Fax: 949-721-1357 E-Mail: Ibekeart(a)aol.com Florence Felton 230 Lille Lane #201 Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-646-6192 Work: 949-553-5923 E-Mail: florence.felton@mindspring.com As of 4/2/02 • Nancy Gardner Tom Hyans 323 Jasmine 217 19t Street Corona del Mar, 92625 Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-673-0706 Phone 949-673-0333 Fax: 949-646-7093 Work: 949-673-3777 E-Mail: gardnerncy(a aol.com Fax: 949-673-0377 E-Mail: tomhyans pacbel1.net Joseph Gleason Jr. 606 W. Balboa Blvd. #1 Mike Ishikawa Newport Beach, 92661 438 Riverside Ave. Phone: 949-723-5068 Newport Beach Work: 949-225-9523 Phone: 949-650-3996 E-Mail: Iturner(a)broadcom.com Work: 949-293-1976 E-Mail: mnishikawa@adelphia.net Louise Greeley 16 Swift Court David Janes Newport Beach, 92663 121 Harbor Island Road Phone: 949-931-1475 Newport Beach, 92660 Fax: 949-645-0065 Phone: 949-675-0183 E-Mail: louisesg(a pacbell. net E-Mail: dianes pacbell.net • Evelyn Hart George Jeffries 49 Balboa Coves 1039 Goldenrod Avenue Newport Beach, 92663 Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-645-9127 Phone: 949-759-0400 Fax: 949-645-9127 Fax: 949-644-6999 E-Mail: ohartlinecd)aol.com E-Mail: gjj4 cox.net Ernie Hatchell Mike Johnson 19 La Rochelle 5803 Seashore Drive Newport Beach, 92660 Newport Beach, 92663 Phone: 949-721-8739 Phone: 949-642-3125 E-Mail: ehatch pacbell.net Work: 949-250-6369 x127 Fax: 949-642-5369 Bob Hendrickson E-Mail: delandmike0earthlink. net 1815 Newport Hills Drive East Newport Beach, 92660 Heather Johnston -Reynolds Phone: 949-759-1202 5424 Residencia Work: 949-721-9747 Newport Beach 92660 E-Mail: rhpacrealty(a)aol.com Phone: 949-640-7812 Fax: 949-253-3092 E-Mail: heather.fair@cox.net 2 As of 4/2/02 Todd Knipp Brett Shaves • 3110 Clay St. 1500 E. Ocean Blvd. Newport Beach, 92663 Newport Beach, 92661 Phone: 949-650-7068 Phone: 949-675-7390 Work: 949-644-3378 Work: 949-644-8900 Fax: 949-650-3843 E-Mail: bshaves@aol.com E-Mail: tknipp city.newport-beach.ca.us Robert Shelton Phillip Lugar 3719 Park Green Drive 1704 Park Avenue Corona del Mar, 92625 Newport Beach, 92662 Phone: 949-760-0390 Phone: 949-675-4982 Fax: 949-760-1136 Work: 949-824-9460 E-Mail: shelwaidCabaol.com E-Mail: philli Ipsla primenet.com Ed Siebel Catherine O'Hara 114 Apolena Avenue 1937 Port Albans Place Balboa Island, 92662-1214 Newport Beach, 92660 Phone: 949-673-7448 Phone: 949-640-7433 Work: 949-675-8736 E-Mail: oharas5 pacbell. net Fax: 949-675-0461 E-Mail: ges cenprowest.com • Carl Ossipoff 720 Bison Ave. Alan Silcock Newport Beach, 92660 9 Balboa Coves Phone: 949-644-0469 Newport Beach, 92663 Work: 818-569-7633 Phone: 949-722-6421 E-Mail: hiingyber@yahoo.com Fax: 949-722-6450 E-Mail: balboaal pacbell.net Larry Root 1210 Polaris Dr. Jackie Sukiasian Newport Beach, 92660-5724 1215 Baypointe Drive Phone: 949-548-9474 Newport Beach, 92660 E-Mail: rootis@adelphia.net Phone: 949-759-3191 Work: 949-219-2643 John Saunders Fax: 949-219-2657 26202 Glen Canyon E-Mail: jackie.sukiasian@adam-us.com Laguna Hills, 92653 Phone: 949-643-2399 Jan Vandersloot Work: 949-251-0444 2221 E. 16" Street Fax: 949-251-0888 Newport Beach, 92663 E-Mail: john( londoncoin.com Phone: 949-548-6326 Work: 714-848-0770 • Fax: 714-848-6643 E-Mail: jonv3aaol.com As of 4/2/02 Don Webb CITY STAFF: 1821 Mariners Drive Newport Beach, 92660 Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Phone: 949-646-3133 Work: 949-644-3222 E-Mail: don2webb(c)earthlink.net Fax: 949-644-3020 E-Mail: SWood(abcity.newpoort-beach.ca.us Jennifer Wesoloski 307 Montero Ave. Balboa, 92661 Phone: 949-675-3929 Work: 949-644-3147 Fax: 949-673-0838 E-Mail: jdwesoloski(o)cs.com Ron Yeo 604 Iris Corona del Mar, 92625 Phone: 949-644-7896 Work: 949-644-8111 Fax: 949-644-0449 E-Mail: ronyeo@)earthlink.net • Patty Temple, Planning Director Work: 949-644-3228 Fax: 949-644-3229 E-Mail: PTemple city.newport-beach.ca.us Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Work: 949-644-3238 Fax: 949-644-3229 E-Mail: TCampbell(aocity newport-beach ca us Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Work: 949-644-3000 Fax: 949-644-3020 E-Mail: DebbieL@city.newport-beach.ca.us 4 As or 4/2/02 Mr, and Mrs. Thomas E. Hyans 217 Nineteenth Street Newport Beach, CA 92663-4507 • Tel: (949) 673-0333 Fax: (949) 673-0377 January 6, 2002 The General Plan Update Committee City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Step Up to the Future; November, 2001 Dear Chairman Adams and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee; We are pleased that you have given us the opportunity to participate in the process to develop information for the preparation of the City's vision for the future, the various elements of the General Plan to be updated. Thank you for the invitation to comment along the way as we read through the excellent referenced document. Our responses are keyed to your "Questions to Consider" which questions are appended hereto for • reference. Our perspectives are those of Peninsula residents with a long history in Newport Beach. Tom worked his high School years (1948-1952) as a deckhand for various commercial and sportfishing concerns around the harbor. We built our home on ISP Street in 1967, and before that owned the cottage it replaced. Our children attended Newport El, Ensign, and Newport Harbor. But, enough of that, on with the purpose. Page 9; Questions to Consider. Our personal characterization of NB is that it is a great balance of upland and coastal residential uses, near to or surrounding the upper bay, lower bay and fronting the seaside. We have minimal and aged light industrial uses to the west, adequate retail and servicelcommercial uses citywide, and an excess burden of office commercial. Outsiders see us as a wealthy community, a seasonal beach town, a vacation (rather than tourist) destination, or a day -trip beach destination for Orange County and the Inland Empire. ■ Our vision for 2025 is the same, but with reorganization of aged, deteriorated commercial uses to residential, marginal industrial to high-tech R&D and service commercial, and no new high rise or high density development, anywhere. ■ Major obstacles include high land values, small lots, reticent commercial property owners, local traffic issues. ■ Our vision for our neighborhood (CV, McFadden, central peninsula) is a reorganization of uses to diminished, more centralized commercial, more residential, and retention of our resident friendly, day -visitor serving environment, and no new resort hotels. ■ Major obstacles to the neighborhood vision include commercial property owners, daily and seasonal traffic, building restrictions, and the undesirable prospect of free standing parking structures and increasing cost to City taxpayers for