HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2002_10_21*NEW FILE*
G PAC_2002_10_21
r7
L
NEWP(MCH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
VISIONING PROCESS
October 21, 2002
7:00-9:00 p.m.
General Plan Advisory Committee
MEETING #10
AGENDA
Police Department Auditorium
870 Santa Barbara Drive
7:00 I. Welcome and Introductions
A. Agenda Overview
B. Committee Communications
7:15 II. Approval of Minutes— October 7, 2002
7:20 III. Group Discussion on Selected Strategic Directions
• (in light of survey results)
A. Banning Ranch (Q.18)
B. Areas Suitable for Development (Q.18, 29,30)
C. Hotels (Q.31)
D. Revitalization (Q.20)
E. Larger Homes (Q.27)
8:45 IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
8:50 V. Next Steps
8:55 VI. Public Comments
@mHuft Mhuffibo 9MERK o a( waW NO ME
Oasis Senior Center
(5`h and Marguerite in Corona del Mar)
NEWP r^
• GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
VISIONING PROCESS CH
General Plan Advisory Committee
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday,
October 7, 2002, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Ernest Hatchell
John Saunders
Dorothy Beek
Bob Hendrickson
Robert Shelton
Carol Boice
Tom Hyans
Ed Siebel
Karlene Bradley
Mike Ishikawa
Alan Silcock
John Corrough
David Janes
Jackie Sukiasian
Hoby Darling
George Jeffries
Jan Vandersloot
Julie Delaney
Mike Johnson
Don Webb
Laura Dietz
Todd Knipp
Jennifer Wesoloski
Nancy Gardner
Phillip Lugar
Ron Yeo
Joseph Gleason
Catherine O'Hara
• Louise Greeley
Carl Ossipoff
Members Absent:
Phillip Bettencourt Donald Krotee
Florence Felton Larry Root
Evelyn Hart Brett Shaves
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator
Members of the Public Present:
Marice White
Dave Sutherland
Stephanie Barger
I. Welcome and Introductions
• Bob Shelton called the meeting to order and asked Carolyn Verheyen to review
the agenda. Tom Hyans asked why the Fiscal and Economic report was not on
1
1 '7
the agenda. Sharon Wood explained that staff had received a draft of the report
• and found that it was missing data and needed more work before bringing it to
the Committee.
II. Approval of Minutes —September 23, 2002
Mr. Shelton had a question regarding the statement at the bottom of page 3,
"Mr. Hyans said he reviewed the 1996 and 2000 budgets and found that the
Fire/Marine and General Services departments had charged the tidelands fund
the exact dollar amount for both budgets." Mr. Hyans clarified the statement
and the last word of the sentence was changed from "budgets" to "years." Mike
Ishikawa pointed out an error on page 5, section D, "Ms. Verheyen announced
that Carl Ossipoff was spokesperson for this group; however he was UNable to
attend this meeting." Tom Hyans also pointed out a typo on page 3, section A,
third bullet point, "mush" should be "must." Mr. Hyans commented that he did
not like the way the minutes are prepared, pointing out that paragraphs include
a lot of discussion regarding issues and then conclude with a vote. He feels this
is not appropriate for a document that will be used as an historical document.
Mr. Shelton felt that the minutes will not be used as the historical record of this
committee, what will be used is the document(s) prepared by the Committee and
• presented to the City Council for approval. Mr. Hyans disagreed and said that
when the general plan update gets to Council the minutes may be referenced,
and he could be asked why he didn't speak up earlier in the process and that is
what he is doing now. Nancy Gardner thought the minutes correctly reflected
the discussion and vote on the coastal bluffs issue. However, Mr. Hyans pointed
out the paragraph on the bike trails issue where the committee discussed
widening the boardwalk, installing restrooms and educational signage and ,then
concluded with a majority voting to support improving bike and pedestrian
facilities throughout the City. He feels the implication is that the committee
voted to approve widening the boardwalk and installation of restrooms at the
wedge. Ms. Wood disagreed with the interpretation of that section. Mr. Shelton
acknowledged Mr. Hyans' point and asked Ms. Verheyen, Ms. Wood and Debbie
to be careful when preparing the minutes not to overstate conclusions. He also
stated that anyone who finds major fault with the minutes can file a separate
statement taking issue with the interpretation in the minutes and that statement
will become part of the record as well. Jan Vandersloot pointed out under
Section C the answer from this group was "yes" to the question of Zoning
Capacity Reduction and this was not reflected in the minutes. The minutes were
approved with the corrections discussed, Tom Hyans opposed.
III. Presentation & Discussion of the Draft Housing Element
• Before starting the presentation, Joe Gleason requested that this type
information be sent farther in advance of the meeting to allow the committee
2
n�.
members to review the document prior to the meeting. Sharon Wood agreed
• and advised that this would be a review only, no action would be taken at this
meeting; however in the future we would try to give the committee more time to
review large documents. Ms. Wood advised that the housing element is the only
element of the general plan that State law has a schedule for updates, while
other elements are supposed to be kept "up to date." The housing element is
required to be updated every 5 years. There are very specific requirements in
State law and housing element guidelines from the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for this element. Once certified, the housing
element provides protection from lawsuits that may be filed against the city.
One area the Committee discussed at great length was the underdeveloped
residential sites listed in the element. The section lists Banning Ranch,
Avocado/MacArthur and Bayview Landing as potential sites for construction of
the housing units the city is required to plan for in the next 5 years. The city's
options are limited when looking at locations for new housing units. Ms. Wood
explained the great savior for affordable housing would be Banning Ranch, there
is a real tradeoff here, because that's a site that a number of people have said
they would like to see preserved as open space, but if we do that there aren't
many opportunities to provide the required affordable housing.
• IV. Group Discussions
In preparation for the Visioning Summit, Ms. Verheyen prepared a matrix of the
53 questions for the Committee with results from the website, newsletter
mailback questionnaire, Visioning Festival, Neighborhood Workshops, telephone
survey, GPAC discussions and then an Overall Finding. To test this document
Ms. Verheyen selected several questions for discussion. Carol Boice pointed out
a couple of corrections previously discussed: Question 37 should reflect District
4 was against grade separations in the city except for around the airport area
and Question 42 should include Districts 4 under Neighborhood Workshops.
Ouestion 12 - Should the city continue to accommodate job growth
when we're already job rich? Nancy Gardner felt there should be a definition
of the type of jobs we are talking about in this question; service jobs or jobs
enabling employees to afford to live in the city. Mike Johnson pointed out that
the economic study discussed employees spend money during lunch hours and
after work adding to sales tax revenues. Carol Boice wanted to consider traffic
impacts in the answer. John Corrough asked for the definition of job rich. Ms.
Wood explained it is a planning term referring to an area with more jobs than
housing units. Mr. Corrough did not agree with the wording of the question.
David Janes said we need to answer the question by asking how job growth
• would facilitate or impact our vision for the city 20-25 years in the future. Ms.
Wood told the group that the fiscal consultant will be providing additional
information regarding land uses and then the group would see the benefits of
different uses. She pointed out that regional planners like to see cities/regions in
3
balance between jobs and housing. Roger Alford brought up the benefits of
• businesses like Conexant who, if allowed to expand, would bring in high paying
engineering jobs that would be more beneficial to the city than large businesses
with lower paying positions. John Saunders pointed out that we have a yes or
no question that can't possibly be answered that way. He felt if an employer
comes in with attractive jobs, has little or no impact on traffic or other negative
impacts, the group would be in favor of them; however if an employer brings in
jobs with traffic impacts and other negative factors we would not support them.
Catherine O'Hara asked if we should recommend a ratio in terms of jobs and
housing as well as defining the types of jobs. She also had concern about
creating new jobs today, however we are looking at a 20-year plan and is
concerned about closing the doors now when the economy could change. Jan
Vandersloot wanted to specifically include the word "traffic" as one of the
negative impacts in the group's response to this question. Joe Gleason feels that
the city does not need to accommodate or promote any more job growth
considering it is already job rich. George Jefferies pointed out one of the
problems caused by "job rich" Orange County is the amount of traffic daily
caused by people coming into Orange County from areas with fewer jobs. He
also pointed out there are a great number of service workers who come to
homes weekly in this area providing pool service, gardening, etc. Hoby Darling
pointed out that the group needs to think about what will happen if large
businesses, like Conexant, leave the area because the city will not support them.
Not only are their employees affected, but jobs in the legal community, for
example, would be affected also. Laura Dietz said she could not support any
message to the business community that says we will not allow any expansion.
Ms. Wood reminded the group that these questions were intendedto be very
general at this point and the statements being discussed are not going to be the
language used in the policy in the general plan; that is the next step when all the
information from the studies is available. Ms. Verheyen called a stop to the
discussion based on the fact that committee members were not in agreement on
this issue yet. She proposed reviewing the minutes and coming up with two or
three statements for approval at the next meeting.
Question 13 — Should the City better utilize its harbors and beaches as
a visual, recreational and economic resource? If so, how? Mr. Hyans
asked for a definition of revitalize. Karlene Bradley moved to accept the
statement under the Overall Finding as the GPAC position. A majority agreed.
Question 19 — What City area(s) should reduce zoning capacity?
Karlene Bradley moved that the group accept the statement under GPAC. Jan
Vandersloot pointed out that in this process we shouldn't be analyzing each
project and suggested looking at the areas brought up in the Visioning Festival
• and website to see if reduced zoning should be considered in those areas. Ms.
Wood thought that was too much specificity for this committee at this time and
recommended a language change to the statement "the issue is very community
:fl
sensitive and each area must be reviewed." Ms. Bradley amended her motion to
• reflect that change. A majority supported this language.
Question 21 — What City area(s) are suitable for mixed -use
development projects that integrate housing in the upper floors of
commercial or office buildings? John Saunders thought this concept should
be encouraged wherever projects make sense• instead of limited to certain areas;
however felt that there might be areas near the airport that should be
considered. George Jeffries agreed and thought the airport area should be
added to the statement. John Corrough suggested listing those areas suggested
at the Visioning Festival and website responses and add that we are prepared to
look at any appropriate sites. Karlene Bradley did not want to list any sites and
wanted to use the general language "where it is appropriate." Ms. Verheyen
pointed out that the matrix listed the areas brought up by members of the public
who responded at the Visioning Festival and website. Ms. Bradley motioned to
accept language stating we are in favor of mixed -use and wish to examine the
possibilities in any appropriate sites. The majority agreed with this language,
Julie Delaney opposed.