public area maintenance. ■ Three factors defining our QOL would include, yet not be limited to: tranquility; accessible open space and beaches; and the ability to share these, undiminished because of them, with visitors. ■ NB is a special place because of its harbor, estuary, beaches; because of the open and accessible spaces, limited development, all of which we can enjoy along with urbane benefits with only modest urbanization. Page 15; Questions to Consider. ■ We should commemorate our history by preserving the vestiges of our history in the area where it began, Cannery Village and McFadden Square. A permanent residence for a nautical history museum near there would be a good start. • Page 19; Questions to Consider. ■ Housing for those who "work" here, assuming these are not those who "hold positions" here who can afford existing housing, should be located in areas where land values are lowest, and where regulated higher density residential uses will not contribute to diminished QOL or higher traffic. ■ City services and facilities are adequate to the real need, however, watch for the "perceived" need to come from our new friends in the Newport Coast.. ■ Services and facilities are adequate. Perhaps, development of active parks should continue in upland areas, not in coastal or wetland areas such as the CalTrans West site where preservation of natural aspects is best. ■ The City should accommodate additional job growth only when there is overwhelming and demonstrable resident benefit from any project, in terms of continuing, real-time revenue growth, service to the residents of the community, etc. Page 25; Questions to Consider. ■ We trust the City (Electeds and Appointeds) to judge ways to better utilize harbors and beaches as visual and recreational resources, but, at this time, do not trust the City • to manage these as economic resources without popular oversight. IP ■ Undeveloped coastal bluffs should be preserved, beginning with retaining CalTrans West as a passive park, while developing active parks in conjunction with the nearby Banning Tract development. is ■ The City must preserve its remaining public view corridors, and moreover, should consider redefining "open space" designations which has become nothing more than a holding pattern for future determination. ■ There are no true "historic villages" off of the Balboa Peninsula. Here, the City should ensure retention of small scale, eclectic development rather than the homogenous, cloned development currently proposed for Cannery Village (Cannery Lofts). Page 40(a); Questions to Consider. Overall Development Preferences. ■ Use priorities for Mariners Mile or west NB industrial should consider high yield revenue sources, low density, low rise hotels, resorts (including Lido Marina Village) and high-tech industrial uses or destination service commercial. ■ Two locations come to mind for additional growth, Banning for residential and commercial, if detrimental traffic and school impacts can be resolved. The Airport area can accommodate additional low rise, low density commercial/office without making us look like a bunch of pro -ET, con-JWA hypocrites. ■ Zoning capacity should not be reduced. Consider away to minimize or eliminate opportunistic, excessive uses beyond entitlement so we can forget about Greenlight. ■ Yes, but mixed use developments do not have to be 3 to 4 stories in height. Cannery Village works at 2 stories. ■ There are areas of the city needing redevelopment, but not the bureaucratic variety with a capital "R"! Balboa Village has too much trashy commercial that even $8.8MM isn't going to help. Take a peek into the future at McFadden Square and see the abuse which resulted a few short years following $2.OMM of City and property owner assessment funds. Lido Marina Village needs to be a small resort hotel. PCH needs to be widened, un-bottlenecked, so to speak, with due respect, following Norma's tenure. ■ We have too much junk -commercial characterizing the Peninsula and PCH west of the Arches. Page 40(b); Questions to Consider. Residential. ■ The City should preserve and expand the contiguous residential neighborhoods into • adjacent marginal commercial areas by means of regulatory relief as to use, i.e., single family and mixed use. 3 ■ Considering NB land values established by limited supply, high demand, "affordable housing" is a nebulous term. Perhaps we should annex Costa Mesa! ■ The City should address residential/commercial conflicts by considering residents' benefit, need and desire, first, last and always, but of course, not necessarily exclusively. ■ Yes. "Mansionization" should be reasonably restricted when such conforming but excessive use threatens the future prospects for an established neighborhood. is Absolutely, yes. Excess commercial land should be converted to low density residential, especially on the Peninsula. ■ The City should not require merger of lots, especially in historic areas. Such mergers lead to non -characteristic over -development, e.g., Twenty -Eighth Street Marina, Balboa Towers. Retail. ■ There should be more development of revenue producing retail uses in Fashion Island, where there are nearly 200,000 s.f of remaining entitlement for such. Page 40(c); Questions to Consider. Office. ■ If there is to be additional entitlement, Newport Center should receive preference over the Airport area for office development; definitely no high rise, high density in the Airport area. Very limited high rise in Newport Center if there is, in fact, any new entitlement in the updated GP. Be aware that slipping in any additional high rise entitlement will be perceived as a ruse to circumvent Greenlight. Do not try to generalize the current GP format. It has been criticized as too detailed, but that is as was intended, to address popular concerns and consolidation of entitlement. Tourism. ■ We definitely want more TOT productive hotels, not time-shares. We do not want convention centers, conference centers, and resorts at the expense of limited bayside open space or residential neighborhoods. Public, visitor serving facilities, i.e., restrooms and parking, are essential, but must not•diminish the resources that exist and are the reasons the visitors come. Nor should they diminish the residential neighborhoods abutting these resources. No parking structures whatsoever, are acceptable, from our experience. Whatever is built for the visitor should be funded and maintained by the visitor. ■ We should continue to promote tourism to the degree it benefits the resident, directly. Generally, summer tourism in commercial facilities is good. Summer rentals in our . residential neighborhood are conducive to noise and law enforcement problems, trash, poorly maintained