Question 26 — Should excess and underutilized commercial lands be
converted for residential or mixed -use development? John Saunders had
• concerns with the word "converted" which suggests the city could just come in
and convert a property. Bob Hendrickson agreed and asked to have the word
changed to rezoned. Catherine O'Hara asked if this was already allowed and if it
is, why is the question necessary. Ms. Wood explained it is not just allowed; a
general plan amendment is required when a property owner requests rezoning.
Karlene Bradley motioned to approve "Excess and underutilized commercial lands
shall be considered for rezoning for residential and mixed -use developments."
The committee voted to approve this language.
Question 48 — What should be the City's funding priorities? Alan Silcock
wanted to remove the word "improve" before infrastructure maintenance in the
GPAC and Overall Finding columns. He also felt a note should be added that the
list of priorities are not in ranking order. Jan Vandersloot pointed out that the
GPAC column does not include acquisition and improvement of open space and
parks and would like it to be added. Another member asked to strike the word
"improve" before public safety. Tom Hyans asked about the statement regarding
revenue producing priorities and asked for language regarding current expenses.
John Saunders agreed and said he would support adding a separate statement
regarding current expenses. Karlene Bradley suggested "improve fiscal
responsibility." Jennifer Wesoloski pointed out that the question asked about
funding priorities and looking at accountability should be included somewhere
• else. Catherine O'Hara asked if we use the word improve does it imply it is not
good now? Ms. Verheyen asked the group for approval of adding "insure fiscal
responsibility and accountability. The committee voted 21 in favor and 5
opposed. David Janes felt the statement on this question is very convoluted, the
5
DRAFT
question asks specifically for funding priorities. Ms. Verheyen asked if this
statement should be moved to a different place on the matrix since we had
received a vote of approval. Ms. Bradley moved GPAC's response to this
question be the list under Overall Finding with a note that these priorities are not
in order of importance. Nancy Gardner thought that we were not going to list
schools in this category. Laura Dietz said she knew of a city that was using
general fund money to help support their school system. Mike Johnson said
Beverly Hills subsidizes their school district because they recognize the
importance of good schools to the residents. Bob Shelton pointed out that our
current Vision Statement references the importance of having a good school
system. .
Bike Trails — Bob Shelton felt the group was happy about the language on this
topic. No one disagreed with his assessment.
V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
Ms. Verheyen told the group that at our next meeting we should have the top
line survey results at our next meeting, we should discuss the Vision Statement
and continue with the strategic directions discussions. At the November 4�'
meeting we should have more detailed survey results and look at another version
of the Vision Statement as proposed by the Subcommittee.
VI. Next Steps
The Visioning Summit is scheduled for November 16t'. A signup sheet was sent
around the room to make sure GPAC members are at both sessions.
Next meeting October 215c
VII. Public Comments
Dave Sutherland presented an idea to the group about a trolley or light rail
system that would have parking at Banning Ranch and run down the Peninsula,
Coast Highway to Corona del Mar, and a third line up to John Wayne Airport. He
fells that this would reduce noise, pollution and traffic.
Stephanie Barger wanted to commend the committee for their efforts and
support Banning Ranch and open space.
11
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Memorandum
TO: General Plan Advisory Committee
FROM: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
DATE: October 17, 2002
SUBJECT: Meeting of October 21
Vision Statement
This item will be on your agenda for approval on November 4, in preparation for the
Visioning Summit on November 16. The Vision Statement Subcommittee will meet
between your meetings of October 21 and November 4, to make final revisions to the
statement. These revisions will reflect the results of the telephone survey and any
comments submitted by GPAC members. Please review the draft Vision Statement
(attached) before the meeting of October 21. If you see an area of the statement that
• you believe needs revision, please bring your specific suggestions, in writing, to the
meeting on October 21.
Strategic Directions Discussion
We recently received "topline" (Citywide only) results of the telephone survey, and are
updating the Emerging Strategic Directions matrix, which we will send by e-mail on
Friday. The survey and the Citywide results, both resident and business, are included in
this packet. Carolyn Verheyen and I reviewed GPAC's discussions to date and the
survey results, and found five significant areas on which there is not community
agreement. Discussion of these issues will be the major topic for your meeting on
Monday.
We will have survey results cross tabulated by geographic area, etc. for your meeting of
November 4, and Bryan Godbe will be at that meeting to review the results with you.
0
• NEWPORT BEACH VISION STATEMENT
VISION: Our desired end state. What we hope to have achieved by 2025.
Community Character
We have preserved and enhanced our character as a
beautiful, unique residential community with a diversity of
coastal and upland neighborhoods. We value our colorful
past, the high quality of life, community bonds, and the
successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses
and visitors.
Growth Strategy, Land Use and Development
We have a conservative growth strategy that balances the
needs of the various constituencies in our community and
that cherishes and nurtures our estuary, harbor, beaches,
• open spaces and natural resources. Development and
revitalization decisions are well conceived and beneficial
to both the economy and our character. There is a range
of housing opportunities that allows people to live and
work in the City.
Design principles emphasize characteristics that maintain
the community's desire for its particular neighborhood or
village. Public view areas are protected. Trees and
landscaping are enhanced and preserved.
A Healthy Natural Environment
Protection of environmental quality is a high priority. We
preserve our open space resources. We maintain access to
and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves, harbor and
estuary. The ocean, bay and estuaries are flourishing
ecosystems with high water quality standards
Draft #2
4129102
• Traffic Circulation
Traffic flows smoothly throughout the community. The
transportation and circulation system is safe and
convenient for automobiles and public transportation, and
friendly to pedestrians and bicycles. Public parking
facilities are well planned for residents and visitors.
Community Services
We provide parks, art and cultural facilities, libraries and
educational programs directly and through cooperation
among diverse entities. The City facilitates or encourages
access to high quality health care and essential social
services. Newport Beach is noted for its excellent schools
and is a premier location for first-hand educational
experiences in the natural sciences.
• Our streets are safe and clean. Public safety services are
responsive and amongst the best in the Nation.
Recreation Opportunities
Newport attracts visitors with its harbor, beaches,
restaurants and shopping. We are a residential and
recreational seaside community willing and eager to share
its natural resources with visitors without diminishing
these irreplaceable assets in order to share them.
We have outdoor recreation space for active local and
tourist populations that highlight the City's environmental
assets as well as indoor facilities for recreation and
socializing. Coastal facilities include pedestrian and
aquatic opportunities.
Draft #2
4129102
Boating and Waterways
We are recognized as a premier recreational boating
harbor. We have maintained a hospitable, navigable
pleasure boating harbor in the lower bay through careful,
low density, non -intrusive on -shore development, by
regularly dredging navigation and berthing/mooring areas,
and by providing adequate access to the water and vessel
related servicing facilities. The upper bay retains an
unencumbered shoreline and its waterways are maintained
free of sediment and debris.
Airport
We remain united in our on -going efforts to control and
contain noise, air and traffic pollution associated with
operation of the Airport. Our City government vigorously
and wisely uses the political process to control the impact
• of the Airport on our community. We have a level of
Airport operation that preserves our unique character and
land values.
Responsive Government
Elected and appointed officials are proactive in resolving
both local and regional issues. They and city staff
understand and are responsive to the concerns of residents
and the business community.
Draft #2
4129102
GODBE RESEARCH ANALYSIS- PRELIMINARY TOPLINES- Td%fl�5
Resident and Business Survey
October 2002
Q#
Topic
Resident
Business -
1
Years in City.
45% under 10
45% under 10
2
Restraints on size of new or remodeled homes.
27% not strong enough; 54% too strong or just
right.
3
View protecting regulations.
23 to 32% not strong enough; 51 to 62% too
strong or just right.
4
Coastal bluffs; protection or property rights.
56%protection; 38% property rights.
5
More effort to accomodate visitors to coast and
harbor
50/50 on restrooms, shuttle and parking; 74%
against more retail and restaurants.
51 % for more restrooms, 62% for shuttle service,
74% for more parking, but only 30% for more
retail and restaurants.
6
Level of traffic congestion.
84% very or somewhat congested; 14% not
congested.
90% very or sdomewhat congested, 9% not
congested.
7
Widen roads to reduce congestion, or leave them
as is and suffer.
30% widen; 62% leave as is.
33% widen; 59% leave as is.
8
Widen PCH at Mariners Mile
No 57%; Yes 37%
No 47%; Yes 45%
Overpass MacArthur at Jamboree
No 52%; Yes 39%
No 41 %; Yes 52%
Underpass PCH at Jamboree
No 60%; Yes 34%
No 51 %; Yes 41 %
Widen Jamboree
No 71 %; Yes 24%
No 62%; Yes 33%
Widen MacArthur
No 68%; Yes 26%
No 60%; Yes 34%
Neighborhood Speed Bumps
No 60%; Yes 37%
No 66%; Yes 29%
9
Where the hell is Banning Ranch?
Don't know 78%; know 20%
10
Now do you know?
Still don't know 30%; know 68%
11
What to do with Banning Ranch
Half residential and light industry, half open
space 44%; All open space to be paid for by tax
assessment and State matching funds 46%.
12
Where the hell is the Airport Area?
Don't know 5%; know 94%.
Don't know 10%; know 90%.
13
What to do with the Airport Area
1: 3i j%,.i j ^:.S :}.,ii"sil �r +'i1 n'I ;:: r'•"&
..� .il.. .� s 1 L 3i:1.ilit
63% support; 31% oppose.
No Change
54% support; 42% oppose.
New low-rise offices
66% support; 31 % oppose.
68% support; 32% oppose.
New high-rise offices
40% support; 58% oppose.
48% support; 51% oppose.
More retail stares
47% support; 49% oppose.
63% support; 34% oppose.
More car dealers
21 % support; 74% oppose.
18% support; 79°% oppose.
More -industrial uses -
U% support; 62% oppose.
41 % support; 57% oppose.
14
Is more Airport A. congestion OK?
Yes 64°/0, No 31 %.
Yes 68%; No 31 %.
15
Where the hell is Fashion Island?
I Don't know-3%; know 96%.
1 Don't know 8%; know 91 %.
Page 1 of 3
GODBE RESEARCH ANALYSIS- PRELIMINARY TOPLINES-
Resident and Business Survey
October 2002
16
What to do with F. I. Retails acesa
No change 70%sup support; 27% o ose.
61% support; 34% oppose.
Small increase for existing stores
67% support; 30% oppose.
66% support; 29% oppose.
Moderate incr for new stores
62% support; 37% oppose.
68% support; 29% oppose.
17
Where the hell is the NC office area?
Don't know 26%; know 72%.
71 % support; 25% oppose.
Don't know 32%; know 67%.
18
What to do with NC office area.,5....
No change
68% support; 30% oppose.
Increase for existing companies
57% support; 38% oppose.
61 % support; 36% oppose.
Increase for new companies
48% support; 48% oppose.
63% support; 36% oppose.