accommodations, and general decline of the neighborhood El compared to areas which are predominantly owner -occupied. Day -time visitors should be accommodated as is their right, however, they should be required to fund the facilities and the maintenance they require. Tidelands, parklands and open space. ■ Tidelands and other public land should be preserved as open space. The City has done fairly well, so far, with the balance and location of parkland and open space. But, we wonder about the future. We use whatever argument necessary to procure the CalTrans West property from the State. Now that we have that, why would we develop bluffs and wetlands into an active park, when the Banning Tract development is underway, with suitable acreage for active parkland close by? ■ Bond measures for the acquisition of parkland or open space are perfectly acceptable. If the project has merit and a referendum bond measure is proposed, all will be revealed in due course, the right way, by those who pay the tab.. Page 43; Questions to Consider. ■ Additional transportation improvements need to be made to accommodate growth in Newport Beach, but, within reason and not necessarily to accommodate regional growth. Improvements in circulation can either lead to or result from increases in density. Keep the development light and the capacity for circulation at the level of our tolerance. Is that level D? • Grade separation intersections are unacceptable, Widening PCH through Mariners Mile is essential, and must be done A.G. (After Glover.). The 17'h Street Bridge would be nice, but, good luck with that "regional growth" accommodation. ■ Congestion near the airport is absolutely of concern. However, we will not be able to fix it fast enough to keep up with more to come. Keep the development to a minimum, let the "level of tolerance" take care of that puppy! ■ The City should not try to accommodate regional growth with local "limited growth" and loss of "potential economic benefit" to NB, or any other forms of largesse. Define the degree of benefit to the residents of NB, and proceed! And, congratulations for limiting yourselves to this single loaded question. ■ City or any other funds to subsidize transit to reduce beach congestion will not work. It has been tried and failed several times, here. Picture your day at the beach: your carload of kids, beach toys, towels, food hamper, umbrella. Park at lot, unload, mount shuttle with kids and load, ride to beach, dismount shuttle with kids and load, enjoy the beach, sun, water. Homeward bound: pick up sandy, sunburned kids and sandy, wet load, buckets o' shells, proceed to and wait for shuttle, mount shuttle, ride to car, dismount shuttle with sandy, wet kids and load, load car. Go home. Next time: State Beach, no shuttle. E ■ We might protect our residential neighborhoods from traffic with traffic controls or other disincentives to use certain routes. • We might protect our residential neighborhoods from parking impacts by first making sure that garages are being used to store vehicles. Concentrate commercial areas, administer employee parking restrictions. Anything else will be tough, CCC-wise. You won't do anything for summer Sunday parking on the Peninsula, don't try. ■ Alternative modes of travel to get from where to where? Seasonal stuff doesn't work. How successful, or unsuccessful has your own employee ride -share program been with its monetary incentives? Don't bother. If there were reasonable and economically feasible means, they would be in place. Page 46; Questions to Consider. NB should apply maximum effort, litigation, civil disobedience or whatever, to restrict, maintain, shut down, or otherwise limit the impact of JWA on our City. An expanded JWA will be the ultimate ruin of this City. The City should encourage every citizen to drive through the airport at least daily, obstruct traffic, whatever it takes to discourage and limit (humanely and legally) air travelers. On the El Toro issue, save your (our) money, or you can poll my grandchildren in later years for timely suggestions for what to do next. Our land use strategy to prevent expansion of JWA should have been developed and . implemented immediately after the Settlement Agreement was signed 20 (?) years ago. Page 54; Questions to Consider. The City needs to improve no services, they're already too improved. Get on with privatization of some, including Public Safety; knock off the biennial lip service and give our City Manager some performance goals to achieve in the area of cost reduction. Now, there's a Citizens' Ad Hoc Committee worth the wait, the 'Ad Hoc Citizen's Advisory Committee for the Evaluation of the Cost of Those City ,services Which We Have Come to Expect vs. the Benefit Derived Therefrom with a View Toward Privatization, Reduction or Elimination. " ■ The City's funding priorities should not begin with higher wages, benefits, retirement programs, or labor agreements. Define the real need for capital and potential fund sources, and schedule infrastructure replacement, not to include relocating or expanding City Hall! is Until renewal of the infrastructure of sewers, water lines and roads is planned and funds sources are identified, there should be no bonded indebtedness for culture and arts. That is not to say that the City should not promote private funding for capital improvements on public land, where appropriate. • ■ NO, the City Hall should not be relocated to any location. Only a few of us know where you are now, don't be foolish! 9 Page 58; Questions to Consider. • Growth in the local economy to pay for municipal services and facilities needs to be viewed cautiously, as in "Who pays in what ways, what are the benefits and who derives the benefits?" Expansion with new resorts and hotels, new retail outlets and restaurants can be great revenue sources but need careful consideration to prevent negative impact on everyone's QOL. West Newport light industrial uses, high tech R&D are acceptable, like that fraud recently approved on Superior Avenue. Newport Center Office/Commercial should go forward only minimally, to any extent permitted by the current GP, as should Retail to build out that remaining 200,000 s.f. Restrictions should be retained or entitlements reduced in the Airport area. ■ The City should not financially assist revitalization of older commercial areas unless there is participation from property owners and other government agencies, there is consolidation and rezoning, and there is rock solid evidence (with someone's reputation or "job for life" on the line), that such revitalization will succeed. ■ To participate in increasing the diversity of NB's economic base, the City must identify the elements of said diversity, learn