Incr. for res and res/comm mixed use
45% support; 51% oppose.
56% support; 42% oppose.
19
Encouraging economic development
33% favor hotels, offices and retail; 57% don't
favorthese.
45% favor hotels, offices and retail; 42% don't
favorthese.
20
Support for new hotels, per se.
27% support hotels; 52% don't. 20% have no
opinion.
41 % support hotels; 30% don't. 27% have no
opinion.
21
New hotels to support business and tourism, tax
revenue
42% now support hotels; 53% still don't. The
question did the trickl
,:,,,,• •, .
11 ij; ' r';;si+1;,i , , +, fi.; {, 1
j j, Sl„, , ;`„€p? Ai of.i4.ii;:;Y+; P i { ,I i? lir1�,% s''!ii fllir, � JJ r }}i ia{ t�i, ' d jj !
i i0�' i' r. 1,
1 ' ::� ';:'�1lii� j(;i;�Lx;�t?i; �';�li;>r;;�:�i'.,�s�i�z;
43% support; 52% don'tsupport.
58% now support hotels; 36% still don't. The
uestion did the trick!
22
What type of new hotels are appropriate
Large conference hotels
54% support; 42% don't support.
Medium size extended -stay
44% support; 50% don'tsupport.
47% support; 47% don't support.
F23
Small inns, not over three stories
( Where would new hotels be located? From the
Supporters group in Q21.)
61 % support; 34% don'tsupport.
i.l"�`i 7°'1 �15+:'l iJ�i j"ai I,! ,fl
:'+1„!., = a !• ! a
j ;..l l , ii:l
73% support; 23% oppose.
49% support; 47% don't support.
Airport Area
o/. support; 24% oppose.
Mariner's Mile
32% support; 60% oppose.
37% support; 53% oppose.
Las Arenas Park on the Peninsula
28% support; 66% oppose.
35% support; 59% oppose.
Lido Marina Village on the Peninsula
32% support; 63% oppose.
38% support; 57% oppose.
Newport Dunes
44% support; 49% oppose.
56% support; 37% oppose.
Newport Center
54% support; 38% oppose.
'• n..i.,,,� •,;-•ls, ,;rs ,",��r3 •^-
58% support; 30% oppose.
23a
Where would new hotels be located? (Adding in
the 53%non-su non -supporters group inQ21
PP 9 P •)
;;:r:, �; Zt'"."—,;r.,•;1°1...,,
(::•l,E,y;';• •.,• l,,,i,;, 1sp,,,,, f „ s li,,, -••?
l,' '.ls : ?i!M3'I=i`i+ ;I'i;3;ii31,,`'''h'11?0+'
•' ,�'n,i :;: . :; n;•"�''. , s fi fi � }�r�j;j: i` �{i, � ! ,t, ;,,p ,:,i;+�1�!'4�^ '�� 7
t-��l.i'A;;,�;;,,,'.,., I,•,r•i.�il�l� i,; ,;{�{Ir,�,,{�ii3,11',,lr , � ;�� �+��
°:'+rs,:J:-.... ,....lu.iau�.l,�•,lst:;,:l1s+�,::�;:a:.,il,,,�;a t,l..
63% support; 34% oppose.
Airport Area
Mariner's Mile
27% support; 65% oppose.
Las Arenas Park on the Peninsula
24% support; 71 % oppose.
Page 2 of 3
GODBE RESEARCH ANALYSIS- PRELIMINARY TOPLINES-
Resident and Business Survey
October 2002
Lido Marina Village on the Peninsula
28% support; 68% oppose.
Newport Dunes
38% support; 56% oppose.
Newport Center
46% support; 46% oppose.
24
City development of hotels, restaurants, inns, and
recreation on portions of Dunes and Las Arenas
Park
41% support; 54% oppose.
56% support; 41% oppose.
25
El Toro Airport
68% support; 27% oppose.
55% support; 37% oppose.
26
El Toro Airport with no overflights over any of
Newport Beach
72% support; 20% oppose.
57% support; 35% oppose.
26B
Difficulty in hiring qualified employees
51% difficult; 42% not difficult.
27B
Availability of affordable housing affects
recruiting of qualified employees
51% agree; 42% disagree. 7% haven't the
foggiest.
Page 3 of 3
Thomas E. Hyans
217 Nineteenth Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663-4507
Tel: (949) 673-0333
• Fax: (949) 673-0377
September 23, 2002
GPAC Table -discussion Notes from September 9, 2002
Question #34; What should be the future of the tidelands and other public lands? [E.g.,
the Dunes, Newport (sic) Village (s/b Lido Marina at Lido Marina Village), and Marina
Park]?
Present at the discussion table: John Corrough, Larry Root, Ron Yeo, Evelyn Hart, Don
Webb, Tom Hyans (scribe).
Reference: Tom Hyans introduced a Staff Report from the City Council meeting of
December 14, 1998, as a source of information and background. The subject report is
Agenda Item #34, "Tidelands Administration Issues", from T.Riley, et al, and is attached
hereto. The report contains source of income detail and is explicit to the dollar on
revenues totaling $6,738,191(1998), but becomes disappointingly qualitative on
expenditures after noting that the costs associated with tidelands operations exceed the
amount of revenue collected. In the minutes of the March 8, 1999 Council Study Session,
reference is made to a report of expenditures of $12,000,000. Additional detail is
provided in annual budget documents, such as the 1996 and 2000 estimates here attached.
Further: It should be noted that on January 8, 2002, the City of Newport Beach
established a Harbor Commission to serve as an advisory body representing diverse
issues relating to Newport Harbor and its waterfront, including tidelands matters.
Discussion among those present:
■ Tidelands should be developed to the extent possible to provide public facilities while
preserving the maximum of natural assets and environmentally unique features.
■ There should be a more effective management of tidelands areas by the city so that
utilization of those resources is balanced by user -supplied revenue and results in a
self-sufficient, self -preserving resource.
■ There are special tidelands areas which must be preserved as open space, the upper
bay (estuary), for example, or preserved as navigable waters (the lower bay), among
others.
■ The rationale for increased revenues from tidelands or other public lands should
include that revenues derived therefrom must first be returned to the specific tidelands
resource with excess accruing to the General Fun an to the state tidelands agency,
as appropriate.
• Respectfully submitted,/
a
J
I(� (� TIDE & SUBMERGED LAND FUND
Estimated Funds Available
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance
Estimated Revenue for 2000-2001- All Sources
Total Funds Available
Estimated Chargeable Expenditures
Fire & Marine
General Services
Police
Public Works
Administrative Services
Capital Projects
Debt Services Expenditures
Total of All Proposed Expenditures
Estimated Ending Fund Balance
$0
$6,000,532
$6,024,623
1,351,363
3,798,893
375,994
46,114
1,077,000
236,372
$6,000,532
$12,910,359
($6,909,827)
•
82
TIDE & SUBMERGED LAND FUND
Estimated Funds Available
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance $57,451
Estimated Revenue for 1996-97 - All Sources $5,717,349
Total Funds Available $5,774,800
Estimated Chargeable Expenditures
Fire & Marine
$6,024,623
General Services
1,351,363
Police
3,798,893
Public Works
375,994
Administrative Services
46,114
Capital Projects
541,400
Debt Services Expenditures
236,380
Total of All Proposed Expenditures $12,374,767
Estimated Ending Fund Balance ($6,599,967)
•
66
3
•
Newport- Beach City Council
AGENDA ITEM 33'
December 14, 1998 Council Meeting
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TIM RILEY, FIRE AND MARINE CHIEF I [
TONY MELUM, DEPUTY FIRE AND MARINE CHIEF/
DAME KIFF, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER k4
SUBJECT: TIDELANDS ADMINISTRATION ISSUES
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
(1) Receive and file this report; and
(2) Set January 25,1999 as the date for a City Council Study Session on this matter.
(3) Offer additional direction to staff as to information to be provided for the City
Council prior to the February study session.
SUMMARY:
The State of California became the owner of tidelands on admission to the union in
is
1850. Tidelands are those lands that were or are below the line of mean high tide and
they are subject to a public trust for navigation, commerce and fishing. Beginning in
1919, the State granted certain tidelands to the City (tideland grants). The tideland
grants covered only tidelands within our corporate limits so City tidelands are, with few
exceptions, limited to Lower Newport Bay. The tideland boundaries in Lower Newport
Bay were, for the most part, established by judgments issued in a number of Superior
Court lawsuits filed in the late 1920's and early 1930's. Tidelands may be used for any
purposes consistent with the trust and, in cases such as Beacon Bay and the Balboa
Bay Club property, may be used for residential purposes subject to certain conditions
including a requirement that revenue be used for tideland purposes.
The City has administered the tidelands through ordinances, leases and permits,
including:
• Tidelands Leases
• Commercial Harbor Permits
• Residential Pier Permits
• Onshore/Offshore Mooring Permits
Tidelands administration has been a priority of the City Council for many years. The
City has, in response to increasing demands and pressures on the Upper Bay and Lower
Bay, adopted ordinances and policies regulating charter boats, liveaboards, and marine
sanitation.
While this regulatory system has proven successful, the City is facing new
is environmental and regulatory challenges. In fact, several pending or proposed projects
Newport Beach City Council
Agenda Item 33
Page 2
—from maintenance dredging to new regulations on pathogens in the Bay — may cause
significant additional expense for the City. One issue to be resolved is the extent to •
which tidelands properties should fund costs incurred by the City in,complying with -new
rules or implementing new programs. These and other questions caused the City
Council to set a tidelands administration review as one of its goals for calendar year
1997.
The City is not the only agency facing these questions. Several other jurisdictions in
California also hold tidelands trust properties (like Long Beach and the County of
Orange) -and also face the challenge of deciding how to administer and fund new
environmental programs.
To assist the City Council with some of the issues facing the City's tidelands trust, this
Agenda Item examines the manner in which the City and other agencies administer
tidelands properties. It provides background on tidelands, filled tidelands, and adjacent
properties along with summaries of several of the current leases and permit systems
operated by the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
A —Tidelands Primer
B — Pending Environmental Projects
C — Issues for Council Consideration
D — Summary of Existing Tidelands Leases
•
IT
Agenda Item 33
Page 3
• Attachment A
Tidelands Primer
The City administers tidelands pursuant to grants from the State. Tidelands are
subject to a "public trust" and must be used for trust purposes unless there is legislation
removing or modifying the limitations. The City has the power to regulate the use of
tidelands through leases, permits, policies and ordinances that are consistent with the
trust and/or relevant legislation. This "primer" on tidelands and related properties helps
explain how the City and other entities manage the tidelands properties.
The primer is presented in the following five sections:
I — Trust Definitions
11 —Acceptable Uses of Trust Properties
//I — City Administration of Trust Properties
IV— Tidelands Revenues and Expenses
V — How Other Agencies Administer Tidelands and Marinas
I — Trust Definitions
TIDELANDS within the City of Newport Beach are the tide and submerged lands
owned by the State of California and subject to a public trust. The tidelands consist
• primarily of the land bayward of the bulkhead and portions of bay beaches in the Lower
Bay (coastward of the Upper Bay Bridge). Newport Beach tidelands also include large
portions of our ocean beaches and land covered by the Pacific Ocean from the shoreline
three miles out to sea.
Some areas of tidelands have been filled in development. These FILLED
TIDELANDS are also subject to the public trust and include the Balboa Bay Club parcel
and Beacon Bay. In addition, land purchased with tidelands revenue becomes "trust
property" as was the case with the "Westbay Park Site". Finally, the City is required to
add some upland property to the tidelands trust to satisfy our obligations pursuant to SB
573.
Another category of property associated with the water is known as UPLANDS.
Uplands are city -owned parcels of land that abut tidelands or filed tidelands. Land
designated as uplands includes a portion of Beacon Bay, the s�reet ends on Lido Isle
and other parcels.
To some extent, City staff relies on a document known as the "Patterson Map," in
deciding whether certain property is uplands or tidelands. R.L. Patterson, a former City
Engineer, prepared the Patterson Map. The Patterson Map depicts tideland boundaries
adjudicated by the Courts as well as the line of mean high tide as reflected in old surveys
conducted prior to incorporation. The tidelands boundary has been established
throughout most, but not all, of Newport Harbor.
40
Agenda Item 33
Page 4
117 Acceptable Uses of Trust Properties
As noted above, the City administers tidelands on behalf of the State of California. The
State agency that administers tidelands is called the State Lands Commission. After
January 4,1999, the three -member Commission will consist of:
--- Membership of the State Lands Commission --
• Lt. Governor Cruz M. Bustamante (D)
• State Controller Kathleen Connell (D)
• Governor Gray Davis' Director of Finance
Pursuant to legislation known as the "Beacon Bay Bill", which was adopted in 1978, the
Commission requires the City use granted tide and submerged lands for the following
purposes:
• Public Harbor— the City may establish, improve, and operate a.public harbor on the tide
and submerged lands;
• Docks, Wharves, and More — the City may construct, maintain, and operate wharves,
docks, piers, slips, quays, ways, and streets or other utilities necessary to promote
commerce, fishing or navigation over the tide and submerged lands;
• Beaches and Marinas — the City may establish, improve, and operate bathing beaches,
public marinas, public aquatic playgrounds, and similar recreational facilities open to the
public on the tidelands; and
• Reserves and Open Space = the City may preserve, maintain, and enhance tidelands in
their natural slate and to re-establish the natural state of developed tidelands so that they •
may be used for scientific study, open space, and wildlife habitat.
The Beacon Bay Bill also required the City to set up "separate tidelands trust fund or
funds" and mandated that the City deposit all moneys received from the tidelands into
the funds. The Commission oversees the City's administration, of tidelands trust
properties and the expenditure of the tidelands revenue.
Ill— City Administration of Tidelands Properties
The State Legislature has adopted many statutes that relate to our administration of
tidelands and, in some respects, the City is required to treats tidelands (and related
revenue) differently than it treats other City Income property. The City uses a system of
leases and permits to manage tidelands and trust properties.
The Commission is required to approve the form and content of all tideland leases.
Recently, the Commission approved the new Balboa Bay Club lease and, before that,
the residential leases for Beacon Bay parcels. The Commission generally requires the
Trustee to negotiate leases on the basis of the current market value of the parcel. Failure
of a trustee to receive consideration approximating the fair market value of leased
tidelands could, under certain circumstances, be considered a violation of Section 6 of
Article XVI of the, State Constitution (the prohibition of gifts of public funds to private
entities).
•
0
Agenda item 33
Page 5
. The following is a summary of some of the State laws that may be applicable to our
-administration of tidelands and related provisions of the City Charter, Municipal
Code, and Council Policies that govern the City's management of tidelands:
State and City Regulations Regarding Tidelands Operations
Chapter 74,
City may lease tidelands for up to 50 years.
Statutes of 1978
"...the city or its successors may grant franchises ... for a period not exceeding 50 years for
wharves and other public uses and purposes and may lease the lands, or any part thereof, for
berms not exceeding 50 years for purposes consistent with the trust..."
City Charter §1402
City cannot sell waterfront property except to State or County.
"The City Council shall not sell or convey any waterfront or beach property, excepting to
the State or County for use as a public beach or park.... the City shall have the authority to
lease City -owned property, including tide and submerged lands so long as the lease is
limited to the term permitted by state law."
NBMC §17.22.020
Moorings require permits.
"No person shall place, erect, construct, or maintain moorings or buoys in the waters of
Newport harbor over City -owned or controlled tidelands without first having obtained a
permit therefor from the City Manager upon written application signed by the registered
owner of the vessel to be moored, or by an agent so authorized in writing."
NBMC §17.24.010
Any construction or maintenance of a structure in the Bay requires a Harbor Permit
and
and the payment of a fee to maintain the permit.
Council Policy H-1
"No person or agency shall build, maintain, extend or make structural alterations on any
(Section 3A)
building, pier, piling, bulkhead, sea wall, reef, breakwater, or other structure in, upon or
over the waters of Newport Harbor or the Pacific Ocean or any other water where the tide
ebbs and flows within the City, or do any filling, excavating or dredging in said waters or
'Harbor
•
ocean, without first obtaining a written Permit'to do so from the City.
NBMC §17.33.030
All pier owners must pay an annual fee.
"Every owner of permit holder who maintains a pier, any part of which extends into the
waters of Newport Harbor, including any pierlocated on private property, on a dedicated
channel, or County tide and submerged lands, shall pay to the City an annual pier
registration fee based upon a schedule established by resolution of the City Council."
Council Policy
The City must maximize the income potential of all City -held property.
F-7
'in managing its property, the City will continually evaluate the potential of all City owned
property to produce revenue. This may include leasing unused land, renting vacant
space, establishing concessions in recreation areas or other similar techniques."
Council Policy H-1
The City cannot extend pier use fee to residential properties unless directed to do
(Section 4J)
so by the State.
The imposing or tidelands rental, of use, fees shall not be extended to include private
residential pier and slips, constructed and used solely by the abutting uplands owner for
recreational purposes, unless otherwise directed by State mandate.
0
(t
Agenda ltem 33
Page 6
In accordance with the above regulations, here is a summary of the City's lease,
permit, and fee system: •
City's Methods of Administering Tidelands
Tidelands The City currently leases tidelands and other properties to business entities
Leases and individuals on a case -by -case basis. Generally, the City will not enter
into a tidelands lease with anyone but the upland property owner (see a
summary of these leases in Attachment D). The leases have varied terms
and rental payment requirements. The Fire and Marine Department (10
(eases) and the City Manager's ofce (11 leases) co -administer tidelands
leases.
Commercial In 1979, the City began to issue permits to commercial entities that use
Harbor Permits tidelands. The permit fee, renewed, annually,. Is applied to any tidelands
bayward of commercial properly that is not covered by a lease. The permit
fee (established by appraisal in 1979 and 1989) is based upon the square
footage of•tidelands available to the upland owner times a cost per square
foot per year (currently'$.28 per square foot per year). There are 661harbor
permits with the commercial designation. The Fire and Marine Department
administers all commercial harbor permits.
Residential The City requires bayfroht residential dock owners to pay a non-commercial
Pier Fees pier fee annually on March 1. While Council Policy H-1 (Section 4J)
precludes the City from charging tidelands rental or use fees, NBMC
§17.33.030 allows the City to charge an,annual registration fee (currently -
$75 per year) for these permits. There are 1200 residential harbor permits.
The Fire and.Marine Department administers all residential harbor permits.
Onshore/Offshore Prior.to 1975, the City used mooring permits to cover the annual
Mooring Permits administrative cost associated with monitoring the 1200 or so moorings In
Harbor waterways. The mooring fee at that time was $1.20 per lineal foot
per year. In 1975, a State Lands Commission audit determined that the
City's-rate was artificially low — as a result, the -rate now $2011f per year
(offshore moorings) and $10/If per year (onshore moorings). Both the
Orange County Harbor Patrol and the NB Fire and Marine Department
Administer mooring permits. There are 714 offshore mooring,permits and
484 onshore mooring permits.
iV— Tidelands Revenues and Expenses
The Beacon Bay Bill requires the City to "establish a separate tidelands trust.fund or
funds in such a manner as may be approved by the State Lands Commission, and the
city shall deposit in the fund or funds all money received directly from ... the granted
tidelands in the city." According to the Bill, the City "may use revenues accruing from.or
out of the use of the granted tidelands ... for any or all of the purposes set forth in this act
on public trust lands within the City of Newport Beach."
The City has historically considered income from the following properties to be
tidelands revenue:
rp
Agenda Item 33
Page 7
A. Tidelands Revenues
• SOURCE OF INCOME
TIDELANDS LEASES
• Bait Barge (Grayshocks')
• Balboa Bay Club
• Balboa Island Ferry (JA. Beek)
• Balboa Yacht Basin
Apartments (3)
Garages (34)
Marina Slip Rental
Limited Term Reatat of Slips
Restaurant (Galley Cafe)
Shipyard/Repair Facilities (Basin Marine Shipyard)(
Yacht Sales (Heritage)
• Beacon Bay Residential Leases (CITY)
• City/County Dock (at Arches)
• Coin Telescopes (W.J. Carden)
• Pier Concession — Balboa (Ruby's)
• Pier Concession — Newport (Newport Seafood)
d Subtotal (Leases)
PERMITS AND USE FEES:
• Annual Permits for Live-Aboards
• Annual Fees for Piers, Marinas
• Annual Fees for Moorings
• One -Time Pier/Harbor?ermits
• Fees for Parking at Balboa Pier Lot
Subtotal (Permits/Use Fees)
OTHER REVENUE
• Payment from Orange County for Lifeguard Services
• Charges for Services
• Electricity
• Revenue Not Otherwise Classified
• Petroleum Sales
• Natural Gas Sales
• Interest Income
Subtotal (Other)
Total Tidelands Revenues
tE
$ 2,700
1,380,000
• 55,000
63,322
40,800
1,095,000
10,000
28,000
75,250
16,200
525,000
50,000
2,000
70,000
$ 55,000
QM $ 3,468,272
$ 3,
700,,000120
/
0000
40,000
$ 1,225,000
$ 2,414,865
$ 21,554
25,000
7,000
1,500
675,000_
70,000
$ 55,000
$ 855,054
S 6.738.191
B. Tidelands Expenditures
The City budgets its Tidelands expenses by considering the costs of various City
operations that relate to tidelands. Typically, the costs associated with tidelands
operations exceed the amount of revenue collected from tidelands. The costs include:
• Fire and Marine. The Marine Division of the Fire and Marine Department is funded with
tidelands revenues and general fund revenues. The Marine Division's operations include
ocean and beach safety (lifeguards), harbor permit and tidelands administration, beach
parking, and other regulation of marine uses.