which are acceptable to the residents, accurately determine the affect on the base and how the diverse elements will contribute to the well-being of the residents. Qualifying elements should then receive regulatory relief commensurate with benefit to be derived. • ■ Incentives to anyone in the private sector wishing to improve the public infrastructure should not automatically, or without popular support, include changes such as increased height or density, or excessive entitlement beyond GP. If diminishing of QOL or quiet enjoyment result, no incentives should be given. In conclusion, we hope that the GP Update Advisory Committee can provide the consensus of the vision we, and others are trying to communicate. We look forward to listening to every word. We hope you do, as well. Sincerely, Darlene and Tom Hyans I �'�►— Appendix E 0 • P.9 11:11:1�.40vs XI Idenhey today? And what would your pdoneme be , for IInWI linfils future Identify? OW term? ,,Ah ■ What is yoa vision hu'llervilml Beach in Ilhe year 2025?, X What Me the Fh* OWe$ 10 M111194 YOU IN —%1,4 neighborhood? ee What me the obstailas to oddaving you Was [a - Yaw relghboew? a what three inches bass derm 'quality of life" for you? Newport Bombs as a spedd place?What we she leasons lbol make you want to In In Ilewporl. 1. Beach? P.1 5 ON P.1 9 x How should the Guy varmurgo and to haters, Ing to those who work fare? has [a scolas? Ifni, whit oEditks4servea ordla, locilithrs we needed? set Does dst 04 imovice adequoks zvkes DDd x5hoOdiheUqcon&Lvtooc=nodolaDd&,- P.25 m Should the Cltv better wilize its harbors and Imordws as a shared, macwhord and ecamum: assmoce? If so, IN HOWfMAmrbdWegOIDgXOIKIMMWba1fs? N Ilaxshadd the Grypesene Bsiemainnp pkGc;;' I, caadois, far asanplo, Iho Coastal Bluffs or Aa'4� y4m d a ham odor ponlanl InMd fee I■Wh N 'I if do to elect Wakc deforollosl golvil as? I at d she hh;i clotopholmlorismi tllot muynotbe hillon, but ' the carmaniy a R ondowimpailort pontsd iefeeentat at Inernivs os'C a a?" P-43 made to oncommodwo gfoA in 11"d Bomb drd*' mail";* """, W •N You Uv, turns be woo 10 swunwe tooreat a 11--o 0 Ate dtae dlaahvemadesaf Karel $00, "encourage? F L).",;... '. r—.14— 111111-0!1' In V&I tole sbassid'HeT'l Reach *Ylh Dirpod - nues p Should flne City be arms iiomese in p�f m I I othag; CUL Me fill am boadledinbe614 Pass? 'Ar'. u Should Ory Hwtl be velo(oled to a =to anual, W E F Is �1 Lido Sands Community Association Post Office Box 1373, Newport Beach, CA 92659 March 20, 2002 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 RE: 2002 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE West Newport shares with the rest of Newport Beach the attribute of being one of the best places to live on the planet. However, West Newport does have a unique "laid back"/sleepy beach town characteristic, which over the years has perhaps been misinterpreted as a `eve don't care" attitude. This perceived "don't care" attitude has resulted in a lack of attention paid by the City to this area when compared to the rest of the city, specifically regarding planning and enforcement. While the City has made many positive improvements to West Newport over the last few years, there are still a number of glaring problems related to density, traffic, safety, beautification, to name a few. The bottom line is that the residents of West Newport do care about the quality of this area and would like to see continued improvement in order to mitigate those glaring problems, so that we can share the level of quality in city amenities, infrastructure and services as is provided to the rest of the city. The Lido Sands Community Association Board is very excited at the prospect of being able to present our ideas regarding improvements to West Newport, and to thank the City for its efforts to reach out and hear what we have to say regarding our portion of Newport Beach. Attached is a listing of the areas of concern that we would like to see addressed in the near future by the City. We have also listed some possible suggestions in an effort to participate in solving these problems. Thank you once again for the opportunity to express our concerns. To her We Can Make A Difference, The Lido Sands Communit yssociation LIDO SANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (LSCA) GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AGENDA Neighborhood Workshop, March 20, 2002 Many of the following suggestions (ideas) have already been forwarded to City staff in letters, meetings and conversations, as well as discussed with former Councilwoman Jan Debay. SAFETY AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION • Limit parking near intersections to increase sight distance for improved safety. Larger parked cars mean less visibility for drivers as well as pedestrians. Red curbs could be lengthened to 20 feet from intersection to provide improved sight distance and safety for pedestrians. • Convert remaining numbered streets to one-way, similar to 32"d thru 47' streets. Narrow the lanes by two to three feet and use the remaining space for wider sidewalks and/or street trees. Currently, the numbered • streets are not wide enough for two cars to pass one another at the same time causing one car to jump the curb in order to pass or back up into the adjoining street. This causes pedestrians to climb into the planter to avoid being hit. If not made one way then parking should be eliminated. • Reclaim the City's right of way along the south side of River Avenue, (Balboa to 49`h), to build a sidewalk and add street trees. The City rigl t of way extends 10 feet behind the existing curb on both sides of the street. Property owners on the south side of the street have encroached illegally. This area is critically needed to provide landscaped parkways. • We should be looking at thru pedestrian corridors to provide safe passage for inland residents to the beach. This would include crosswalks across Seashore Drive at pedestrian access points. As a longer term project we should consider the elimination of one of the sidewalks on the numbered streets. This would permit a 6 foot wide sidewalk on one side with parking permitted. Existing sidewalks are 3.5' wide. • Use bulb outs at intersections to increase pedestrian visibility and provide street tree opportunities. • Provide sidewalk bikeway along the ocean front thru Newport Pier Parking Lot to accommodate safe passage for school kids. • Increase parking enforcement (Section 22500 of the Motor Vehicle Code) especially red zone violations and parking across sidewalks and in • front of driveways. Parking in front of driveways is especially dangerous when near a corner as visibility is limited. • Increased safety could be attained if there was a usable sidewalk on River Avenue. • Increase visibility of crosswalk at Balboa and River signal. Drivers either don't see the light but are focusing on the light at PCH and Balboa or they don't care to stop, thus causing many "near misses". This is a high volume crosswalk and we need to do something to increase the safety of our kids. Cars running the light at this intersection cause a very dangerous situation especially during the spring and summer months as more pedestrians use this crosswalk. This could possibly be avoided if the signal is somehow tied to or in sync with the PCH signal. A letter is sent every year from LSCA to the Police Department reminding them to increase their patrol in this area. • Since Seashore Drive was re -configured into a one way street to eliminate the cruising problem, River Avenue has felt a greater impact. Traffic calming measures, such as bulbouts, should be utilized to mitigate the higher traffic volumes and speed problems. • TRAFFIC AND PARKING • Freeze Pacific Coast Highway at 6 lanes and DO NOT ALLOW any further widenings. PCH is limited to 4 lanes in other areas of the city. • Do not mitigate the deletion of the 19t` Street bridge. • Do not allow Banning Ranch to develop beyond the existing capacity of PCH unless 19`s Street bridge is built. • Revisit on site parking requirements for multi -family units and rental income units. Even in the middle of winter at midnight there is not ones. space available. This indicates that there are more needs for residential parking than can be accommodated. Our public streets should not be subsidizing the rental income for these landlords by providing parking. These rental properties should be providing more parking that is appropriate to the typical number of vehicles owned by the tenants of these properties. • We should not be allowing parking on the setback areas (areas that aren'`t driveways)... Many houses contain as many as a half dozen cars parked on concrete areas that run the distance of the lot frontage. Cars drive right up the curb or corner to obtain a parking spot. It looks like an • abandoned parking lot dump. H • • Consider buying properties within the old PE Railway right of way (between Seashore and Neptune) as they become available. City can build needed park/open space and parking areas similar to West Newport____._._._ Park. In the interim, the City is the landlord (revenue) and can control the property (building appearance and quality tenants). Could also be used to provide affordable housing in the short term WATER QUALITY AND BEAUTIFICATION • Minimize hardscape in the limited yard and setback areas to allow urban runoff to be retained on the properties. Encourage more landscaping, thus limiting the amount of garbage running into the storm drain. • Adopt water quality standards that encourages roof, deck, and patio drains to direct water to planters for reuse instead of flushing water into the street gutters. • Adopt stricter standards for trash storage in the income properties. There are so many trash cans without lids, bags of trash everywhere, decaying boxes, sofas left for months, etc. Require proper enclosures and cite violators. Many homes are continual abusers and LSCA members have often called Code Enforcement Officers to inform them of this situation. • • Consider ordinances and codes regarding building bulk limitations, second story setbacks, minimum landscape standards (in conjunction with Water Quality). • Do not allow parking in the setback areas (areas that aren't driveways). It looks like a junkyard on River Avenue with cars parked on the front yard. • Move all obstacles, such as street lights and fire hydrants, on Seashore, in coordination with the undergrounding of utilities in order to increase pedestrian use of sidewalks. This would increase safety for pedestrians and children walking to school, as well as accessibility for the handicapped and mothers with strollers. • Several other cities in southern California have been very pro-actice 'in using minimum landscape standards to reduce density, such as frontal building mass requirements, second story set backs and open space requirements. We should be investigating creative ways to encourage aesthetics and water quality, both of which can be improved by reducing density (without down zoning) and restricting parking. PARKS AND RECREATION • We are excited about the active park at CalTrans West (SB124 property) • Our real concern is the safety issue of our kids crossing PCH in order to << .us utilize this wonderful resource. Is an overhead pedestrian crossing out of the question? OTHER • Eliminate condo conversions.. It hasn't worked. We are just getting more landlords. Let the money stay in Newport by creating an environment that is friendly to homeowners and renters who live in the area. Don't let this money leave Newport in the pockets of absentee owners who do not care about, live in, or love our wonderful city. • Keep working to bring sand into West Newport to replenish the beach every five years. This will keep the beach nice and the water clean. • Pursue more parks in West Newport, even if it means buying existing developed parcels and clearing them. • Clean up the commercial district in West Newport along PCH. Pine Knot, Army/Navy, Palm Reader, are Newport Burger are all junky. Develop Specific Area plans with citizen input. NO MORE tattoo parlors in Newport Beach. • Keep development smart in West Newport (Banning Ranch, Crest). There is way t0000 much congestion, density, parking, in West Newport already. No more widening of PCH to incorporate more development in West Newport. We may support widening PCH in Mariner's mile to relieve existing congestion if it happens as part of a revitalization of the area to improve parking, public access to the bay, maybe overhead pedestrian crossings linking parking structures to a bay front walkway. This would enhance the restaurants and businesses in the area. • Buy the West Newport trailer park and make a park to view the wetlands;, We, the homeowners of Lido Sands, care about our community. There have been many positive improvements over the last few years, i.e. Noise Ordinance, rental restrictions, repaving of streets, palm trees on River, etc. We would like it to keep the momentum moving forward in the right direction. In the next couple of months, Undergrounding Utility District 69 will be scheduled for Public Hearing. We have logged many hours in our . effort to make it a reality. We believe that this also will be a catalyst towards additional improvement in West Newport — Community Pride, Safety, Aesthetics, Increase Property Values to name a few. ` , • .1 LI ** The issues listed above are not in priority order. Above issues may overlap into other