• General Services. The General Services Department cleans and maintains the beaches
and beach restrooms and collects refuse from tidelands -related concessions.
• • Police. The Police Department estimates that 15% of its calls and enforcement activities
are related to tide and submerged lands. .
Agenda item 33
Page 8
• Public Works. The Public Works Department's engineering and transportation services
division designs and manages the construction of improvements on tide and submerged
lands. •
• Other City operations. A portion of the City's capital improvement, administrative
services, city management, liability insurance and other functions also involve activities
relating -to tidelands administration.
Quantifying appropriate tideland expenses is challenging and there is statute or court
case that provides guidance. The Commission staff regularly reviews the City's tideland
expenditures. During a recent local ieview of expenses, City staff identified more than
$12 million in expenditures that could be considered appropriate tidelands expenses.
V — Now Other Agencies Administer Tidelands and Marinas
The best resource for determining how Newport Beach's leasing and permitting
operations compare with other agencies is.a 1997 study of rates and,practices at 120
commercial marina conducted by the Stale Lands Commission as directed by Senate Bill
326 (Leslie, 1996). This Commercial Marina Report, still in draft form, shows that the
majority of agencies have their commercial marinas under lease (with Newport Beach
being the only exception known,at this time).
Here are some other information items from the Report and other studies' cited in the
Report:
• Average occupancy in a marina facility is 63%
*Average revenue per slip is $3,124 (1996)
• 35% of all marinas have waiting lists
• Average number of parties on waiting list = 79
• Average slip turnover rate is 4 years
• Public marinas consistently" had the lowest average dock rates for all boat lengths, but
also had the least amount of total amenities.
• Average monthly dock rate, per lineal foot for the Pacific Region was $6.59/If in 1996.
The Report notes that the value of most leases is set by appraisal and that terms vary
from 20 to 66 years. Rent is typically set at from 20 to 32 percent of gross receipts.
However, these rental rates are generally for tidelands that abut upland property owned
by the public entity. For example, the Balboa Bay Club lease requires thirty-one percent
(31 %) of gross income from marina operations to be paid to the City. The following are
examples of key provisions of other public entity tidelands leases:
Leasing
Rent
Lease
Improvement
Agency
Calculation
Term
OwneratEnd
City of Alameda
Flat Rent
26years
Lessor
Port of Los Angeles
25% of Gross'Receipts
20 years
Lessor
Monterey County
to 7% of Gross Receipts
20 years
Lessee
City of Oceanside
30% of Gross Receipts
25-30 years
Lessor
City of San Diego
20-25% of Gross Receipts
25.31 years
Lessor
San Francisco CRA
56/6 of Gross Receipts
66 years
Lessor
' Most information from lho Inlomationai Marina Inclitulo (IMI)1006 Financial Oporations Benchmark Study. •
Z
Agenda Item 33
Page 9
Attachment B
Pending Environmental Projects
In the coming months and years, a number of significant Bay -related activities will
impact the City and its residents. These include:
---- Bay Environmental Projects ----
Eelgrass Restoration Eelgrass (zostera marina) is a kelp -like plant that grows in salt water at depths
Plan of between —1' and —8' below sea level. When it exists in a waterway,
biologists believe that it both indicates a healthy ecosystem and contributes to
the diverse biology. For example, the small foraging fish that live in the
eelgrass serve as a food source for the California Least Tern and the
California Brown Pelican. The US Army Corps of Engineers has prepared an
Eelgrass Restoration Plan for the Bay. The Plan (now in draft form) proposes
to transplant "bundles" of eelgrass from existing sites to about 5 to 15 acres in
the Harbor. USACE expects implementation of the Plan by June of 2000.
Estimated one-time cost will be $902,000 if 15 acres are restored. Based on
current cost sharing allocations for USACE projects (65% Federal - 35%
Local), the City (and possibly the County) will be obligated to fund 35% of this
project.
One Time Costs = $315,000 test)
Ongoing Costs = $20,000 test)
Maintenance Dredging The current $7.2 million dredging project (the "Unit III Project") is a once -in -a -
decade attempt to remove about 1 million cubic yards of sediment from the
Upper Bay. The focus of the Unit III project is on the sediment built up near
where Jamboree Road crosses the San Diego Creek and the tip of Upper Bay
(the "Unit III Basin"). Earlier in the project, the dredging crew removed
sediment from the channel leading up to the Basin. City, County and State
officials agree that all entities involved in the Upper Newport Bay need to
develop a more comprehensive and ongoing approach to what they call
maintenance dredging of the Bay. Maintenance dredging would occur every
year or every other year and help avoid the need for a multi -million dollar 10-
year dredging effort. Costs are uncertain pending the recommendations of the
USACE studies.
One Time Costs = to be determined
Ongoing Costs = to be determined
Army Corps Studies In the past, local, Slate, and Federal officials have argued for a comprehensive
plan that would provide a blueprint for the long-term restoration and
preservation of the Bay. Two studies (both coordinated by the US Army Corps
of Engineers) are underway today that would contribute to that blueprint. The
Upper Newport Bay Feasibility Study (now in _ phase) and the San Diego
Creek Watershed Study (this Study's "Project Study Plan" is now under review
by the Corps) will both require significant City contributions of both staff time
and resources.
One Time Costs = to be determined
Ongoing Costs = to be determined
TMDLs The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Board") is in
the process of adopting a series of measurements called Total Maximum
Daily Loads or "TMDLs" that would set limits on the amounts of nutrients (like
nitrogen and phosphates), sediment, and pathogens (like fecal coliform
bacteria and other toxic materials) that can enter the Bay. The Regional Board
has already set TMDLs for nutrients and sediment— it expects to set TMDLs
for pathogens by late spring 1999. The pathogen TMDLs may dramatically
change the way the City operates its storm drain system and other operations.
Costs are uncertain pending finalization of TMDLs.
One Time Costs = to be determined
Ongoing Costs = to be determined
6
Agenda Item 33
Toxic Hot Spots Established in 1989, the State's Bay Protection and Toxic Clean-up Program
("BPTCP") directs regional water quality conlrol'boards to.develop "Regional -
Hot Spot Toxic Clean -Up Plans." The Program defines toxic hot spots as areas
where the sediment and/or the marine life contain high contamination of toxic
substances like mercury, arsenic, copper, lead, zinc, PCPs, and'other
chemicals. In the Santa Ana Regional Board's draft Plan, the Board identified
at least two areas of Lower Newport Bay — the Rhine Channel.and a location
near Channel'Place Park near Newport Island — as "logic hot spots." The Plan,
as yet in draft form, suggests extensive (and expensive) remediation to the
Rhine Channel given the Board's Identification of the Rhine as the Board's
"high" priority for repair. The Board estimates cleanup for the Rhine —where
contractors dredge about 23,000 cubic yards of sediment and dispose of it
"upland"— to be $10.5 million. The Boardestimates that additional "site
characterization" of the Rhine and producing the expected environmental
documentation to complete the removal wiil.cost $900,000 and $500,000
respectively, with only 1-16%" of the cost recoverable from potential
dischargers.
Ono Time Cost = up to $10.5 million
Replenishment Sand replenishment remains a costly activity for both the City and its residents.
of Sand The City spends approximately $35,000/year for beach replenishment on bay
beaches and street ends. This goes to replace lost sand on beaches —
particularly on Balboa Island — that typically see natural removal of sand. The
City's source of renewable sand is limited, so It replenishes areas with existing
material found bayward of the public beaches. City staff believes that the City
could more appropriately meet replenishment needs two to three times that
current allocation.
Ongoing Costs = $35,0004140,000
E
r�
U
tj
Agenda Item 33
Paqe 11
is
0
Attachment C
Issues for Council Consideration
Goals of this Review * What does the Council want to achieve with its review of the City's Tidelands
Administration?
✓ More control over tidelands activities?
✓Equity between various uses— like moorings and residential piers?
✓ Recovery of additional tidelands costs?
✓More streamlined management of tidelands?
Leases vs. Permits
• Should the Cityjoin other cities and counties across the state in moving
towards a system that emphasizes leases over permits? If so, at what date
should this be accomplished?
• Should there be a boilerplate"lease that the City follows for each leased
property, or should each be developed on a case -by -case basis?
• Should the City's informal policy of not leasing tidelands to persons other than
the uplands property owner be adopted formally as a Council policy?
Monitoring and
. What type of review should the City conduct to assure lease or permit
inspections
compliance — an annual inspection? A semi-annual inspection?
• Is the City properly organized to monitor its tidelands properties?
Administrative and
.In an attempt to complete the Patterson Map, should the City hire an expert in
Legal Issues
surveying (such as "Boundaries Unfrnited' to research and opine on the
boundaries of the City's tidelands and uplands properties?
Budget issues
• Now should the City determine what a tidelands -related expense might be?
Should the City adopt a uniform policy describing the characteristics of such
expenses?
• Whether or not the City moves towards more leases, should the City begin
recouping more of the environmental projects' costs from leases orpermits?
✓If so, how should the City recoup one-time versus ongoing
maintenance expenses?
✓ If not, what sources of revenues should the City use to pay for the
environmental projects?
91
Ai-% 1GFwA-avx%- J)
TidelandscRelate-d-Leases;�- ",• =
:iP • .f Newport Bea'oti •• * _ � c•r• • : �+`<
..eo..neri+iwe' .
NamaWUam Ustta Pmm'aei -lx+d Wrn TIdiA'Ha Audi Usss End
ERaUAn E,mLaa Trm I ReMCablroa I A* RB I rCrai4a UNie iliv b"ecCo't MaWenancn I Mpn%nrnl
wra? R ? o R.*.? OKnga SYaR
r,r 'lTn13nMwmi+tvw:Y. n" Ii a' .J Eq'. igpktlrr r=f,Pl; i'I' k .lr qr ., .. .111;6111
i ir,�, Cepai Ma,iiu l' AL` 24'f abr q 'I �11r 1 S,1 a 'o!a+,10 SIa3 LJ, Wali,.;d '11„„ � FtrTfwL',',
epwn Pp°t ,ntlw!M,'M17tN1, rcu ,W,,r$10Ui rlly�S�SYDD ` y'111125yM�Inti,;,iluJtvsf n ^T"nS't %1 krt.