categories and additional issues will be forwarded as they arise. If you have any questions, need additional information, or would like to set up a meeting with the LSCA, please give Dana Kroeger, LSCA President, a call at (949)650-3018. Thank you for your consideration and time. The LSCA Board 0 Lektorich, Debbie From: *To: To: Subject: Nancy Gardner Gardnerncy@aol.com Wednesday, March 27, 2002 1:28 PM debbiei@city.newport-beach.ca.us GPAC questions NEWPORT BEACH KEY QUESTIONS 1. How characterize NB today? Urban -suburban city Preference for future Cluster of villages 2. Vision for year 2025 The city would be essentially the same size in population. Land use would require smaller footprints on lots with more softscape. For our beaches, there would be no additional armoring and more effort would be made to reverse structures that prevent good sediment transport. Water would be clean, thanks to reduced urban runoff (education, better practices), natural filtering (bioponds), and marine life healthy because of better protection (enforced no -take zones). There would be more open space than today with pocket parks and some areas left natural. There would be a healthy mix of business, primarily white collar, and traffic would flow well (staggered work hours, better/safer bike lanes). 3. Major obstacles The idea that every piece of land must be utilized for the maximum dollar. This means that open space is always fair game for development and that bigger is always better. Another major problem is our profligate use of energy (contributing to air and water pollution) and water (urban runoff). A third is an emphasis on individual rights above community needs. 4. Vision of my neighborhood Less mansionization, fewer absentee landlords so that we are a community with common concerns. 5. Obstacles to this See 3. 6. Quality of life: a. Tranquility —the ability to sleep at night undisturbed by raucous noise from bars and restaurants. b. The ability to walk to many destinations —library, market, etc. c. Having open space for recreation —beach, hills 7. Characteristics that distinguish NB We have a unique location —a beautiful coastline (unlike Huntington Beach), plus the harbor (unlike Laguna). We have a colorful history, and there are still remnants of the beach town we once were that have not been obliterated, both people and places. What makes me want to life in NB My family lives here and in Laguna. 8. How commemorate history Develop and educational program and identify and preserve historic buildings. •9, How should city facilitate housing for those who work here? I'm not sure what this means. If it's help somebody employed in the private sector, that should be left to the market. If there's the will to help city employees so that they have a greater stake, in -lieu fees to subsidize existing apartments. If it's to help traffic, allow for integrated housing in some areas. 10. Adequate service for seniors? Additional transportation. �11. Services for youth. Youth are certainly hurt by NIMBY attitudes. We should have a skateboard park. The children's parks I have visited (Irvine Terrace, Mariner's, Bob Henry, Bayside) seem to have a good amount of usage but not to be overrun. 12. Accommodate job growth? Is this a code word for more buildings? No. 13. City better utilize harbors and beaches? The city should concentrate on protecting the harbor and beaches. Rather than worrying about new ways to exploit these resources, focus on keeping them clean, accessible, visible. There is virtually no visual protection of our beaches and harbor. For much of the area, how much you can see depends on how much you can afford, and if you can't afford ocean/harbor-front, then you don't see much. 14. Protecting coastal bluffs Identify landforms which cannot be altered, reduce building size, be extremely sensitive to heights. 15. How preserve remaining view corridors? All development should be severely limited. The last choice, "viewshed opportunities," is a joke. 16. What should city do to protect villages. Adopt design and development guidelines, adopt more Specific Plans, reduce the permitted building size. 17. What are use priorities for vacant or underdeveloped sites? From the choices I am assuming these are zoned commercial/industrial? I don't agree that Mariner's Mile is underdeveloped. It may not be correctly developed, but it doesn't need greater density. 1018. What areas suitable for additional development? None. 19. What areas should reduce zoning capacity? Most of the residential. 20. What areas need revitalization? The West Newport student ghetto, Old Newport Blvd. 21. What suitable for mixed use development: Old Newport Blvd, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Lido Marina Village. 22. Tao much of anything? We have too much of everything. 23. How protect existing residential? Limit the size of new infill and remodeled housing, require lot mergers where appropriate. 24. How facilitate more affordable housing? I've worked on affordable housing. I'd advise the city to stay out of it. The best of the choices would be mixed use development. 25. How address residential/commercial conflicts? Limit or prohibit incompatible uses in commercial districts. It is not enough to say people should know better because when establishments change hands, situations change, some times for the better, sometimes not. The Studio Caf6 was fine; Corona Cafe was a nightmare for residents; Bandera's is fine —all on the same site 26. Convert excess commercial land to residential/mixed use? Yes. 27. Restrict mans!onization? Yes! 28. Consider requiring merger of lots? �If you mean all those funny little partial lots, yes. 29. More retail development in Fashion Island? No. 30. Employment centers expanded —none. 31. More hotels? No 32. Changes to public facilities? Better maintenance, higher quality. 33. Continue to promote tourism? Yes. Daytimers, hotel visitors, business travelers. 034. Future of tidelands and public lands Every effort should be made to preserve as open space. 35. How balance need for parks with preservation of sensitive areas? Don't insist on soccer/baseball fields for every park. Not every activity has to be league -organized. Smaller parks can still be active parks where you can kick a ball around, play catch, fly a kite. 36. City be more proactive re open space? Yes. 37. Types of transportation improvements? Better/more bike lanes, support for businesses with staggered work hours and carpooling, smart signals, better signal coordination. 38. What types? See 37. 39. Congestion near airport a concern? No. 40. Should city limit development so that local street capacity can accommodate regional growth? Huh? Is the choice between clogging our streets with our own home-grown cars or Irvine's cars? 41. Should funds be used to subsidize transit to reduce beach congestion? No. 42. How protect residential neighborhoods from traffic? Traffic calming features, discourage through traffic. 43. How protect residential neighborhoods from parking impacts? Are permits successful in those neighborhoods where they're used? 04. Alternative modes of travel to encourage? The city is not pedestrian or bike friendly. Our villages would all benefit if they were more pedestrian friendly (visit Seattle example). 45. What role in airport issue? Focus on John Wayne and the ceilings. 46. Should city have a land use strategy to prevent JWA i Yes. 47. What service areas should City improve? As a whole, the various departments are responsive. 7 would be to take a more unified approach with the various icating with each other. They sometimes seem to be pullir directions. One area is trying to improve water quality whi spraying with herbicides harmful to the marine environme 0 7 • February 16, 2001 Don Glasgow Chairman Business Improvement District Chairman The shady ficus trees along the Pacific Coast Highway were removed, exposing a lot of bleak commercial buildings. I then spent the month of September bicycling through the wonderful, character -filled towns of Italy and wondered about the future of the Corona del Mar business district. I came back to find Vision 2004 for Corona del Mar and agree with all of your points, except one. ENHANCED PAVING (164 separate strips and nine intersections) (1) MAINTENANCE: Impossible! How does the City resurface between all of these features in the future? How does the City propose to repair broken enhanced paving strips? (Pacific Coast Highway gets a lot of constant traffic, not to mention 18-wheelers.) (2) , NOISE: Unacceptable! How does lumpy paving enhance outdoor dining and the use of street furniture? (For example, try having a cup of coffee on the highway, in front of Brueggers Bagels.) • (3) UNSAFE: A built-in hazard! Too lumpy and slippery (when wet) for bicycles and pedestrians. (The paving in those little Italian towns was both uncomfortable and unsafe to ride over, but there didn't seem to be many Italian lawyers ... a point not to be taken lightly around here.) (4) VISUALLY not effective! Those bright, cheery�terracotta3felt tip colors that show up in conference rooms to make a site plan more presentable and saleable has nothing to do with real life. (For dull and dirty, see 19th and Harbor in Costa Mesa. That area of enhanced paving is almost impossible to detect with the eye and also offers no lane direction, another safety concern.) All you get is an unwanted rumble. (5) COST too much! Initially an� in the future. Why would anyone entertain the thought of this step in the wrong direction? Erwin Fox 519 Carnation Corona del Mar, CA 92625 (949) 673-5775 cc: Coast Magazine • Newport Beach City Council Cal Trans _� NEWP • GENERAL PLAN UPDATE _ - VISIONING PROCESS GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVISED Meeting Schedule Monday, March 1lth Police Department - Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. 870 Santa Barbara Drive Monday, April 8th Police Department — Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, May 13th Police Department — Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, June loth Police Department — Auditorium • 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, July 8th Police Department — Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, August 26th Police Department — Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, September 9th Police Department — Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, September 23rd Police Department — Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, October 7th Police Department — Auditorium 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. November (Date TBA) 40 Rev. 4/8/02 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, April 8 Roger Alford Dorothy Beek Marian Bergeson 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 Hyans Mike Ishikawa David Janes George Jeffries Mike Johnson Heather Johnston -Reynolds Todd Knipp Philip Lugar • Catherine O'Hara ,- �1-- ,r 1 • Carl Ossipoff Larry Root John Saunders Brett Shaves Robert Shelton Ed Siebel Alan Silcock Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo L 111111.61�- 2 NAME GENERAL PLAN ADMORY COMMITTEE Monday, April 8, 2002 ADDRESS/PHONE / / 0 3 3 vcj � J--. AA )0'// E-MAIL ADDRESS GENERAL PLAN ADV%ORY COMMITTEE Monday, April 8, 2002 NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS • N EWP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, April 8, 2002 at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Dorothy Beek Carol Boice John Corrough Hoby Darling Julie Delaney Laura Dietz Florence Felton Nancy Gardner Joseph Gleason Louise Greeley Members Absent: Evelyn Hart Catherine O'Hara Ernest Hatchell John Saunders Bob Hendrickson Brett Shaves Tom Hyans Robert Shelton Mike Ishikawa Ed Siebel David Janes Alan Silcock George Jeffries Jackie Sukiasian Mike Johnson Jan Vandersloot Heather Johnston -Reynolds Don Webb Todd Knipp Jennifer Wesoloski Phillip Lugar Ron Yeo Marian Bergeson — resignation received 4/1/02 Philip Bettencourt Karlene Bradley Carl Ossipoff Larry Root Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator Members of the Public Present: Barbara Johnson I. Welcome and Introductions • Bob Shelton called the meeting to order and introduced Ernest Hatchell as the newest member of the Committee replacing a member who had resigned. Mr. Shelton also announced that Marian Bergeson resigned from the Committee due to her 1 overwhelming commitments, however she has offered to be a resource for the • Committee. Mr. Shelton asked if anyone had comments regarding the minutes. Having heard none, the minutes were approved. II. Discuss Proposed Project Schedule Changes Carolyn Verheyen reviewed the agenda. Sharon Wood discussed the three handouts provided to the members which included expansion of the Committee's meeting schedule. The extra meetings were added in response to the Committee comments regarding the importance of reviewing the technical study results which will be completed later than originally anticipated. The first piece of technical information will be the fiscal impact model, which should be ready the end of June and will be on our agenda for July. The traffic model results for existing conditions will be ready for our meeting in August. In September we'll have the traffic model results for build -out of the existing General Plan. Another handout outlined the responsibilities of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), General Plan Update Committee (GPUC), Staff & Consultants, Planning Commission and City Council along with target dates. There were no objections to the expanded schedule. Ms. Wood explained that it is • understandable if some members have conflicts with new expanded meeting schedule. Questions came up regarding the telephone survey and were discussed. Carolyn Verheyen explained that the General Plan Update Committee and a survey research firm will develop the questions for the survey. 