'Iry fl•r, rind In ndir f IU a,i I; in ;Irr^M"RlaiglQ„Iq,ia „y 'A 'If al il4r fl li�Ja,•�,W (wrya4fJf' ,i t1;f�y1;,vM 11'fr [i�f,t IIrI i�Iph''rr �aL'I nay,SWulO taPa iylr l''I r'I'e 111ffu Ii
� i r
"..1iry;'1n,1:4e4ir1liii!lILN,.Infi'6r21flf,l lJi:'ILr,ir4 i. 'ill IJ;:LLt ir'V'll;ll'l1l lnv ...,.:.u.ivi'1i'J,I,Iif.i iilii''nl iU4 il:ilo^I!Ilip}'l�!y Wli)411'J
M1SIe;f,rllllOjgyp{iIP/VPfJi'i:'11:'. PIII i�,Qti,:i ilY'i ILIL .n�.i.,�ll.l, rii:u� �.�' i1''4:'i i'i 9i!' �114111i'vl vi•IV'1 f, i' lJalall JJi";'r:l Ili�i:Ivl„ �!VJ'I
.
2 BaNa CoMWanYaW BaNa CaNNtlIYaMpup aa.anwrflmwlra.oA. Yl191 SRl33 SS 3'3
513.SST Sia]%aYtla..,uins%An.r•m o•tl SAa111YA W.W T
O'Jf
S3aK L.— CRY
OSA
tlrp,M,llaar Rrsbu eelama3ry
tH.ilEOiP 3t1115 'Invw- wM ...
3�' Iygr�fiMrGGA r
•3�• raA• '11: _f l'WA�, f tpfµ 74i�iid�u. '2'
1„
Itssi, "I.IaMs
_r,,�1
-..a... ...IL. ...4-. •.♦ ... :..r. .. :. a. W.A Jr. .....m........ ..0..1. . ....nr• . r... .a...
.a:..a ..a.1... v.......1.r..:.v....ww'.r JUM1 SIU.„FP�r.r.w.,f� .,vl Iv. ,
.'••••I
....v.. ,.✓.......,.. .. JII I�`Iv..... .: i. a. a..,.... .
a B S.YQp"ME stx:pmPadY•bG 11°y . �� dLK3 N21A1 SYa
S1.a22.323 3M2" iii,i
WA SI B W" T
WA WA m
O OPT UJ
a.
h' 1'il)'hi r' 1�'hM'il: li rllti l)Iy11(I+li)Il......ir'ri,l"Iiili'y llln "IiY `^Ir,T `L+'�,hj VQ ry it 111Jri ••Trl *i)tulnr ,'p••;
,,I ;i4l ,dlv vlr 'uI; 1l lJlrlf ;l,l I,IIr ILv,I ;'L'1 r 111 ,11 it l„ I,,I
v I, 11 r il, il' I d;ll 1 1 v , ,fir r.1: 11, r'I, In I rl 1',
EWb111 :f `i,rl
f
l'llli ytil'tr'ri1rA ",I'll IT ivpOri to mp rn+hYrrY ny .�„1 'Ir'1'r ll'I Ii Y`rl'
1'; ,ili IB.I, I'II,,I rvl1 1+1
1, n „ 61 r1 r!NOa$,1aa•Y.bWI 11 1
•',,. rsl,ilSWlldiH�mlaz';i.3,+n rlll,l!rir lludtwelffeei::�;Me
I )' . .
Ivf' 'li 'I:Ividr rq;Yv +If;e
J;
Pn(I; �r1„1V; rl Alt
F �r r9a46a;B1p 1 C II dfinaSdbv!e�bmaf,
LEASE li�1;I , i1',III1 �KitCaK v11MCM4y1 3?�,a,,;, 'EQ,' I
l i 1'li ;"r,ili
(Pf+q�sIIIf 1, i?:=1 "tl"••x ',
i ,
dYiQYH6Yvn.',614/aresrNr
Ar„1 ;u Tu',In,
r A«ae.,Wl.irtbUt•t
r: Pr r. II
Hlylyoglt
r11 R,a'Ja1tl0 Ki1f':IPI
i 1Ms,
aAWuon'i�l'
r; r FOroy rv1..14.rnp'l.:J:.!..... ' '!.'�'A
...'..a....r.J ••u•
rroie+r}Z++WI'I:W1.W,r.
1'...r:.l. 1 :al' ..... ........ n... r. 'a:Wi.tLL�1
I., .... ••
1?Wde!'r'
.....v.d:. ,.wJl �.w. ..q ,.. ... ,..r...,
Ptl.W1abMMq�aap
•
a Ealhalalnld Fary BWOK1atKtl Ferry.Ne I~6ab taMN7 ApgAw 1t11A3 W3N13 taryil
W.702 MtlG,wf PaeW Mor Snm SOp{P�D WaW T
�. WA Lniw be3an
.�..rr...✓.r-,.r..,. ,
10a4`o4Pu11nAat3'tl�'r-,....r .., .,...� .. ......... i
7•' I�abaa Pan4yga3!d'wiFf 'r r - 21aif23rfNyd (ltkr `Sr12Ei,ir/A! 'AkrMtaibgnl
,Ir r r
Td "r v- WA r µt'y iIM u.
Jr,'C, .. .. .
WA.. ddy.�d>n, fa
ff.M.
r�l,
,u✓nn.,IvLa 1 J,L'Aa?�L�!yl 1 i IV` ...'rJur,
rr✓•=112
<Ga
�3yppt����k
., ,..d rw'I.L� '.''L.i ! ...
_ _ _
r_.- .. n
3 PWCar4niDn RWJa RasblKrll3 Erwtnr YSNT M blbbl
SIg137 SIYAa.n.ss%gCmr SaM S VIVIIC)- rr'MPiq T
SaaM Uba%—'pz3 lemviada ISff
RriMl Mbvaw
•
cplNSpn•
';Y^' 16I IIgSh f'+"I;rti'r ern lttq�y,r yP l; nn,,; ..,r ,r.., ...r�7 t...;.. n1 t s..,....
;�1, li (111 1 ,II 1 y'rir'"'lil'�,1; rr ,�.-,.Y „1jN'i,,..'
^a,leorYaexOasa[6!N!I{"„'3i#;?hPfe�dneRr ISO, 'V9 '
........ ...... ..,.
,.1','�,'rlflreaaPsagaapr '1(I:'i;'Ari p'nip i.r;,yr;�rr y.hr.,r•Iii;PrP/,,P•+.,iv...._..r.
,, tpu. ••rr';�t; :IltB,i';`r t.r r.. r.....�1
I.n. 9w1o7� ;xlaoo' r syn
r Yc, , r 4,+eaevK+^^ai%<' wF , i Ist3xuw0 Warr r'
'WA )xssen S+eGen:-
�
.. v ...... a. .,.'r.....r. ........ L...t...
w... n,..l ��IT,
'.Yn..n ' .r...,.:.
.. ... .J. .. ... .... ....... .1. .
6wM
�HKtlF1i,u
13 BaEnaYaW Bastn (CatdJ EMrd H. Ga3ey abgaa'otl Mlla'lahMa 14rd6 tYJf% 10
SMK
3a312 SIp1.rrNPa+al.Aq b>SP=b 1=itmD IaM U
CRY= 'arlbmP%1+3 �mrcvabn Akhm
p%ibla S1 ..4iih.
tflw�rnraa
yw.nYan.n
,e%
tax
mmKncertlnC
T i•IIi'IT- iillr"I'1 'I1I11i 1.;. .. .. �•r• M h'rl.. .,........t LIT •'Yrhr hr tPju O3Tpol "r
•1�7icic3r
Odlit3,HHMeRm'S,tbx 2nawY BalpYpk{ r'1
idrtceJ'II 'Ptl31,,
r ; t,, .•• ,,,..
rt IIrI1.,. ..I rrlhl ty
Jx �'e,.Nian
.., .,.. r .,
Till iP• v L..r
;l 11r�'It
'rJit,un.... 1 r
itas+m ��IbI
i` ;RatiboYarT,16atN nJNA3.1
(r i ' FliAlal2n'Y1U{�YPLa6 ' 'v, M146nHarlNrlt rh "11 Itldq
`na..
1 FHrNN♦`a4N
r iW4i
r 314K ol?a';111W;V
r;sWent;r :; C�v1; ,-eb4�..
I
•..•. .. L. ..tl0.1'l .I'a✓If
d.. .... ... ..
...L .L'. .i.v. r....v .....TT
..........
•..UYrib3b
. la ,. ...
•.• - - - '
aR2llµvalMgbr•rW
12 Babu YrdlC10 6altfn YrHOUC,bc tabvtlpbtlip13a,a1M SRp33 ytN99 11. )tan
b1a90.M i1D]KPo.SI
2,aft SSSLW.valM lnhryer.� LaM U
Lesua=plod
C
biRq ordea, ovrd3wr. ity S411an
Of.a
wo
�
prrsas aMntvY
10 •
•
t
• -,
[liodelands=Related Leases .(.dont. d)::, : -
f Newport Beach ._ - y • '
• .
•Lease
I X
I Name plLaaze
Levee
I
Premises
EnxWe
e``_e
I
I Term
599].90
I
I
I
LaM,Wakr
TiaNanas
AUL4
Fid
pp •.•
err _.
Reef
RenI CalNaem
AfNWn 1 IRIneQiNunancel
maize,
Upazdzwl
Inspetbn,
MaNt
Irty •oue 1
r
13
B B Y
731n tl
pu1S"aa Hetvbbq
i
I
I
O'a^
s( n
,
%qew SYtf Pncv CPI WA
LaM
BON
WA
WA
IGH
154.i�u, ElB FmoNBea h'r 'KBMt EnkN`Szas T;I"b°ts.nKe ressASCern
L"0^'f!3}bh
r
r I d 'r �' ' "35ro'lWDNr�
r''
G1Ylci...
teeefe'a,.v'ns
r I ,S'ale8oal
11!]'JI9t f213fA6
AbeN laAlprlll
SPI.123
raSXHfw'ufPweWs ,I `r 'r'Nol< r,t1FW f14550N
}and
ImmSlaWy
CVyW11
klerprTn gepO
A^'Wa^J(Cs.
Pfl,
GT/Wm5
nOSi'MEtMJk1
MfaIf.GN
'
r n
4lMrla6d
maintllns'BztNiw
1, Mee
••
`. „ i p;l,r
reeWl h4ulpmem
Lesseewas County Cpunly
•'
•'ir.. g
"
_•
15 GN/Coenruyl f WIIC T °'bM%eaP MYY°'E`a^9e•
°SIwN
_
•'
GHPe subleases bM
1iP"On
]/t/56 FAW10
BB yU
36>,SB9
buyoNNlaply Maw
Np1°
Waleran3
GHP tan
_ _
- HaAarManna LLG
Manes Beeeafeton.
Lend
T
Wp yHee
Silent
M.W.
rnrnlboba>s.
Manna's bwlc3
e
i'! r,� Ir I,'� r Ir Iri6r i^In ��'�r�ln„ ""d rrr nn r ',vaiN°uroxsstlNbr�aNe-'
tb,r,
r r r r
n
i el del}Y, inro�l „�I I�„ Rdelsro•R+7'r;
r
r
,
r,
CpATot6fCQA,4'q rir'n„ Glre4edJxA
Oi 'n y1, CbMen 'z9 Baewtser, aw pFaota4
nit6rel }UA
Year laYear
.....16„
Ir,111, ''rrCmtl
rr
4B#sea muss
r
Fn,
rr ri 'mAmn BMe.
rr.... a
"1]
SSr 494rr
rSbxaG`a'sAnepis r '11NanaF�� nnee a
rr
4an07
4.t'
AleYne
'scnbe3'ytorlL',
S'IenF
Jt yr
;$nl
MCIJ(!1'y
hr'•ad
'r1 Yn 1 rLaseNGFT'
'"'
„ 'm
Scout Hut GldScoul CounelelOC' 1taP°^yara BuiW'yat n_wea
•'•'
,
' Bu .n; �I 'r nr h ' K
n
Mullet2hl
I'I,�rririrl'I nIf, yPnpi r„ 'r••n'rlihn r•ri B?b°e
1 i rNi t,.
II 'U i
52RI8] W15W
12a yn
31
WASIMMERr
WA
!uM
U
WA
aeeea?erlaase]
r:,r
' GN
rr rn
"pry ,
rr , r III II r "r r' r r
tam'h1 IWMM?`ur�nk',rl'1'raNtlM9Al1°6FRR'ir �BIDP.,IeiGafa or,
i
r
WA IAA
r • u
bmsaa
'r
'N6koe
r i �n., r rn.� i ..
err Txneek1. i'� nr•' ^I„
kebneaM;
.. r••.
...
r
..........
rr..r... t: n r
...r .•
�
ri✓WIFae°rpr „ WA i„ 5 Nvr!
SziH
lF't r
iaA-
ej.,,enernMin'
pemWAaeenznJ4Vr
AIW,In
.. -
19 thrb°rBq Ea'% TmyCrry9KKA CIunMFntrarca
n ri.rr, rr
- ' ..
L19] WA
••
Yearbl<u
SiieO
:' .:'. ' pr
Fatmv4awWe 6afMtn r '
'
•• r
••
?°a'4Ymna.M
...
... r
.. ..
, nr _
irir ';'l
�
sWttseaM WA WWI 1^dcn
N'atp
T
WA
WA
WA
LIHm
ri iyyr ry,r ,r n✓
r rri rii r 'r, r rrr
,
r
r
'," 'lirni ,r' CAriwM95• 'r
r
r
'
r
Ud01aV54eet.EM3, i'No/51BCBMmV^1N r klaWra4eNen0p3rya,'pncntj
1' r'Maf100
dlIwv
Pnyafarorryi
r'r u+ttki0 'r
RCIk}eamm, 'S2mKO6
r
Le]SOO gfal`IUir4S
gpw+d3xa'f
r
rr JUsehe6NF MwstlmF9t
LIUBB
zIl.
yqo! •
FapaladeVautbasedw
a si r N'aperanroeN SYaBbia`f
lyaw' 1r
'
u, T,
Snenl
mdb1 aS91195
'KBSrr
ri r I npr
r
3Y.6CBhs
^^" n' anessetl r sw", n
Lana
stlrldimv
$Athl
r
rT+'tyea`fra„,y
-
evefni in
,
hwnatee MOWaFiwml'r
..
..
.'
:" :' •' P, •••
r
21 SS lmfiriduailessoes NSryual fpa°efmapgyan
PaA
3RR3 3'15B0
26 yrsrr
3526,]1]
•.
GNIn1%NBa1lneweyeaz cm
..
r ..r
Gtt
r
Levene.
.rr rrn, r
v Iee° N°x
Lana
T.0
WA
geends
coneffees
m
Keunfe.
'22'rrNhpwtPlelC•rosrru-ssgB �SuWeS3eaisGbe75,aoPaM1, 6wx.`yeMaNe.Pvttw
BURY i�a.G2
^Syw51nN35
stim,:,
Ss;oaimn-CPtbasemp: CP1WfarAR SSedK&
KxuyrusiizU&ISM
nuuntauiee
ely
ptyMnsnpn.
yearop3a]3.
SNUy,`°a.6aef oreryla&y<x Sa56KFB
'=00.'i'
i` -
Les
-a:NidYnS
r3lMfdae
IGR
V°I`RIIdryACWnCMlttaf ]Iq.YNeA4Waea1V[aM
23 VdunkryAUalCMItt
••
-••
..
rr :, 'r r, rnrr
leveeMx MrsNsb •. 'O'
- �. ..r
r
YUMlbentc5
-'iaT=Sfen[
M1?'Sea
rBltmVlRaell
r
:.'
SwNparge GKmly ° i5 �geEIIN
225R5 WA
YeazbYeaz
31
pe°maNaesbeN µA SMKBL=K
WN'
fcF.ueeNp Nrasa•. Po
Len'!
tl
WA
sev
all,
Mnt
•
ReN Wmi eSCs exerzse al Lease Opym
plus BN pMpmanCB Issues W¢nbfiea N Bre Option
VISIONING SUMMIT
Saturday, November 16, 2002
OASIS Senior Center - 5th Marguerite, Corona del Mar
General Plan Advisory Committee -- Please sign up for one or both sessions
• •• . ..
3.
'
5.
< /
•
•
•
•
+/
o
12.
./
13.
i
14.
•
--
,►• _.
17.
18.
19.
•
21.
22.
24.
25.
1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
i
y
<
15.
16.
17.
U.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
• GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, October 21, 2002
•
Roger Alford
Dorothy Beek
Phillij
Carol
Karlei
Johns
Seth I
Julie I
Laura
Florer
Nana
Josep
Louisi
Evelyi
Ernie
Bob H
Tom i
Mike I
David
Georg
Mike.
,Todd
Donal
Philip
Cathe
Carl C
bbe.A'
• Larry Root
John Saunders
Brett Shaves
Robert Shelton
Ed Siebel
Alan Silcock
Jackie Sukiasian
Jan Vandersloot
Don Webb
Jennifer Wesoloski
Ron Yeo
2
GENERAL PLAN ADAORY COMMITTEE
Monday, October 21, 2002
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
uu
0� 5
of
GENERAL PLAN ADAORY COMMITTEE
Monday, October 21, 2002
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
i GENERAL PLAN ADVPORY COMMITTEE
Monday, October 21, 2002
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
i
E-MAIL ADDRESS
•
NEWP
ti GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
VISIONING PROCESS
General Plan Advisory Committee
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday,
October 21, 2002, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Dorothy Beek
Ernest Hatchell
Carl Ossipoff
Carol Boice
Bob Hendrickson
Larry Root
Karlene Bradley
Tom Hyans
John Saunders
John Corrough
Mike Ishikawa
Brett Shaves
Hoby Darling
David Janes
Ed Siebel
Julie Delaney
George Jeffries
Alan Silcock
Laura Dietz
Mike Johnson
Jackie Sukiasian
Florence Felton
Todd Knipp
Don Webb
Nancy Gardner
Donald Krotee
Jennifer Wesoloski
Joseph Gleason
Phillip Lugar
Ron Yeo
Evelyn Hart
Catherine O'Hara
Members Absent:
Roger Alford Robert Shelton
Phillip Bettencourt Jan Vandersloot
Louise Greeley
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patty Temple, Planning Director
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator
Members of the Public Present:
Robin Frank
Carol Hoffman
Dolores Offing
Bernie Svalstad
1
I. Welcome and Introductions
• Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. David Janes announced the Vision
Subcommittee would be meeting on Monday, October 28th at 5:30 at City Hall.
All written comments should be submitted to Mr. Janes by 4:00 that day. Joe
Gleason provided copies of his comments regarding the draft vision statement
and made them available to all GPAC members.
Sharon Wood reviewed the survey information included in the agenda packet. It
is what is called "top line" results for both the residential and business surveys.
This preliminary information does not include any data regarding voter vs. non-
voters, geographic areas, age, etc., those breakdowns will be presented at the
November 4th meeting by Bryan Godbe.
II. Approval of Minutes —October 7,. 2002
The minutes of the October 7th meeting were approved as submitted.
III. Group Discussion on Selected Strategic Directions
• Carolyn Verheyen informed the committee that we will no longer vote on issues,
instead we will discuss the topic and frame the issues that may need further
discussions at the Visioning Summit.
A. Banning Ranch
Banning Ranch was addressed in Questions 9 to 11 in the Resident Survey.
Nancy Gardner pointed out that although she does not want the property
developed, she found it odd that the question only gave the options of
developing half or none of the property and not full development. Carl Ossipoff
asked about the $250 per parcel amount. Sharon Wood said she arrived at the
amount assuming half of the purchase price could be covered by grants and the
City would finance the matching half through a bond. She used an appraisal on
the Caltrans West parcel, information provided by the County and figured a 15-
year bond at 4% interest on the 217 developable acres to come up with the
estimate. Karlene Bradley thought presentations indicated that the entire
purchase might be covered by grant funding. Ms. Wood stated the point of the
question was to see if open space was important enough for the citizens that
they would be willing to pay extra for it. John Corrough remarked that 78%
didn't know what Banning Ranch was when first asked, after the location was
described 68% knew where it was and of that number, 46% were willing to pay
for preserving open space. However, Don Webb pointed out that still isn't the
• 2/3 needed to pass a bond issue. Bob Hendrickson felt that people need to be
aware of the cost to buy land like Banning Ranch, it could be around $200
2
million. Alan Silcock thought we should mention affordable housing as an
• alternative use for the land on the matrix under GPAC since it had been
discussed. Ron Yeo felt that this open space is regional and we could partner
with others and not have all the cost burden on Newport Beach. Catherine
O'Hara asked if the respondents had been made aware of our need for
affordable housing and that this is one of the few places suitable for this
housing. Laura Dietz asked if there were any figures available with respect to
the environmental clean up that would be needed. Don Krotee asked about
current entitlement for the area. Ms. Temple said the current General Plan has a
variety of land uses including approximately 2,650 dwelling units, 450,000
square feet of industrial and office development, 50,000 square feet or 5 acres of
neighborhood commercial, park land in addition to other open spaces including a
12 to 15 acre community park of similar nature to Bonita Creek Park, fire station
and other community facilities. Ms. Bradley pointed out that in the Recreation
and Open Space Element of the General Plan it refers to preserving sensitive
areas and geological hazard areas, and it has been brought up that Banning
Ranch is a geological hazard area. George Jeffries asked about the densities
under the current entitlements as well as traffic impacts caused by development
and how it may affect emergency vehicles. Ms. Wood pointed out that when the
traffic and fiscal models are completed, scenarios could be tested to get answers
to these questions. Tom Hyans asked if the traffic study would include the igth
Street bridge. Mr. Webb pointed out that the City's Circulation Element includes
• un-built roads planned to serve the area which would help divert traffic off Coast
Highway. Carol Boice asked how affordable housing costs are controlled and
maintained. Phil Lugar asked if the contamination issue at Banning Ranch had
been investigated. Nancy Gardner asked if there were different cleanup
requirements for park land as opposed to housing. Mike Johnson stated he
thought he heard that Taylor Woodrow backed out due to the extreme cost
involved in developing the area.