800-1,000 people will be surveyed and will proportionally represent the Community (geography, ages, income levels, ethnicity, family size, etc.). Although the whole community will not be surveyed, a statistically valid number will be represented. The Committee also discussed the traffic survey. The traffic study will include an origin/destination analysis to determine where the traffic is coming from and where they are going. The proposal going to Council tomorrow has the 0&D study as an option and the GPUC was recommending it be included. The sample size for the study is only 100 vehicle and it was recommended that a larger number should be much larger —Ms. Wood will look into this issue. Don Webb explained that the OD survey could be accomplished in many different ways: cover all entrance/exit ways and hand out colored postcards with questions, license plate survey, pull over cars and conduct a verbal interview, follow certain vehicles, etc. Ms. Wood announced that this and future meetings will not be videotaped as previously announced. The cable companies could only provide us with a one -hour time slot which would not be sufficient for our two-hour meetings. We did run the introductions • from the March 11t' meeting to let the community know who was serving on the Committee. 2 . III. Discuss Key Questions Carolyn Verheyen started the discussion with the results of the homework assignment, (members selected 3 to 5 questions they felt were most important and should be discussed with the full Committee). 10 members selected question #34 9 selected #17 8 selected #16 7 selected #1,15 & 33 6 selected #18, 46 & 48 5 selected #37 & 51 4 selected #13, 27 & 43 Ms. Verheyen led the discussion of the top questions. The first issue that came up was that there were not any water quality questions on the list. Sharon Wood noted that this issue has been brought up in the Neighborhood Workshops as well. Instead of taking the questions in order Ms. Verheyen suggested starting with #1, #17, #34, #33, #15, #16, #48 The discussion started with question #1. How would you characterize Newport Beach's identity today? Beach town? Residential town? Tourist destination? Corporate center? Cluster of villages? Urban -suburban city? And what would your preference be for Newport Beach's future identity? Residential town? Tourist destination? Corporate center? Cluster of villages? Urban -suburban city? Many comments were made: all of the above, one answer could not do justice to the City; beach should not be considered a negative, this is why we live here and visitors come to Newport; beach town = party town in the eyes of some people; diversity; separate and unique villages; business destination; quality of life. George Jeffries moved to Newport Beach 40 years ago and told the group that the City has changed over the years. It started out as a "beach town" where Corona del Mar ended at 5t" Street and Fashion Island didn't exist. If you wanted to hear music or go to the theater you traveled to Los Angeles. The town changed when culture moved closer, when Fashion Island was developed giving residents shopping opportunities and larger office buildings were available for businesses. Mr. Jeffries feels that to say Newport Beach is a "beach town" is living in the past. Question #17. What are use priorities for vacant or underdeveloped sites such as those along Mariner's Mile or in the West Newport industrial area? Local resident serving commercial? Professional offices? Light industrial that serve as "incubators" for developing new goods and services? Commercial uses that produce City revenue? • Uses that serve both residents and visitors? Visitor accommodations? Research & development operations? 3 . Discussion started with Banning Ranch. Sharon Wood advised the Committee that currently in the General Plan, it is classed as light commercial/industrial & residential. 75 acres are in the City and the remaining area is County. A Committee member mentioned that this area is on top of the Newport -Inglewood fault line, yet seismic activity has not been addressed. Louise Greeley stated that Banning Ranch has some environmental problems that must be corrected before it is developed due to the oil well activity (capping wells). One idea for the area was to require interested developers to set aside a portion of the development as usable open space. There were no clear answers for Banning Ranch. It was suggested we get information from other communities who have been successful in purchasing open space —Sharon Wood noted that Castaways was an example of an area the City was unsuccessful in purchasing. John Corrough pointed out that half of the property in Mariner's Mile is on the water; however there are no water -related uses listed —another box should be included with this question. Mariner's Mile is split and maybe should be treated differently; a generalized plan for the area will not work. Committee members also felt parking in the area is another major issue. George Jeffries pointed out that the 1988 General Plan specified Coast Highway as three lanes in both directions to relieve some of the congestion; however, that was not done when the bridge repairs were made. Mike Ishakawa noted Newport Heights is affected by traffic overflow from the highway. Also, development in Mariner's Mile needs to consider the view corridor for Newport Heights residents —the community should be allowed to see the bay also. Laura Dietz mentioned she would like to see the industrial area next to Hoag be used to develop senior housing. Senior needs are not being met. Another Committee Member mentioned that Newport Beach is unique because we haven't segregated age groups. We don't want to create a Leisure World village. IV. Launch Vision Sub -Committee Bob Shelton announced the first sub -committee formed is the "Vision Sub -Committee". He and Phil Lugar reviewed everyone's resume and selected members covering all districts of the City. This sub -committee is tasked with reviewing and modifying the draft Vision Statement. The members of the Sub -Committee are: David Janes (Chair), Jackie Sukiasian, Roger Alford, Florence Felton, Nancy Gardner, Tom Hyans, and Phil Bettencourt. V. Next Steps Next meeting Monday, May 13tn VI. Public Comments • No public comments offered. 5i