B. Areas Suitable for Development
Areas Suitable for Development was addressed in the resident survey Questions
12 though 18, and in the business survey Questions 11 through 17. Evelyn Hart
thought the results were typical for this City with most people not wanting
change, however she felt that if a good project was presented there could be
support for it. Nancy Garnder asked if now that we have the Crystal Cove
Promenade whether answers would change a year from now. Mr. Hyans pointed
out that now there remains 200,000 square feet of entitlement for retail space in
Fashion Island. He also stated that the property owners do not want additional
retail space. Mr. Jeffries asked what happens to the existing entitlements in our
General Plan Update. Ms. Wood said that the entitlements could remain the
same, be taken away or increased. Mr. Hyans wanted to leave them as is. Ms.
Verheyen stated that is what most resident and business respondents said. Ms.
• Wood added that she thought that the respondents meant they wanted no
change to what is currently on the ground and were not aware of what is
3
currently in the General Plan. Mr. Silcock recommended no change in the
• existing General Plan to allow the property owners to keep their entitlements.
Julie Delaney agreed and would support more retail space. David Janes agreed
with Ms. Delaney.
Newport Center was addressed in Questions 17 and 18. Carol Boice asked what
the status was on the entitlements for Newport Center. Ms. Temple said that
permits were just issued or about to be issued for the last office space and the
only other significant project not yet built is a 100-room expansion to the Four
Seasons Hotel, Joe Gleason thought this was enough and was against anything
that would put one more employee in Newport Center. George Jeffries asked if
there were plans to add more high -density apartments in Newport Center like
the Colony. Ms. Boice said she thought the office buildings were the traffic
generators and according to survey results, people do not want to expand
MacArthur or Jamboree so adding more buildings would increase congestion in
the area. John Saunders doesn't think that mixed use is suitable for Newport
Center.
The airport office area is addressed in the resident survey Questions 12 to 14
and the business survey in Questions 11 to 13. Nancy Gardner thought more
attention should be given to the ratio between the building and the property
rather than just the height of the building. John Saunders stated that, especially
• in the airport area, regional development is an important consideration because
a development that may be in a neighboring city still impacts us with traffic.
George Jeffries feels that traffic congestion needs to be defined when addressing
this issue, do people want to sit through 2, 3 cycles at major intersections or not.
He also pointed out that in Irvine, developers go to their neighbors about
transferring development rights instead of going for General Plan Amendments;
this is something we should look at. He also suggested that revitalization is
needed in the Campus -Birch area.
C. Hotels
Hotels and tourism were addressed by the resident survey Questions 20 to 23
and in the business survey Questions 19 to 23. Evelyn Hart asked for a
summary of the hotels proposed in the City now. Ms. Wood said we don't have a
formal application from the Sutherland Talla project which includes about 140
rooms at Marina Park. Ms. Temple added that a business hotel was approved
seven years ago on the former Fletcher Jones site, but we have information that
the project will not move forward. Ms. Wood added the Dunes. Ms. Hart and
Mr. Hyans asked about Newport Coast hotels. Ms. Wood said they were time-
shares. Ms. Temple added that the one in Sand Canyon doesn't look like it will
go forward. Nancy Gardner asked if hotels were lucrative because additional
traffic would be caused by the number of employees hotels require. Bob
• Hendrickson said he had seen studies on traffic impacts and they are much less
than residential impacts. Laura Dietz said the real question is "do we need"
ld
more hotels. Alan Silcock thought Questions 20 & 21 were skewed because the
type of hotel was not included and feels more weight should be given to
•
Question 22 where more information was provided. George Jeffries feels
Question 21 only pointed out the positive aspects and did not get into any
negatives about hotels, such as added traffic through JWA. He thinks the
answers would have been different had these facts been shared. Jackie
Sukiasian thought the best hotel would be small scale for weekend families
vacationing at the beach, these people would not be using the airport. Carl
Ossipoff thought the Ritz is more what people expect in Newport Beach, he also
added that the money is in conventions and we are missing out on that business.
Ms. Dietz suggested using the top floors of office buildings as hotel' space. She
also felt small "boutique" hotels would be something that might work here. Julie
Delaney agreed with Mr. Ossipoff's comments, she added that she lives under
the flight path of JWA but would not mind adding more flights to JWA because it
would be easier traveling instead of having to travel to LAX. Regarding
accommodating tourism, Nancy Gardner pointed out that we have no choice but
to accommodate tourists, because we have public beaches. Mr. Ossipoff said we
should take advantage of that fact, every year tourists come to Newport Beach
and we should try to get as much money from them as possible, otherwise they
will go to neighboring cities to spend their money. Mike Johnson said that
because of property values, fewer rentals and more permanent residents are in
the area. The people who used to rent the houses don't want big hotels, they
want something small and close to the beach. Ed Siebel asked if there were any
•
figures regarding the trend on rentals.
D. Revitalization
Revitalization was not addressed directly in the survey. Ms. Verheyen pointed
the group to Question 20 in the matrix for reference and added that the group
should try to define "revitalization" before getting to far into the discussion. Joe
Gleason suggested it means making something nicer without making it bigger.
Carl Ossipoff agreed, and pointed to Mariner's Mile as an area needing
revitalization. Mr. Gleason added making it nicer while still respecting historic
places and the historic ambiance of the City. Dorothy Beek feels the Bay Club
apartments are unattractive and would not want that to happen in other areas.
Todd Knipp suggested we are still not getting any new and fresh ideas through
this process and more time needs to be dedicated to brainstorming specific areas
like Mariner's Mile in order to come up with these ideas. However, Mr. Gleason
wanted to know if it was appropriate for GPAC to come up with the ideas or if
private enterprise should and the City just approves or disapproves. Ms. Wood
said it was a matter of philosophy and how we approach land use planning, do
we wait for a developer to make a proposal or do we set some goals and give
clues to private enterprise about what is acceptable to the City. Ron Yeo agreed
and pointed out one of the problems now is there is no vision, Mariner's Mile
• could develop a master plan with a vision of what we would like to see along the
waterfront. John Corrough added that this has been done successfully in other
5
communities, creating a public/private partnership along the water's edge and
• working with developers to get the result we want on the waterfront. John
Saunders wanted the airport area in the overall findings column under areas
needing revitalization. Jennifer Wesoloski pointed out that in our visioning we
haven't defined who we are planning for, are they our children, grandchildren,
and what will their needs be. Defining this could be helpful during this process.
Jackie Sukiasian pointed out that it is difficult to find restaurants and
entertainment for people her age, it seems like businesses are not allowed to
cater to the young people. Ms. Wood explained that in many cases commercial
backs up against residential and that doesn't always work based on the
complaints received.
E. Larger Homes
Larger homes were addressed in the resident survey by Question 2 and Question
27 in the matrix. George Jeffries pointed out that the problem with this question
is it did not talk about specific areas. Ron Yeo agreed and stated that the bulk of
the City is fine, it is the coastal areas that have problems and maybe the LCP will
help. Ms. Wood suggested everyone refer to questions 3 and 4 from the
residential survey because they get a little more specific regarding views and
coastal bluffs. Mike Ishikawa feels the rules are adequate and suggested it is not
the size of the buildings that people object to, it is how the building looks and if
• it fits each village. Don Webb agreed that the problem is character, if a "box"
was built next door you would not like it, but if the same square footage was
built more attractive it would be accepted. Ed Siebel stated that this may have
been an unintended consequence of R 11/2 zoning; it has forced architects on
Balboa Island to use outdoor space more creatively. He also added in the older
areas of the City, such as Corona del Mar and Balboa Island, height is also an
issue. Julie Delaney suggested higher roof standards be allowed for buildings
back from the coast to allow for ocean views. Jennifer Wesoloski pointed out
that under current rules, in order to add on one room to her 1,000 square foot
house, she would be required to tear down practically 1/2 of the historic home,
she is not willing to do that but many people are. Mike Johnson said in West
Newport that is not a bad thing, new construction is adding to the atmosphere,
in many cases duplexes are being torn down and replaced with a single family
homes. Don Krotee also stated that when the small group met to discuss this
topic they felt this needed to be looked at neighborhood by neighborhood.
David Janes added that our Vision Statement says we are going to encourage
design principles and emphasize the characteristics that maintain the
community's desire fore particular neighborhood or village.
IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
• Nancy Gardner said that we get a lot out of small groups, and suggested the
topics of Mariner's Mile, Lido Village, and the Airport Area for our next meeting.
a
Ms. Verheyen said we will be discussing the Vision Statement, a presentation by
• the telephone survey consultant and if there was time we would break into small
groups. Ron Yeo asked if the small groups could have plans of the area to do
sketch overlays. John Saunders asked if we could have further discussions about
entertainment for young people as Ms. Sukiasian brought up earlier. Karlene
Bradley asked that a summary of what the survey consultant was going to cover
be provided in advance and then the committee could bring up questions which
would shorten the time needed at the next meeting and allow for small
discussion groups. Jennifer Wesoloski wanted to add culture to the discussion
topics. David Janes suggested additional subcommittees may be helpful because
it is difficult to get into topics in the short time allowed at our meetings. George
Jeffries asked for a list of entitlements for the areas that will be discussed.
V. Next Steps
Ms. Wood told the group that the studies on traffic and fiscal & economics would
not be available before the Visioning Summit and passed out a new schedule for
completion of the surveys. The visioning process will end as scheduled and the
survey information will be used in the next phase of the update process.
Next meeting November 4t'
0 VI. Public Comments
No public comments offered.
7